“We must maintain efforts to put our nation on a fiscally sustainable course, and federal agency budgets cannot sustain such increases,” the president wrote in a letter to congressional leaders.
Under Trump’s policy, roughly 1.8 million people wouldn’t get an automatic pay boost next year, including Border Patrol and ICE agents.
That stance puts vulnerable GOP lawmakers representing northern Virginia — home to tens of thousands of federal workers — in the political crosshairs. And it sets up an all-but-certain funding fight with Congress next month, as party leaders attempt to reach a sweeping agreement to keep the government open before the start of the next fiscal year on Oct. 1.
The deal used to be that Federal workers traded high pay for virtually guaranteed job security. Now they get better pay than almost anyone else, automatic pay raises most years, and they’re not only virtually un-fireable, but can’t or won’t be held to account even for criminal activity. And at least at the top echelons, have developed an attitude problem to go with their perceived invincibility.
All this has led to well-deserved outrage out here in flyover country, which as best as I can recall has a lot more seats than even northern Virginia.
In this file photo dated March 27, 2002, a child searches for loose kernels among discarded maize at the Mbare informal market in Harare, Zimbabwe. The once-prosperous nation spiraled into an ever-deepening crisis when Mugabe disrupted the economy by seizing land from white farmers in 2000. (AP Photo/Themba Hadebe, File)
Last week’s controversy over President Donald Trump's call for his State Department to examine South Africa's coming land reform policy -- in which white farmers purportedly are to have their farmlands seized -- recalled a similar tragic situation in neighboring Zimbabwe in the early 2000s.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson apparently started the ball rolling when he reported on South Africa’s plan to begin expropriating white farmers’ land. Carlson drew comparisons with a similar program in Zimbabwe 20 years ago that led to economic collapse and hunger there. The president apparently took his cue from Carlson; the talk show host called on the U.S. to take a human rights stand on the basis of how things turned out then in Zimbabwe for both blacks and whites. All of this has been portrayed elsewhere as “dog-whistling” to alt-right nationalists and white supremacists.
Even if the South Africa plan coincidentally excites some racists, Carlson is correct about naming Zimbabwe as the poster child for what can happen down this road. Zimbabwe was that bad -- and the United States should put South Africa on notice that it and the whole world is watching if it chooses to follow Zimbabwe down this path.
I know a little about this. Some 17 years ago, while working as a reporter covering federal court systems for the Dallas Morning News, I’d had an interesting connection to the Zimbabwe situation referenced by Carlson. Back then, I heard through my source grapevine that a white family from Africa had arrived in Dallas and was pursuing a U.S. asylum claim. They, because they were white, claimed they had suffered racial persecution at the hands of a black-majority government.
This was classic man-bites-dog stuff, ironic beyond threshold as a news story to a broad general audience far wider than a few white supremacists. Naturally, I jumped all over it. Soon, I was interviewing Dave and Amber Penny and following them in and out of the immigration courtroom.
A little background: Rebels supporting Mugabe and armed by the Soviet Union achieved independence in 1980 for the country once known as Rhodesia, about the size of Montana. Long before apartheid was dismantled in neighboring South Africa, Zimbabwe was seen as a model of how whites and blacks could live together after blacks replaced white minority rule, despite resentment that whites got to keep the nation’s land wealth. White farmers, who made up about 1 percent of the country's population of 12 million but formed the backbone of its economy, were urged to stay as a minority class protected by law. The arrangement had been supported by the United States for decades, with appropriately little regard for whatever white supremacists in the U.S. might have had to say about it.
SPONSORED
Facing severe economic problems and an election, Mugabe changed course in early 2000. He sought to nationalize 4,500 properties -- about 95 percent of farmland owned by whites -- and distribute the land to supporters. Government militants backed by local police began using squatters to force farmers to sign over their land. By 2001, the first white farmers were killed for resisting.
