Tuesday, May 21, 2024

France and Belgium Sacrificed Jewish People "Before"

France and Belgium support the bid for arrest warrants of Israel and Hamas leaders.


Now today after they betrayed the Jewish people in their respective countries during WW2, they are repeating their antisemitism behaviours once again, in my view and millions of others worldwide.


France and Belgium during ww2 actively cooperated with Germany’s nazi Regime in rounding up and deporting 76,000 Jewish people from France alone and while Belgium's leaders and population also actively collaborated with Germany’s nazi Regime in rounding up and deporting 66,000 Jewish people from Belgium to death camps.


The free world and all its so-called elected leaders should be outraged at the ICC prosecutor's attempted application against the country of Israel and its leaders.


There is no equivalence between Israel and the terrorist organization Hamas. Hamas is an internationally designated Palestinian terrorist organization that has controlled Gaza since 2007 and whose explicitly stated mission is the murder of Jews and “obliteration” of Israel.


In 2007 it seized control of Gaza in a violent coup and launched over 18,000 mortars and rockets into Israeli communities and forced Israel to mount three major military operations to protect its citizens:


1. Cast Lead (Dec. 2008-to Jan. 2009)

2. Pillar of Defense (Nov. 2012)

3. Protective Edge (July 8 to August 6, 2014)


Hamas systematically committed war crimes in these actions, as evidenced by its tactics during Protective Edge. Hamas rockets indiscriminately targeted Israel’s population and civilian centers, a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions and the International Criminal Court.

France and Belgium for the second time in a mere 82 years seem to have totally forgotten their past collaboration against the Jewish peoples:


From 1942 to 1944 a stream of Jewish people were rounded up by Vichy authorities, and by the end of the war, some 76,000 had been deported to Nazi concentration camps.


Although under the overall control of the SS, the main transit camp of Drancy, from which 63,000 people were sent to their deaths, was run by Paris's police force.


François Mitterand, president from 1981 until 1995, insisted France "was never involved" in the ill-treatment of its Jewish population, and it was not until Jacques Chirac in 1995 that a head of state admitted France's "inescapable guilt". It does so without forgetting the 74,150 Jewish men, women and children who were deported from France – most of whom perished.


France and Belgium are now showing that their leaders and country have forgotten their past collaboration actions against the Jewish people which was the same case from 1942 to 1944.


Also, we must remember that today and back then "The Belgian state once again has supported and adopted a docile and cooperative attitude in some very diverse, but crucial domains providing collaboration unworthy of a democracy, with a policy that once again shall be disastrous for Belgian and the Jewish peoples, in my view.


Unlike today back then after the end of the war, Belgian military judicial authorities decided that investigating the deportation of the Jewish people was too "delicate" to be allowed to continue.


That was after then and today's decision to support the ICC is another decision from Belgium and France's leaders and population of "a docile and cooperative attitude in some very diverse, but crucial domains providing collaboration unworthy of a democracy."


France and Belgium Sacrificed Jewish people to the Nazis Before and now they repeat that step by supporting a rogue ICC for purely political reasons.

Monday, May 20, 2024

Hamas's Stated Mission Murder Jews, “Obliteration” of Israel

Hamas is an internationally designated Palestinian terrorist organization that controls Gaza, whose explicitly stated mission is the murder of Jews, “obliteration” of Israel, and its replacement with a Taliban-like theocracy. 

In 2007 it seized control of Gaza in a violent coup and launched over 18,000 mortars and rockets into Israeli communities and forced Israel to mount three major military operations to protect its citizens: 

1. Cast Lead (Dec. 2008-to Jan. 2009)
2. Pillar of Defense (Nov. 2012)
3. Protective Edge (July 8 to August 6, 2014)

Hamas systematically committed war crimes in these actions, as evidenced by its tactics during Protective Edge. Hamas rockets indiscriminately targeted Israel’s population and civilian centers, a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions and the International Criminal Court.

Hamas indiscriminately fired over 4,465 rockets at Israel’s heartland, including densely populated cities such as Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and their civilian structures, during Protective Edge. Over 70% of Israeli citizens were in rocket range.

• Even Palestinian officials acknowledged Hamas’ rockets were war crimes. “Each and every missile against Israel constitutes a crime against humanity whether it hits or misses because it is directed at civilian targets.”

–Palestinian Envoy to the Human Rights Council, July 9, 2014.

• Hamas “made clear in their statements that harming civilians was their aim. There is simply no legal justification for launching rockets at populated areas.”

–Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East Director, Human Rights Watch, Nov. 2012.

• The EU “strongly condemns the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel by Hamas and militant groups in the Gaza Strip, directly harming civilians. These are criminal and unjustifiable acts.”9 Hamas kidnapped Israelis to use them as hostages, a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions and the International Criminal Court.

