Updated: Netanyahu Wants To Retain Israel’s National Character

America, IMMIGRATION, Israel, Judaism & Jews, Nationhood

Benjamin Netanayu doesn’t suffer any blind spots when it comes to the very real potential of Third-World refugees flooding Israel and transforming his country for the worse, for ever (Via VDARE.COM):

“Infiltrators cause cultural, social and economic damage, and pull us towards the Third World,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at a Manufacturers Association assembly, reports Tani Goldstein of YNet News:

“We suffer from a problem that actually stems from Israel’s economic success,” he said, explaining the problems that arise from the breached border with Egypt.

“We have become almost the only First World country that can be reached by foot from the Third World. We are flooded with surge of refugees who threaten to wash away our achievements and damage our existence as a Jewish democratic state.”

He went on to say, “Anyone walking around Arad, Eilat, or even south Tel Aviv today, can see this wave, and the change it is creating, with their own eyes. They are causing socio-economic and cultural damage and threaten to take us back down to the level of the Third World. They take the jobs of the weakest Israelis.”

Netanyahu noted that the government plans to work to construct a physical barrier between Israel and Egypt to prevent this “flood” of migrants.

Addressing the members of the Manufacturers Association, he said, “You will not like this, but we plan to legislate strict laws and enforce them with a firm hand against the illegal employment of infiltrators and foreign workers.”

The Hotline for Migrant Workers was enraged by the prime minister’s remarks, and issued a response saying: “The danger to the Jewish state is not the refugees, but the many Jews in key positions who have forgotten that their parents were refugees, and who besmirch the persecuted in order to whitewash their submission to the manpower corporations.”

As first reported on Ynet, the prime minister made similar statements in the session in which it was decided to build a stronger barrier at the Egypt border.

“This is a strategic decision, that will ensure the Jewish and democratic character of the State of Israel,” he said at the time, while promising that, “Israel will remain open to war refugees, but will not allow its borders to be used to flood it will illegal foreign workers.”

The prime minister has been extensively addressing the problem of the breached border in recent weeks. A number of plans to properly close the border to infiltrators have been raised in the past, but have not been executed, mainly due to budgetary reasons.

Besides the construction of the fence, the defense minister was tasked with pushing a bill calling for harsher penalties for Israelis who transport and accommodate illegal immigrants.

This bill, which calls for aggravating the sentence of offenders from two years to a minimum of three years imprisonment and heavy fines, is already in legislation phases.

[SNIP]

If only Bibi’s spectacularly stupid American Jewish supporters had his smarts (and marbles). I spoke about this contingent’s characteristics in “Beck, Wilders, and His Boosters’ Blind Spot.” They never shut up about the horrors of the practice of honor killings and genital infibulation among the American Muslim immigrant population, but are mum about the perils to American society of the thing that brought such deviance to our shores: mass, third-world immigration.

Update (March 31): ISRAELI VS. JEW. Why would rational beings conflate the Jewish-American with the Israeli, unless he was in the habit of reading too many of the revolting Jewish-American columnists/bloggers advocates for Israel, whom Israelis themselves would find as alien as creatures from Deep Space. Never the twain shall meet. I’ll dilate on why this is so at another time.

For now, take it from me: Israelis have little in common with their diaspora American Jews. But on the face of it, why would Bibi, an Israeli PM, have the views of Jews in America? Has not this mistake of collapsing distinctions between Jew and Israel arisen because somehow you don’t think of Israel as a sovereign country like any other?

From the article excerpted, you can glean that Israel even has its open-border organizers who deploy the same emotional, factoids that our “nation-of-immigrants” sophists wield. These people rail against the common-sense pronouncements of the patriot Bibi. Israel, of course, was founded, swamp up, by Ashkenazi Jews (read white), who died in droves at the hands of Arab nomadic marauders and the inhabitants of the abutting Arab states.