While Carlson made no mention of murders of white farmers in South Africa, Trump inaccurately did in a tweet. Maybe he was mixing things up with what the Penny family knew happened in Zimbabwe. By the time the squatters got to the 2,300-acre Penny family farm, squatters hadkilled 77 people and left thousands homeless. Stories of atrocities and violence were getting closer by the day. The Pennys told me the government squatters cut off the nose of a neighbor with a machete when he refused to sign over the deed to his land.
Another farmer was forced to watch as squatters sexually assaulted his daughters, they said.
"We didn't have any means of protecting our own property because the police were the ones driving all this, and the army," Amber Penny told me. "You just didn't know who was going to be next."
The invasion was sudden and terrifying. More than 100 squatters armed with farm implements drove in on 12-ton trucks. Amber said she hid with the children inside the wall safe of her home, leaving Dave to confront the squatters alone.
"They said they were going to cut my white skin off and roast me," he said. "They said they wanted the farm."
Mr. Penny said he signed over half the farm under that kind of threat. For the next several months, about 16 squatters who camped on the property beat laborers, harassed the children, and halted operations as the Pennys pondered whether to stay or go. After the farm’s foreman was tortured, they decided to flee to relatives in the United States.
But that proved problematic, because they were the wrong color.
On four occasions, U.S. officials in Zimbabwe and elsewhere refused to acknowledge that white people could be persecuted. The embassy in Harare, they told me, even refused to provide U.S. visitors visas on grounds that they would try to declare asylum after they arrived. Finally, the Pennys figured out an end run through London to Canada, illegally crossed the northern border and did just that.
A judge granted them asylum -- although they kept the deed to their land hoping to go back. A U.S. immigration judge in Dallas awarded the family permanent haven after considering their claim that being white was dangerous in Zimbabwe.
Ironic enough to make press when I wrote it up in December 2001. “Racist” enough to make the newspapers again in 2018.
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation was star-crossed from the start. His friend and successor as FBI director, James Comey, by his own admission prompted the investigation—with the deliberate leaking of classified memos about his conversations with President Donald Trump to the press.
Mueller then unnecessarily stocked his team with what the press called his “dream team” of mostly Democratic partisans. One had defended a Hillary Clinton employee. Another had defended the Clinton Foundation.
Mueller at first did not announce to the press why he had dismissed Trump-hating FBI operatives Lisa Page and Peter Strzok from his investigative team. Instead, he staggered their departures to leave the impression they were routine reassignments.
But Mueller’s greatest problem was his original mandate to discover whether Trump colluded with the Russians in 2016 to tilt the election in his favor.
After 15 months, Mueller has indicted a number of Trump associates, but on charges having nothing to do with Russian collusion. They faced inordinately long prison sentences unless they “flipped” and testified against Trump.
We are left with the impression that Mueller cannot find much to do with his original mandate of unearthing Russian collusion, but he still thinks Trump is guilty of something.
In other words, Mueller has reversed the proper order of jurisprudence.
Instead of presuming Trump innocent unless he finds evidence of Russian collusion, Mueller started with the assumption that the reckless raconteur Trump surely must be guilty of some lawbreaking. Thus, it is Mueller’s job to hunt for past crimes to prove it.
While Mueller so far has not found Trump involved in collusion with foreign citizens to warp a campaign, there is evidence that others most surely were colluding—but are not of interest to Mueller.
It is likely that during the 2016 campaign, officials at the Department of Justice, FBI, CIA and National Security Agency broke laws to ensure that the outsider Trump lost to Hillary Clinton. FBI and Justice Department officials misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to obtain warrants to surveil Trump associates. National security officials unmasked the names of those being monitored and likely leaked them to the press with the intent to spread unverified rumors detrimental to the Trump campaign.
A spy on the federal payroll was implanted into the Trump campaign. Hillary Clinton’s campaign team paid for research done by a former British intelligence officer working with Russian sources to compile a dossier on Trump. Clinton hid her investment in Christopher Steele’s dossier by using intermediaries such as the Perkins Coie law firm and Fusion GPS to wipe away her fingerprints.