• On June 12, 2014, Hamas operatives kidnapped three Israeli teens as they were returning home from school. Their bodies were found 18 days later.

• In 2006, Hamas operatives kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit and held him hostage for over five years until he was released in a prisoner exchange in 2011.

• Hamas built 32 cross-border underground tunnels to infiltrate Israel and kidnap Israelis. Rooms, handcuffs and tranquillizers were prepared for the Israeli victims.13 Hamas used Palestinian civilian centers for military purposes, a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions.

• Hamas placed its military arsenal and tunnel entrances in Gaza’s schools, homes, residential neighbourhoods, hospitals, and mosques, as occurred with UNRWA schools, 16 Al-Shifah17 and Al-Wafa hospitals, and the Islamic University of Gaza.

• Hamas booby-trapped thousands of homes and fired 597 rockets from civilian centers, including 260 from schools, 160 from religious sites, 127 from cemeteries, and over 50 from hospitals. Hamas used Palestinians as human shields, a war crime according to Article 51(7) of the 1977 Protocols to the Geneva Convention. 

• Hamas urged Gaza residents to act as human shields. 

• Hamas urged residents to ignore Israel’s warnings to move to safer areas because of imminent attacks. In some cases, Hamas operatives violently attacked residents who sought safer areas. 

• "The Israeli army sends warnings to people [Gazans] to evacuate buildings before an attack. Hamas's strict policy, though, was not to allow us to evacuate. Hamas's official Al-Quds TV regularly issued warnings to Gazans not to evacuate their homes. Hamas militants would block the exits to the places residents were asked to evacuate." –Gaza Medical Aid Worker, September 19, 2014Hamas conducted extrajudicial executions of alleged Palestinian collaborators with Israel.

• Hamas murdered at least 48 suspected collaborators during the 2014 war, accusing them of being spies and executing them publicly, without trial. Hamas has dragged the executed bodies of past suspected collaborators through the streets of Gaza as a warning to others. Hamas enlisted children to participate in hostilities, a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions and the International Criminal Court.

• Hamas admitted to using child labour to construct cross-border tunnels. According to Hamas officials, at least 160 children were killed while building the terror tunnels.

ICC Chief Prosecutor Seeking Arrest Warrants for Hamas leaders and Netanyahu

The Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, has announced his intention to pursue arrest warrants for Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Karim Khan, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), has announced plans to seek arrest warrants for several leaders, including Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar plus other Hamas leaders Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh along with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Israel’s Defence Minister Yoav Gallant of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Khan accuses these leaders of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The ICC statement accuses the Hamas leaders, Sinwar, and Deif, of murder charges as a crime against humanity, sexual violence, and taking hostages as war crimes while accusing and charging Netanyahu and Gallant of using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and intentionally attacking civilian populations.

Khan asserts there is sufficient evidence to hold these individuals accountable for war crimes since the start of Hamas’s war against Israel on October 7, 2023, and Israel’s responsive military actions in Gaza. He emphasized the severe and well-documented impact of starvation and collective punishment on Gaza’s civilian population and stressed the need for accountability for Hamas’s actions on October 7.

The ICC, based in The Hague, has been investigating Israel’s activities in Gaza for the past three years yet apparently not the activities of Hamas in Gaza since 2007?




Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court


Joe Biden’s Self Serving, Race Bating Political Speech “A Morehouse Man”

The guy who ran for office with a Unity Agenda, for solving big challenges that unite all Americans— yet his Presidency and actions of the past 3 and a half years have openly continued his political attempts to divide Americans for no other reason than to retain power for his far left-leaning Democratic Party, in my view and tens of millions of others.

(Race Bating) "It’s natural to wonder if democracy you hear about actually works for you.

What is democracy if Black men are being killed in the street?

What is democracy if a trail of broken promises still leave Black — Black communities behind?"

 What is democracy if you have to be 10 times better than anyone else to get a fair shot?

And most of all, what does it mean, as we’ve heard before, to be a Black man who loves his country even if it doesn’t love him back in equal measure?”

Summary of Joe Biden's Commencement Speeches for the Graduating Class of 2024:

  1. Joe Biden at Morehouse College:

    • Biden addressed students at Morehouse College, emphasizing that they are victims of racism and white supremacy.
    • He stated that American democracy has failed them, highlighting issues like police violence and systemic inequality.
    • Biden criticized efforts by parents to remove explicit pornography from school libraries as a book “ban” to “erase history” and implied it was racist. “They don’t see you in the future of America.”
    • His speech was described as negative and lacking constructive advice for the graduates. "It was a rancid, depressing speech that gave nobody in the audience wisdom or nourishment to help make their way in the world."

