America Faces No Greater Threat Than Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. Their Assault to Our Borders Is As Great As Their Assault to Free Speech and Free Elections
Wednesday, February 7, 2024
MUSLIMS - GLOBAL MURDERERS - FIRST EUROPE FELL, NEXT AMERICA? - Are We on The Doorstep of Another Civil War?
Illegal Palestinian Migrant Arrested for Anti-Jewish Hate Crime in New York
A self-described Palestinian migrant was charged with assault and robbery as a hate crime for allegedly ripping a Long Island man’s Israeli flag from his porch and then beating him up in front of his neighbors.
Bechir Lehbeib, 26, allegedly stole the flag — which declared “In This Home We Stand with Israel — from Aleksandr Binyaminov’s porch, cops said.
“When I grabbed the flag away from him, he was saying ‘I’m from Palestine, you Jews are killing Palestinians,'” Binyaminov recalled for NBC News New York.
Lehbeib walked away from Binyaminov and made an obscene gesture on video. The accused had walked several houses away when Binyaminov caught up to him on his child’s bicycle.
On video (watch below), Binyaminov challenges Lehbeib who punches him in the head. The two then begin to fight.
“He punched me in the face gave me black and blue put me in a choke hold and he headbutted me, that’s how I got a black eye,” Binyaminov explained.
The flag was put up after Oct. 7, in honor of a relative of Binyaminov’s wife who he said died when Hamas terrorists attacked Israel.
“The subject continued to swing wildly and struggle with the victim and threw the victim to the ground,” said Nassau County Deputy Police Commissioner Kevin Smith.
Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman addressed the incident by saying, “This insanity has to stop.”
At a news conference, the county executive and Republican elected officials blasted border policies for the incident.
“Living in America, I never thought this would happen to me. As a Jew, we live here happily. Feels a little bit disgusting that this happened to us, these hate crimes should be stopped,” said Binyaminov.
Lehbeig was ordered held on $50,000 bail and the judge agreed with prosecutors that his passport be seized.
The New York Postreports Lehbeib entered the U.S. from Mexico in November. Officials said they aren’t sure of his country of origin, but said they believe he migrated from somewhere in North Africa.
Before I get into my analysis, I want to make it clear I believe that anyone who wants a civil war to happen in the U.S. is dangerously naïve, insane, or working for one of America’s enemies. Imagine a Russia-Ukraine-type conflict in the U.S.
Thanks to Hollywood, most Americans believe that rebellions can be started and won by small ragtag groups of patriots, freedom fighters, insurrectionists, or everyday common folk. All you need are pistols, assault weapons, bows and arrows, and maybe a few Molotov cocktails. Blow up the Death Star, and the problem is solved.
But that is not how it usually works. Revolutions require armaments, soldiers, money, something worth fighting for, and popular support. Unless lives are at stake, few people are angry or committed enough to leave jobs or families to risk going to jail or dying needlessly.
The most daunting task is overcoming the opposition. The weaponry and manpower available to peacekeepers in our country is formidable. This includes the local sheriff’s departments, city police, state police, National Guard, and various federal agencies, most notably the FBI. Plus, in a crisis, these organizations will usually work together. An uprising of twenty, fifty, or even a hundred-plus armed citizens would quickly fail.
Ever heard of the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794? In 1791, Congress passed a distilled spirits tax. Residents of western Pennsylvania, who used whiskey as money, protested and refused to pay the tax. Sporadic acts of violence and resistance began, along with threats to secede from the Union. The unrest culminated in 1794, when a group of around 600 armed citizens took a federal marshal prisoner. When the government sent 13,000 troops, commanded by George Washington, to restore order, the rebels went home without firing a shot.
What about John Brown’s Raid? In 1859, abolitionist John Brown and 21 other armed followers attempted to start a slave rebellion by capturing the Federal Arsenal in Harper’s Ferry, Virginia. He and his followers were confronted by U.S. Marines, commanded by Colonel Robert E. Lee. Ten of the rebels were killed during the ensuing firefight. Seven more were tried and hanged later.