As a result of wrongful conduct, more than a dozen officials at the FBI and the Justice Department have resigned or retired, or were fired or reassigned. Yet so far none of these miscreants has been indicted or has faced the same legal scrutiny that Mueller applies to Trump associates.
Hillary Clinton is not facing legal trouble for destroying subpoenaed emails, for using an unlawful email server or for the expenditure of campaign money on the Steele dossier.
No president has ever faced impeachment for supposed wrongdoing alleged to have taken place before he took office—not Andrew Johnson, not Richard Nixon, and not even Bill Clinton, who lied about his liaisons with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. With the effort to go back years, if not decades, into Trump’s business and personal life, we are now in unchartered territory.
The argument is not that Trump committed crimes while president—indeed, his record at home and abroad is winning praise. The allegations are instead about what he may have done as a private citizen, and whether it could have reversed the 2016 election.
The only way to clear up this messy saga is for Trump to immediately declassify all documents—without redactions—relating to the Mueller investigation, the FISA court warrants, the Clinton email investigation, and CIA and FBI involvement with the dossier, and the use of informants.
Second, there needs to be another special counsel to investigate wrongdoing on the part of senior officials in these now nearly discredited agencies. The mandate should be to discover whether there was serial conflict of interest, chronic lying to federal officials, obstruction of justice, improper unmasking and leaking, misleading of federal courts, and violation of campaign finance laws.
It is past time to stop the stonewalling, the redacting, the suppression, the leaking to the press and the media hysteria. The government must turn over all relevant documents to two special counsels and free each to discover who did what in 2016.
Americans need the whole truth to ensure equality under the law and to thereby set us free from this nearly two-year nightmare.
Dan Backer, the campaign finance attorney who filed the complaint, writes in Investors Business Daily that the scheme puts the conviction of filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, who was prosecuted “for giving a handful of associates money they then contributed to a candidate of his preference” to shame.
HVF solicited six-figure donations from major donors, including Calvin Klein and “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane, and routed them through state parties en route to the Clinton campaign. Roughly $84 million may have been laundered in what might be the single largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history.
…
Here’s what you can’t do, which the Clinton machine appeared to do anyway. As the Supreme Court made clear in McCutcheon v. FEC, the JFC may not solicit or accept contributions to circumvent base limits, through “earmarks” and “straw men” that are ultimately excessive — there are five separate prohibitions here.
On top of that, six-figure donations either never actually passed through state party accounts or were never actually under state party control, which adds false FEC reporting by HVF, state parties, and the DNC to the laundry list.
Finally, as Donna Brazile and others admitted, the DNC placed the funds under the Clinton campaign’s direct control, a massive breach of campaign finance law that ties the conspiracy together.
Democratic donors, knowing the funds would end up with Clinton’s campaign, wrote six-figure checks to influence the election — 100 times larger than allowed.
HVF bundled these megagifts and, on a single day, reported transferring money to all participating state parties, some of which would then show up on FEC reports filed by the DNC as transferring the exact same dollar amount on the exact same day to the DNC. Yet not all the state parties reported either receiving or transferring those sums.
It’s getting to the point that as soon as one of the leaders of the progressive movement over the last 20 odd years in this country starts pointing a finger at a political opponent accusing them of some scandal or potential illegal activity, it’s generally a good sign that the progressive leader may be engaged in it themselves.
President Truman inspect Navy personnel aboard USS Missouri in 1947. (National Archives)It’s easy in retrospect to fault Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan, but he had only worse options at his disposal.
On Aug. 6, 1945, the United States dropped a uranium-fueled atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later, another U.S. Army Air Forces B-29 repeated the attack on Nagasaki, Japan, with an even more powerful plutonium bomb.
Less than a month after the second bombing, Imperial Japan agreed to formally surrender on September 2. That date marked the official end of World War II — the bloodiest human or natural catastrophe in history, accounting for more than 65 million dead.
Each August, Americans in hindsight ponder the need for, the morality of, and the strategic rationale behind the dropping of the two bombs. Yet President Harry Truman’s decision 73 years ago to use the novel, terrifying weapons was not considered particularly controversial, either right before or right after the attacks. Both cities were simply military targets.