    • Copy of Joe Biden’s self-serving and race-baiting political speech “A Morehouse man”  @ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/19/remarks-by-president-biden-at-the-morehouse-college-class-of-2024-commencement-address-atlanta-ga/


  2. Dr. Anthony Fauci at Columbia University:

  • His speech to students about the tiny subset of the media that calls him out for his lies and complicity in the pandemic disaster. Fauci went on to tell Columbia’s Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons “During the past four years we have witnessed an alarming increase in the mischaracterization, distortion and even vilification of solid evidence-based scientific findings and of scientists themselves,”

  • Fauci is the guy who lied to the world when he said masks will stop you from getting COVID-19, and two masks are better than one.

  • Fauci lied to Americans and the world when he told us the COVID-19 shot would stop us from getting the virus or passing it on and swore that the virus didn’t come out of the Wuhan lab.

  • Fauci lied under oath to Congress and said the NIH did not fund Frankenstein's gain-of-function research. He and his underlings at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases covered up their funding of EcoHealth Alliance, which subcontracted the dangerous research to sloppy scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology where it most likely escaped and killed millions of people.

  • The day Fauci was at Columbia last week, EcoHealth finally saw its federal funding suspended for failing to adequately oversee the Chinese research. No kidding.

  • The day after Fauci’s speech, his ex-colleague, former NIH Acting Director Lawrence Tabak, contradicted him when he testified before the House Oversight Committee. Tabak said that Fauci’s outfit, NIAID, DID INDEED FUND gain-of-function research in Wuhan through EcoHealth Alliance.

  • “Sadly,” said Fauci, “elements of our society are driven by a cacophony of falsehoods, lies and conspiracy theories that get repeated often enough, that after a while, they stand largely unchallenged ominously leading to an insidious acceptance of what I call the ‘Normalization of Untruths.’ ”

  • That is what is defined clinically as “projection” practiced by sufferers of narcissistic personality disorder.



Saturday, May 18, 2024

The Radical Mega Republicans = Freed People

Unit Ten: Freed people and the Republican Party introduced the alliances and tensions between freed people and the Republican Party after emancipation. The Unit Ten educational documents listed on the left feature excerpts of various primary source documents and firsthand accounts that clarify these shifting political alliances in North and South Carolina.

The Radical Republicans were a group of politicians who formed a faction within the Republican party that lasted from the Civil War into the era of Reconstruction. They were led by Thaddeus Stevens in the House of Representatives and Charles Sumner in the Senate. 

The Radicals were known for their opposition to slavery, their efforts to ensure emancipation and civil rights for Blacks and their strong opinions on post-war Reconstruction. They were also critical of many policies of both President Abraham Lincoln and his successor, Andrew Johnson. Throughout the lifespan of the Radical Republican faction, they made enemies with Democrats, many former slave owners, the Ku Klux Klan, and often even found opposition from the moderate Republicans.

James M. Ashley, a Republican congressman from Ohio, made it clear to the crowd at Montpelier that he had violated the Fugitive Slave Law more times than he could count. He had actually begun helping slaves flee bondage in 1839 when he was just fifteen years old, and he had continued doing so after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 made the penalties much stiffer. To avoid prosecution, he and his wife fled southern Ohio in 1851. Would he now mend his ways? “Never!” he told his audience. The law was a gross violation of the teachings of Christ, and for that reason, he had never obeyed it and with “God’s help . . . never shall.”

in December 1863, Ashley thought it was indeed “necessary” to strike a deathblow against slavery. He also thought getting a few pieces of his 1861 package into law was possible. So, just after the House opened for its winter session, he introduced two measures. One was a reconstruction bill that followed, at least at first glance, what Lincoln had called for in his annual message. Like Lincoln, Ashley proposed that a seceded state be let back into the Union when only 10 percent of its 1860 voters took an oath of loyalty.

The Senate Judiciary Committee then took charge. They ignored Sumner’s cry for racial justice and worked out the bill’s final language. The wording was clear and simple: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

On April 8, 1864, the committee’s wording came before the Senate for a final vote. Although a few empty seats could be found in the men’s gallery, the women’s gallery was packed, mainly by church women who had organized a massive petition drive calling on Congress to abolish slavery. Congress for the most part had ignored their hard work. But to the women’s delight, thirty-eight senators now voted for the amendment, six against, giving the proposed amendment eight votes more than needed to meet the two-thirds requirement.

All thirty Republicans in attendance voted aye. The no votes came from two free state Democrats, Thomas A. Hendricks of Indiana and James McDougall of California, and four slave state senators: Garrett Davis and Lazarus W. Powell of Kentucky and George R. Riddle and Willard Saulsbury of Delaware. Especially irate was Saulsbury. A strong proponent of re-enslavement, he made sure that the women knew that he regarded them with contempt. In a booming voice, he told them on leaving the Senate floor that all was lost and that there was no longer any chance of ever restoring the eleven Confederate states to the Union.