Remember the Weather Underground? This was a Marxist antiwar faction that wanted to start a revolution by radicalizing students to oppose the Vietnam War. The Weathermen, a group of around 400 people, were involved in numerous bombings of federal and state facilities between 1969 and 1973. Almost all of them were eventually arrested and imprisoned.
This brings me to the two most significant military conflicts on American soil, pitting family against family and brother against brother. One is the American Revolution, basically an English Civil War, and the other is the American Civil War. One was fought over taxation and individual rights, the other over slavery and states’ rights.
The battles that started the Revolution were between the British army and the Massachusetts militia. Some might equate the word “militia” with a mob. But at that time, the militia was a legitimate military organization, like today’s National Guard.
On April 19, 1775, around 700 members of the British occupation force in Boston were sent to capture or destroy military supplies stored at Lexington and Concord. During the early morning hours, the militia was warned that the British were coming, so individual units began to assemble while the military stores were being moved.
At Lexington, around 77 local militia faced roughly 400 British troops. The militia realized they were heavily outnumbered and were about to disperse when someone fired a shot, prompting the British to open fire and charge. Eight militia members were killed and several wounded. This might have been swept under the rug as an unfortunate incident except for what happened at Concord.
At North Bridge, roughly 400 militiamen faced off against about 100 British soldiers. As both sides maneuvered to control the bridge, supposedly, a panicked British soldier fired his musket. Before their officers could stop it, other British soldiers opened fire. In self-defense, the militia did the same, resulting in several killed and wounded on both sides.
As the British began to retreat, other militia units began to arrive. Word of the casualties at Lexington and Concord had spread, prompting a running firefight between the militia and the British all the way to Boston. In only one day, the situation had gone from an uneasy peace to an armed rebellion. In 1776, the other colonies finally chose sides and declared their independence.
In 1860, the U.S. was divided over the issue of slavery. When Abraham Lincoln, who supported the abolition of slavery, was elected president, seven Southern slave states decided to secede. These states then asked that all federal facilities within their jurisdiction — forts, shipyards, etc. — be turned over to them.
However, Lincoln refused to give up Fort Sumter in South Carolina. So, on April 12, 1861, the South Carolina militia opened fire with artillery and bombarded the fort. Two days later, the small contingent of federal troops defending it surrendered. Lincoln then issued a call for volunteers to fight the rebels. At that point, the eight other slave states decided to either secede from the Union or stick with it. Now that sides had been chosen and shots fired, the war began.
You might notice a pattern here. First, important issues divide our country, like independence versus obedience to the king or slavery versus freedom. Then, either a military skirmish occurs before sides get chosen or sides get chosen before the military gets involved. Both the Revolution and the Civil War were started by state military organizations, not by groups of armed radicals.
We are at a similar junction in history right now. Politics has divided the country, and the pivotal issue is unlimited illegal immigration. Few wanted it. No one expected it when he voted for Biden. And now almost no one is willing to pay the price socially or financially to support it.
The White House may have believed that its open border policy would get someone, anyone, to pick up a gun to stop the madness. It would give Biden an excuse to impose martial law, ban assault weapons or handguns, or both. But the horde of right-wing extremists the far-left fantasizes about does not exist.
It seems the administration may have gone too far too fast. The whole country is aware of this issue, and opposition is rising, leading the states to get directly involved.
The Texas National Guard has been sent to the border to stop the flow of migrants. Roughly half of the states have declared their support for Texas.
If Democrats want to continue unlimited illegal immigration, Biden could nationalize the Texas National Guard, take control, and send it home. But what happens if Texas says no? Would Biden order the armed forces to disarm or attack the Texas Guard? Would the use of the armed forces be legal? Do Democrats care?
History tells us that civil wars happen when our country is divided and the states believe they must get involved. That time may be at hand.
More details are emerging about the identity of an Afghan man wanted in London in relation to a “horrific” chemical attack in London that injured 12, including his criminal past, failed attempts to claim asylum, and questionable conversion to Christianity.
Police named 35-year-old Abdul Shokoor Ezedi on Thursday as being wanted in connection to a serious attack near Clapham Common in South London on Wednesday which saw a woman run over, a child repeatedly “smashed” into the ground, and a strong alkali chemical thrown, causing severe burns. 12 people were injured, some seriously, including a mother, her daughters, members of the public who went to help them, and police officers responding to the scene.