Hiroshima was the headquarters of a Japanese army unit, and a key manufacturing center and port. Nagasaki — a secondary target after clouds and smoke obscured the city of Kokura — was the site of a huge Mitsubishi munitions plant.
Yet the sheer destructive power of the two bombs — the 15-kiloton “Little Boy” Hiroshima bomb and the 21-kiloton “Fat Man” Nagasaki bomb — ensured catastrophic civilian casualties well beyond soldiers and munitions-plant workers. During the blasts — and long afterward, due to radiation showers — perhaps 150,000 Japanese were killed.
Truman wanted to use the bombs to avoid invading the Japanese mainland. The recent battle for Okinawa had resulted in an estimated 50,000 American casualties — the bloodiest of all the American battles of the Pacific War. Truman’s military planners warned that invasions of the Japanese mainland to end the war might cost the equivalent of 20 more Okinawa campaigns.
Japan’s leaders swore that they would fight to the bitter end, bragging of their planned sacrifice as the “Glorious Death of One Hundred Million.” They planned to draw on 10,000 suicide planes and 10 million soldiers, militiamen, and irregulars.
Truman also had other worries.
The Soviet Union had done nothing during the war to harm Japan following its cynical 1941 non-aggression pact with the Japanese. But in August 1945, the Soviets were opportunistically preparing to invade a reeling Japanese empire in hopes of stripping Japan of its colonies in China, the Pacific, and Korea. After Josef Stalin’s recent Russian occupation of Eastern Europe, the idea of a Soviet Russia replacing Imperial Japan seemed not much better to Truman.
Thousands of Allied prisoners, as well as civilians in Japanese-occupied China, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific, were dying each day the war dragged on. More than 1 million Japanese soldiers abroad were still brutally killing the innocent.
There were still other, less publicized considerations. The incendiary B-29 bombing campaign from the distant Mariana Islands had already killed far more Japanese than would the two atomic bombs.
With new airfields on Okinawa, General Curtis LeMay envisioned a far greater force of four-engine bombers to be sent on daily missions against Japan. LeMay would have had at his disposal nearly 10,000 four-engine bombers, including B-29s, along with transfers of idle B-24s, B-17s, and British Lancaster bombers after the surrender of Germany three months earlier.
The ensuing napalm inferno might have precluded the invasion of Japan. But more nonstop firestorms also would have caused far more Japanese deaths than the two atomic bombs — at a time when Japan was already blockaded by the U.S. Navy and running out of food and supplies.
In other words, the novelty of the two horrific atomic bombs helped to shock the Japanese emperor into a sudden surrender. And the abrupt end of the Pacific War saved millions of lives — whether Asians under brutal Japanese occupation, Allied soldiers fighting against Japanese expeditionary armies, or Japanese civilians who likely would have been incinerated by an unimaginable second round of the firebombing campaign.
In the security and prosperity of peace, it is now common to fault Truman for his seemingly cruel decision. But in 1945, many Americans were blaming the U.S. government for thousands of American deaths from fighting in the Pacific. Right after the war, they complained that the atomic bombs should have been used even earlier to preclude nightmares such as Okinawa.
We also forget that Imperial Japan of 1945 was not the model democracy of Japan today, but a brutal, genocidal dictatorship. By August 1945, it already had butchered millions of Asians in occupied China, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific.
Japan was still convinced that if the war could just continue, and it could kill thousands more American and British soldiers, then the exhausted Allies might finally negotiate a favorable armistice.
It is now hard to imagine any choices worse than dropping an atomic bomb. But in August 1945, there were some that most certainly were.
Thanks to the European decision to invite in the Islamists, not only won’t we always have Paris, we won’t have the rest of Europe either. Europe is dying.