Now, nine weeks later, the measure was before the House. The outcome was even worse than Ashley had anticipated. “Educated in the political school of Jefferson,” he later recalled, “I was absolutely amazed at the solid Democratic vote against the amendment on the 15th of June. To me, it looked as if the golden hour had come, when the Democratic party could, without apology, and without regret, emancipate itself from the fatal dogmas of Calhoun, and reaffirm the doctrines of Jefferson. It had always seemed to me that the great men in the Democratic party had shown a broader spirit in favour of human liberty than their political opponents. Until the domination of Mr. Calhoun and his States-rights disciples, this was undoubtedly true.”

James M. Ashley a Republican Ohio Congressman (1859-1869) and the prime sponsor of the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery. He was more radical than President Lincoln but cooperated with him to round up the House votes for the amendment's approval in January 1865.

All thanks to Ashley and the Republican congressional leadership, the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution—which banned slavery in the United States—passed the Senate in 1864 and the House in 1865; it was ratified in December 1865.

Overview and Analysis

The Republican Party’s Unit Ten (Today's Maga Party in many ways) explored the complex relationships and evolving political dynamics between freed people; the Republican Party after emancipation and the solid Democratic Party position against the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It highlights the roles of key figures, such as Radical Republicans, in shaping post-Civil War America, particularly in North and South Carolina.

Radical Republicans

The Radical Republicans were a powerful faction within the Republican Party during and after the Civil War. Led by Thaddeus Stevens in the House of Representatives and Charles Sumner in the Senate, they were staunch opponents of slavery and champions of civil rights for freed people. They played a crucial role in Reconstruction, often clashing with both Democratic opponents and more moderate Republicans, as well as Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson. The Radical Republicans, were pivotal in the fight against slavery and the pursuit of civil rights for freed people. This faction within the Republican Party was instrumental during the Civil War and Reconstruction, finding themselves at odds with Democrats, former slaveholders, the Ku Klux Klan, and even moderate Republicans.

James M. Ashley's Advocacy

James M. Ashley, an ardent abolitionist and Republican congressman from Ohio, exemplified the Republican Party’s Radical Republicans' (Mega Today) commitment to ending slavery was unwavering.  He openly defied the Fugitive Slave Law and helped slaves escape bondage from a young age and was unwavering in his belief that such laws were morally wrong. In December 1863, he introduced significant measures in Congress aimed at Reconstruction and abolition mirroring President Lincoln's vision.

Legislative Efforts and Challenges

In December 1863, Ashley pushed for decisive action against slavery, aligning his proposals with President Lincoln's vision for Reconstruction. However, the path to legislative success was fraught with challenges. The Senate Judiciary Committee, disregarding Charles Sumner's appeals for racial justice, simplified the wording of the proposed abolition amendment.

Senate and House Votes

On April 8, 1864, the Senate passed the amendment with a significant majority, thanks to the efforts of church women who had rallied for its support. However, the House vote was less favourable. Ashley expressed his disappointment at the solid Democratic opposition, which he felt contradicted the party's historical stance on human liberty.

Triumph of Passage of the Thirteenth Amendment

Despite the obstacles, Ashley and the Republican leadership persevered. Their relentless advocacy led to the eventual passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery in the United States. The Senate approved it in 1864, followed by the House in January 1865, and it was ratified in December 1865.

Foot Note:

On May 22, 1856, the "world's greatest deliberative body" became a combat zone.  In one of the most dramatic and deeply ominous moments in the Senate's entire history, Democratic Representative Preston Smith Brooks, an American slaveholder, politician and Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives from South Carolina and a strong advocate of slavery and states' rights to enforce slavery nationally entered the Senate Chamber and savagely beat Republican Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican senator into unconsciousness.

Representative Preston Brooks was Butler's South Carolina kinsman.  If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel.  Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs.  Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his "Crime Against Kansas" speech.

Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner's head.  As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself.  After a very long minute, it ended.

Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away.  Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers.  Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions.

The inspiration for this clash came three days earlier when Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican, addressed the Senate on the explosive issue of whether Kansas should be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state.  In his "Crime Against Kansas" speech, Sumner identified two Democratic senators as the principal culprits in this crime—Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina.  He characterized Douglas to his face as a "noise-some, squat, and nameless animal . . . not a proper model for an American senator."  Andrew Butler, who was not present, received more elaborate treatment.  Mocking the South Carolina senator's stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking "a mistress . . . who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean," added Sumner, "the harlot, Slavery." 

Surviving a House censure resolution, Brooks resigned, was immediately re-elected, and soon died at age 37.  Sumner recovered slowly and returned to the Senate, where he remained for another 18 years.  The nation, suffering from the breakdown of reasoned discourse that this event symbolized, tumbled onward toward the catastrophe of civil war.