Police warned “dangerous individual” Ezedi should not be approached if seen, but the “horrific incident” he is alleged to have perpetrated and the circumstances surrounding his being in the United Kingdom at all have seen questions raised — yet again — about the quality of the nation’s immigration system.
Pizza takeaway chef Ezedi, it is now claimed, is an Afghan asylum seeker who arrived in the UK illegally hidden in the back of a truck and who despite two previously failed asylum application attempts from 2016 onwards and a conviction for a sex offence in 2018 finally had his application accepted around 2021. It is reported by The Daily Telegraph that this third application for asylum by Ezedi was on the basis that he was a Christian convert and consequently faced prosecution for apostasy if he returned to his native Afghanistan.
Yet people who know Ezedi in the Newcastle neighbourhood where he had come to live after moving to Britain gave an account of his life that stood at odds with his claim — backed up by a Church of England priest — that he’d left his Muslim faith behind. A halal butcher who said he regularly sold Ezedi meat described his customer as a “good customer” who talked of going back to Afghanistan to find a wife, somewhat throwing into question the basis of his claim returning to his homeland would put him in danger.
The shopkeeper is reported to have said: “Every two weeks he would come here to buy a half sheep… He never bought any alcohol. He was a good Muslim. Some Muslims do buy alcohol, but he never bought alcohol… I thought he was respectful and a very good guy, a good Muslim. I know he was Afghani”.
The revelation the alleged London chemical attacker had made what may be a false conversion to game the asylum system has triggered inevitable comparisons to Emad Jamil Al Swealmeen, an Iraqi asylum seeker who had lied about being Syrian, and being a Christian, to get the right to remain in the United Kingdom. He blew himself up inside a taxi in an apparent attempted terrorist attack against a hospital in Liverpool, but ended up being the only victim.
In the Swealmeen case, as appears to be the case with Ezedi, the Church of England supported the asylum application by saying a conversion had taken place.
British state broadcaster the BBC now reports Ezedi’s right to remain in the United Kingdom should never have been approved as, given his 2018 conviction for a sex crime, he was not eligible for asylum status anyway.
Government figures have cited this case as an example of the broken asylum system that allows migrant criminals to stay in the country even when the rules would otherwise mean they should leave. The Prime Minister, for instance, has gone on record criticising the rules, saying through a spokesman per The Times that he doesn’t think “foreign criminals should be able to stay, putting the public at risk”.
The comments about the poor state of British governance pertaining to immigration and border control were made despite the Prime Minister leading the British government, commanding a large majority in Parliament able to pass legislation with ease, and leading a party which has had control over the laws in the country for 13 years.
Police gave an update on the manhunt on Friday evening, saying the mother attacked in Clapham on Wednesday was still in hospital “very unwell” and has had to be sedated. Her injuries are said to be “life changing”, but the injuries of her two daughters are now said to not be as bad as previously feared.
Commander Jon Savell said of the police response to the “horrific incident” that police had executed three warrants, two in East London and three in Newcastle seeking suspect Ezedi. While no arrests have yet been made but “we’ve recovered some significant and important evidence including “Two empty containers with corrosive warnings on the label”. The senior officer also appealed directly to the suspect, saying: “Mr Ezedi, you clearly need significant help with that serious injury. Do the right thing and hand yourself in”.
“I would also like to reiterate the fact that if you see Ezedi, call 999 immediately. He should NOT be approached”, Savell said.
African Knifeman Wounds Three People in Paris Train Station Attack
(AFP) — Three people were injured Saturday in a knife attack at Paris’s Gare de Lyon railway station, a major travel hub, police said, adding that a suspect had been arrested.
The detained man, a Malian national, went on a stabbing spree at around 8:00 am (0700 GMT) at the station, which operates domestic trains as well as those heading to Switzerland and Italy.
One person suffered serious injuries to the abdomen while two others were lightly wounded, police said.