Yes, Israel was a desert. Young people, idealists, settled it. They were educated, but abandoned all for the ideal of farming the land of their ancestors. They used to patrol their newly built villages and orchards, but these were raided often nightly by nomad who slit throats and slaughtering women and children.

The pioneering people wanted to become strong and proud. Many lived with mothers or fathers who awoke screaming at night from the memories of the camps, but they wanted to focus on LIFE. They wanted to build, not whine; they resolved to fight back, and they concentrated on actions, not words. (There is a word in Hebrew, “Dugri,” it means direct. You speak bluntly and directly.) This is in stark contrast to the way the American Jew carries on.

Above all, in contrast to the American Jew—the columnists, commentators, bloggers and vulgar vloggers—the sabra (Israeli born) did not wish to indulge in the Holocaustism that you hear non-stop from the American Jewish cohort.

Updated: Dispelling Media Myths About Militias

Conspiracy, Government, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Liberty, Media, Propaganda, Republicans, Rights

If Amy Cooter wishes to follow a real hate group, she should embed with the Southern Poverty Law Center. Cooter spent protracted time with a cross-section of the country’s maligned militias, for a PhD. in sociology, I presume. As hard as the Egg Head from CNN tried to extract from her the line the Southern Poverty Law Center peddles about many patriotic Americans, he came away empty handed (and headed).

Although talker Monica Crowley has blamed Obama for the Missouri State police report entitled “The Modern Militia Movement,” and dated February 20, 2009 (it warned about subversives like … me), I believe it was initiated in the Bush era. Once again, here too, there is no difference between the Republicans, when in power, and the Dems in their statist collaboration to defame the best of America.

Update (March 31): Peter Brimelow:

And the “Hutaree militia”? I’m now old and scarred enough to say openly what as an MSM editor I would merely have cunningly proposed as an interesting hypothesis to some energetic young reporter: I don’t believe it. I don’t believe that any group of white blue collar workers would naturally want to attack the local police, another blue collar group.

I think, as Richard Hoste has argued, that it’s far more likely to turn out to be a case of entrapment by some ambitious prosecutor trying to please his/her political masters.

Grounds For A Constitutional Challenge Of H.R.4872

Constitution, Fascism, Federalism, Healthcare, Law, Regulation, States' Rights

In an interview with NewsMax.com, Judge Andrew Napolitano outlined the grounds upon which the Supreme Court of the United States ought to repeal major portions of Obama’s overweening health care legislation:

“The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments,” Napolitano says. “Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done. …

That’s called commandeering the legislature,” he says. “That’s the Congress taking away the discretion of the legislature with respect to regulation, and spending taxpayer dollars. That’s prohibited in a couple of Supreme Court cases. So on that argument, the attorneys general have a pretty strong case and I think they will prevail.” …

The Supreme Court has ruled that in areas of human behavior that are not delegated to the Congress in the Constitution, and that have been traditionally regulated by the states, the Congress can’t simply move in there,” Napolitano says. “And the states for 230 years have had near exclusive regulation over the delivery of healthcare. The states license hospitals. The states license medications. The states license healthcare providers whether they’re doctors, nurses, or pharmacists. The feds have had nothing to do with it.

“The Congress can’t simply wake up one day and decide that it wants to regulate this. I predict that the Supreme Court will invalidate major portions of what the president just signed into law.”…

Napolitano believes the federal government lacks the legal authority to order citizens to purchase healthcare insurance. The Congress [is] ordering human beings to purchase something that they might not want, might not need, might not be able to afford, and might not want — that’s never happened in our history before,” Napolitano says. “My gut tells me that too is unconstitutional, because the Congress doesn’t have that kind of power under the Constitution.”

The sweetheart deals in the healthcare reform bill used that persuaded Democrats to vote for it – the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, Gatorade Exception and others – create “a very unique and tricky constitutional problem” for Democrats, because they treat citizens differently based on which state they live in, running afoul of the Constitution’s equal protection clause according to Napolitano. “So these bennies or bribes, whatever you want, or horse trading as it used to be called, clearly violate equal protection by forcing people in the other states to pay the bills of the states that don’t have to pay what the rest of us do,” Napolitano says.