Bruce Bawer, a gay American man who moved to Europe only to be mugged by Islamic reality, is a clear-headed thinker and a marvelous writer. Today, FrontPage Magazine published an essay he wrote about the change in thinking about Islam amongst European elites. Back in 2007, when Bawer was invited to speak to these elites about rising concerns on the ground regarding the growing Islamic presence in Europe, the elites were shocked — and greatly offended — that some little upstart would insinuate that their pro-Muslim policies might change Europe’s face:
It’s easy to read an audience. As I spoke, I could feel the snappily dressed, self-impressed-looking crowd growing restive. When I was done and they were invited to ask questions, I didn’t get questions but incredibly condescending razzes, remonstrations, and reproaches. A German envoy reacted angrily to my account of some recent incident – I don’t remember what – that had taken place in her country. Her colleagues from a couple of other countries had similar bones to pick. “These are just anecdotes!” one diplomat thundered dismissively. I tried to engage them in a reasonable give-and-take, but they weren’t having it.
What made the experience especially striking was that over the course of the previous year or so I’d given a number of talks about the same subject in Europe and North America. The audiences had been composed not of credentialed foreign-policy experts but of ordinary citizens. All of them had recognized that what I was saying was true. During the Q&A sessions, they’d been eager to express their gratitude that someone was talking about these matters, eager to recount their own horrific experiences with the consequences of mass Muslim immigration, and eager to vent their frustration at political leaders who refused to listen to them, to care about their sufferings, or even to acknowledge the plain objective facts.
In sum, in 2007, Bawer was a mean-spirited and stupid racist to think that Islam could affect Europe in any way.
Fast forward to 2018:
As it turns out, it’s not Europe but Islam in Europe that’s been moving from strength to strength. As the number of terrorist atrocities, mass car burnings, and gang riots and rapes across Western Europe climbs relentlessly, it’s harder and harder to hold up Europe as “a new lamp unto the nations.” Consequently, the elite’s message about Islam in Europe has begun to shift. Only the day before yesterday, it seemed, they were telling us – and many of them, to be sure, are still telling us – that it’s preposterous to suggest that Western Europe’s present order is on the verge of being undone. But now at least some of them are starting to sing a different tune. Yes, they admit, Islam is taking over Western Europe – but hey, there’s no reason to worry about it!
[snip]
Case in point: on March 28 of last year, the Dutch newspaper Trouw ran an interview with Maurice Crul, a professor at the Free University of Amsterdam who “has been conducting research on migration and integration for twenty-five years.” Since only every third Amsterdammer under age fifteen is of Dutch descent, noted Crul, ethnic Dutch people will soon be a minority in that city. The same holds for other major Western European burgs. For Crul, the lesson here is obvious: integration “now works in two directions.” Meaning what? Meaning that Western European natives who have been complaining for years about the failure of immigrants to integrate will themselves henceforth be obliged to integrate into the new, multicultural urban landscapes.
I urge you to read the whole thing. It’s fascinating and depressing. What really got me were the statistics Bawer cites:
Crul isn’t alone. This past August 6, the German newspaper Tagesspiegel published a column by Barbara John, a retired 80-year-old politician who belongs to Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union Party. John noted that in some major German cities, people with foreign backgrounds already outnumber native Germans. In Frankfurt, for example, 51.2 percent of the population is non-German. This trend, John pronounced, “is irreversible.” It “awakens fears,” she added. “But they are unfounded.” She held up Rotterdam and Amsterdam as examples of immigrant-heavy cities that are doing just dandy. “After all,” she stated, the new majorities in those cities consist of “many immigrant groups, which differ enormously in education, ethnicity, religion, culture and finances,” and are thus divided from one another, and from ethnic Dutch people, in many ways.
Yes, there are people from all kinds of backgrounds in Western Europe’s largest cities. But only one of those backgrounds is problematic. At this point, no one needs to be told why. At present, Muslims make up about 17% of the population of Antwerp and Brussels, 22% of Birmingham, 25% of Marseille, 11% of Amsterdam, 13% of Rotterdam, and 13% of Frankfurt. Immigration patterns and demographic trends indicate that those numbers will increase steadily in the years to come, and eventually, I repeat, all of Western Europe will be under sharia law. Or, as John puts it so prettily, “many things will be different and some things will be better.”