“The suspect did not cry out (any religious slogans) during his attack,” a police source said. “He presented the police an Italian driving licence”, which gave his date of birth as January 1, 1992.
Passers-by overpowered the man before railway police arrived on the scene, the police source said.
“A thank you to those who overpowered the man who carried out this unbearable act,” said Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin on X, formerly Twitter.
The attackers’ motives remained unclear.
French forensic experts and police work after a knife attack at Paris’s Gare de Lyon railway station, a major travel hub on February 3, 2024. (Photo by Thomas SAMSON / AFP) (Photo by THOMAS SAMSON/AFP via Getty Images)
The Paris prosecutor’s office launched an inquiry into the attack, while the national anti-terrorist prosecutor said it was observing proceedings at this stage.
The assault took place less than six months before Paris hosts the 2024 Olympics and and an expected 15 million visitors.
Each year more than 100 million passengers go through the Gare de Lyon, France’s biggest mainline hub.
The area between halls one and three were temporarily inaccessible, rail operator SNCF said on X, formerly Twitter.
Services to the Paris region were delayed, the SNCF said, referring only to “an act of criminal intent”.
Cori Bush, Rashida Tlaib Oppose Barring October 7 Terrorists from USA
Reps. Cori Bush (D-MO) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) were the only two votes against a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday that would ban Palestinians who joined in the Hamas terror attack on Israel on October 7 from entering the U.S.
Reps. Cori Bush (D-MO) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) broke with the rest of the House on Wednesday evening to vote against a bill barring participants in the Oct. 7 attack on Israel from entering the United States. Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-IL) voted present on the bill, while 422 other lawmakers voted in favor.
The “No Immigration Benefits for Hamas Terrorists Act” would designate any members of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad and any other individuals involved in perpetrating, planning, funding or supporting the Oct. 7 attack on Israel as barred from the U.S. and from seeking any immigration relief from the U.S.
It would also expand existing immigration restrictions barring some representatives of the Palestinian Liberation Organization from the U.S. to include all PLO members.
Both Bush and Tlaib, members of the left-wing “Squad,” said the bill duplicated existing law, which already bars terrorists from entering the U.S., and that it was crafted to further anti-Palestinian, anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, or anti-immigrant narratives.
The two legislators, who campaign together, have called for an immediate ceasefire that would leave Hamas in place in Gaza.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the 2021 e-book, “The Zionist Conspiracy (and how to join it),” now updated with a new foreword. He is also the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Report: Blinken, Biden Considering Unilateral Recognition of Palestinian State
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has reportedly asked the State Department to review options for a unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state at the end of the war between Hamas and Israel — a major break from past U.S. policy, and from Israel.
While U.S. officials say there has been no policy change, the fact the State Department is even considering such options signals a shift in thinking within the Biden administration on possible Palestinian statehood recognition, which is highly sensitive both internationally and domestically.
For decades, U.S. policy has been to oppose the recognition of Palestine as a state both bilaterally and in UN institutions and to stress Palestinian statehood should only be achieved through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
The story — almost certainly leaked deliberately from the State Department — comes as Blinken prepares to visit Israel for the fifth time since the Hamas terror attack on October 7 launched the war.
Though Blinken has expressed sympathy for the Israeli people, he has also tried to restrict Israel’s military response, and has lately become adamant about forcing Israel to accept a Palestinian state, which would be a major win for Hamas, which would achieve that outcome after the mass murder of civilians.
Blinken has even blamed Israelis for being intransigent on a Palestinian state. The truth is that nearly two-thirds of Israelis had supported such a state in 2012 — but now nearly two-thirds oppose one, because of the way Hamas turned Gaza into a terror base.
The Biden administration pursued a Palestinian state since before October 7, even reportedly blocking a Saudi-Israeli peace deal because of the administration’s insistence that it include a Palestinian state, whether the Palestinians are ready for one or not.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has adamantly opposed a Palestinian state as the outcome of the war — and he has begun to rise again in some polls, as Israelis rally behind a leader seen as the only Israeli politician who can stand up to the U.S.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the 2021 e-book, “The Zionist Conspiracy (and how to join it),” now updated with a new foreword. He is also the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
No comments:
Post a Comment