Exempting union members from the so-called “Cadillac tax” on expensive health insurance policies, while imposing that tax on other citizens, is outright discrimination according to Napolitano. “The government cannot draw a bright line, with fidelity to the Constitution and the law, on the one side of which everybody pays, and the other side of which some people pay. It can’t say, ‘Here’s a tax, but we’re only going to apply it to nonunion people. Here’s a tax, and we’re only going to apply it to graduates of Ivy League institutions.’ The Constitution does not permit that type of discrimination.” …

[SNIP]

In this televised interview, the Judge laid out more clearly the test for a constitutional challenge, namely that one is harmed by the legislation.

Note the comment on the impossibility of reading and making sense of H.R.4872 Reconciliation Act of 2010 (my experience) each section of which amends and alludes to other laws in the US Code, which in itself is large enough to fill a house with paper stacked to the ceilings.

Update II: Fascism Rising (Henry ‘Nostrilitus’ Waxman)

Bush, Business, Democrats, Economy, Fascism, Government, Republicans

A couple of day ago a number of major companies came out with the preliminary assessment of the costs to each of the “Manna From Mount Olympus” bill, namely Obama’s healthscare legislation. The fascist state that America has become responds sternly to economic forecasts that go against the government’s grain. You may be called on to justify yourself if your assessment of your books diverges from the government’s.

“Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has summoned some of the nation’s top executives to Capitol Hill to defend their assessment,” reports the Washington Examiner.

Waxman wants “the executives to explain themselves at an April 21 hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee’s investigative subcommittee.”

As Byron York points out, “Waxman’s demands for documents are far-reaching. ‘To assist the Committee with its preparation for the hearing,’ he wrote to Stephenson, ‘we request that you provide the following documents from January 1, 2009, through the present:

“(1) any analyses related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T; and (2) any documents, including e-mail messages, sent to or prepared or reviewed by senior company officials related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T. We also request an explanation of the accounting methods used by AT&T since 2003 to estimate the financial impact on your company of the 28 percent subsidy for retiree drug coverage and its deductibility or nondeductibility, including the accounting methods used in preparing the cost impact statement released by AT&T this week.”

“Waxman’s request could prove particularly troubling for the companies. The executives will undoubtedly view such documents as confidential, but if they fail to give Waxman everything he wants, they run the risk of subpoenas and threats from the chairman.”

AN enterprise’s freedom of speech, right to privacy, prerogative to disseminate information about its finances and accounting—this government is asserting ITS right to infringe all these and more.

The Republicans had similar witch hunts when in power (which is why I’m perplexed that some conservative commentator are convinced, and keep repeating, that only now, under Obama, have they lost these freedoms). The “Sarbanes-Oxley Act,” signed into law by President Bush, was government’s response to The People hoisting their pitchforks against business. Also known as the Corporate Corruption Bill, it singled out a much-maligned minority for the kind of persecution that, if visited on women, blacks or Jews, would be considered actionable, hate-filled discrimination. Hearings were all the rage at the time too.

Update I (March 30): Related: “Dems fear honest Obamacare accounting”:

Democrats, in their zeal to raise revenues and improve Obamacare’s claimed effect on the federal deficit outlook, took away a tax break these companies needed in order to supply prescription drugs to their retirees. The tax subsidy, itself a government accounting ruse crafted in 2003 by the Republican Bush administration to dissuade corporations from dumping their retiree drug benefit programs on the then-new Medicare Part D, becomes taxable under Obamacare. Corporations are now being reminded of the harsh truth: What Big Government giveth, Big Government taketh away, too.

Update II (March 31): Henry “Nostrilitus” Waxman (thanks for the laugh, Greg):