So what do those numbers mean in terms of life in Islamicized Europe? Let’s take Paris as an example:
You can call these Muslim immigrants (both legal and illegal) freeloaders. You can call them conquerors. You can call them culturally different. What you can’t call them, though, is people anxious to assimilate to and become a part of Western culture. The ugly reality, the one the elites refuse to acknowledge when living in their clean, bright, gated suburbs, is that when you get a big enough group of unassimilated, hostile people within your country, you don’t have a country anymore.
But wait, if that video’s not enough for you, there’s more:
A man armed with “several knives” killed his mother and sister and seriously injured another woman in a town near Paris on Thursday, officials said. The man, who police said had been on a terror watch list since 2016, was later shot and killed after confronting police in Trappes.
He also stabbed a third victim, a female passerby, who was gravely injured in the attack. France’s interior minister Gerard Collomb told reporters the attacker had “serious psychiatric problems”, and said the attack was not being treated as terrorism.
Despite providing no evidence, the Islamic State group claimed the attack via its propaganda channel.
The attacker, 36, reportedly shouted “Allahu Akbar” during the rampage, and was shot dead by police after the assault in a residential street.
The authorities insist that what happened wasn’t terrorism. I kind of agree. The Allahu Akbar murders of Mireille Knoll or Sarah Halimi, both elderly Jewish ladies brutally slaughtered by young Muslim men, weren’t terrorist attacks either. Terrorism implies a subset of formal warfare. For Europe’s newest immigrants (legal or not), these Allahu Akbar killings are just business as usual. Kill the Jews. Kill the Christians. Kill your own women. Rape the kafir women. It’s what they do.
Not all Muslims do this, obviously, but a large enough percentage are programmed through their religion to engage in this behavior to make it a very unhealthy choice for a country to allow indiscriminate Muslim immigration, whether legal or illegal. Once it happens, you can wave good-bye to all the trappings of civilization, everything from the rule of law, to free speech, to clean streets, to women’s rights, to gay rights, good plumbing. They will destroy everything.
But hey, that’s France and . . . you know, it’s France. Except of course it’s not just France. In Holland, the Dutch government is prosecutingsomeone for saying mean things to Erdogan, the Turkish dictator for life:
A 64-year-old man from Sittard will face the court in The Hague on Friday for insulting Turkish president Recept Tayyip Erdogan. In 2016 the man sent multiple offensive emails to the Turkish embassy in The Hague in which he compared Erdogan to Hitler and called him a “goat fucker”, among other things, 1Limburg reports.
In one email he wrote: “Erdogan, you fucking goat fucker, burn in hell.” An attachment added to the email showed Hitler and Erdogan, with a swastika between them and the text: “There’s no difference”. In another email he said: “Erdogan takes the whole world hostage with his pernicious ideas. More than seventy years ago, a similar dictator made exactly the same mistake. I regret the Turkish people with this idiot, you do not deserve better.”
According to the newspaper, the Dutch man is facing charges of insult, insulting an official, and insulting a friendly head of state. The Sittard man’s lawyer did not want to comment to 1Limburg about the case. “It is not in my client’s best interest to respond at the moment.”
Please note that the man wasn’t threatening Erdogan. He was just calling him names. In turns out that, in 21st century Europe, there’s no difference between living in Holland or living in Iran (or Turkey, for that matter) when it comes to saying mean things to a Muslim leader. Either way, you’re in trouble with the law.
The only thing for which the Dutch man can be grateful is that, in Holland, he’ll still just be imprisoned, rather than actually executed. But even that’s not quite true. As Tommy Robinson’s ordeal in a British prison showed, if they can’t execute you directly, they’ll still try to do it indirectly. Otherwise, why would the authorities, after he was illegally imprisoned, have transferred him from a non-Muslim controlled prison to a Muslim-controlled prison, and then refused to take any steps whatsoever to protect him from everything from direct threats, to feces attacks, to poisoned food?
The Netherlands, once the world’s most free country (and I’m going all the way back to the 17th century when I say this) has now not only invited in the Trojan horse, it’s given it a nice stable and is keeping it comfortable with hay and water. The same is true for England, which was probably the second most free country in the time of the Enlightenment. And the French always pretended to be something sort of free, didn’t they? What a joke.
But that’s just Holland, France, and England. Surely there isn’t a problem in other European nations? Daniel Greenfield has numbers that say there’s a problem in all European nations:
Last year, Austria had 503 anti-Semitic incidents.
That’s impressive considering that the country only has around 9,000 Jews. There has been 1 anti-Semitic incident to every 18 Jews in Austria.
That same year, Germany had 1,453 anti-Semitic incidents to approximately 100,000 Jews.
In Bonn, Germany, a Jewish professor from Baltimore was assaulted by a Muslim yelling, “No Jew in Germany!” When the police arrived, they assaulted the professor. There was a protest march. A videotaped attack by a Syrian Muslim refugee in Berlin had led to another protest march and a slap on the wrist for the assailant. 10 Syrians attacked a man wearing a Star of David while screaming anti-Semitic slurs. A Jewish teen was assaulted in a Berlin train station. “I’ll slit your throat, you f***ing Jew.”
One statistical survey listed the number of anti-Semitic incidents in Germany rising by 60% in 2017.
In the UK, there were 1,382 incidents to 263,346 Jews. In Italy, there were 109 incidents to some 28,000 Jews. In the Netherlands, there were 113 incidents to 29,900 Jews.
Spain’s having a few problems too. Here’s a story from yesterday’s WaPo (which really, really wishes it didn’t have to report these kind of dark things showing democracy dying overseas):
A group of around 300 migrants stormed fences separating Spain’s North African enclave of Ceuta from Morocco on Wednesday, and 116 of them made it onto European soil, authorities said.
Seven policemen were burned by acid and quicklime, a skin irritant, allegedly thrown by some of the migrants as they overran border defenses, the Guardia Civil said.(Emphasis mine.)
That report isn’t about a few immigrants slipping over the border. It describes a full-fledged invasion, complete with deadly weapons. Nor is it the first. As I said, that was yesterday’s news. Three weeks ago, this video emerged from an African assault on the Spanish border:
And a month ago, a mob attacked Spain’s presence in Africa:
As many as 800 African migrants stormed a Spanish border outpost in North Africa, breaching a security fence and attacking guards in an attempt to gain entry to migrant shelters inside, police said Thursday.
The migrants used bolt cutters to rip open holes in the barbed-wire fences and then hurled feces and quicklime, a skin irritant, at police who were trying to beat back the onrush, Spain’s Guardia Civil said in a statement. About 600 migrants managed to break through police lines in the attack, which left 15 officers and 16 migrants injured, the Associated Press reported. (Emphasis mine.)
As Daffy Duck would say, “You realize, this means war.” Except the Europeans haven’t twigged to that fact that they’re on the receiving end of all out war. They’re still anxious to play the gracious host to millions of people who want to finish what the Holocaust started (kill Jews, because it’s part of their core religious doctrine) and then continue the conquest, enslaving the rest of the European people.
Europe’s dying and it deserves to die. In some ways it’s very painful. After all, some of the most beautiful sites in the world are in Europe: Gorgeous churches (empty), magnificent palaces, charming towns, gracious landscapes, beautiful art. All of that, of course, will be destroyed under Islam’s not-so-tender-loving-care.
I’m desperately sorry for the ordinary Europeans, the ones who are being sold out by the elite who hide behind fenced estates in expensive enclaves, but the reality is that too many Europeans have become inert due to decades of socialism. As long as the elites kept promising ordinary people free things (funded in significant part by hard-working Americans during the Cold War), the descendants of Europe’s serfs and peasants were going to keep voting for the same people who have always kept them under dainty and expensive heels.
Unless the ordinary Europeans want to have their own American-style revolution, one based on individual liberty rather than free stuff, they’re going down in Islamic chains. Moreover, those chains are wrapping around them with ever-increasing speed. It’s doubtful, at this point, whether anything can stop them.
