“Occupation” or “Colonization”?

why do the so-called armchair Zionist critics always try to legitimise the apartheid and genocide actions of the Israeli carpetbaggers? I am always called an antisemite by one ZIONIST BLOG whenever I mention Israel, then decried with vitriolic language, their sensitivity is getting to the extreme their aim is to have total control, censorship of thought word or deed. Believe me, his posts often contain statements directed against your good self.

لماذا غزة؟ Why Gaza?

Professor and historian Ilan Pappe is well-respected and condemned at the same time. He’s one of the new historians who has brought to light the ugly truth of the Zionists’ cleansing and colonization of Palestine.  His book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, is a must read for anyone who truly wants to learn about the history of Israel / Palestine.

Unfortunately, I must disagree with Professor Pappe’s current call to jettison the term “occupation” in favor of “colonization”.  Listen to his explanation here.

He’s absolutely correct …. an occupation should be considered a short-term, temporary state of affairs, and Israel’s 50-year occupation of Palestine has far-exceeded the limits of a lawful occupation.

But jettisoning the term “occupation” is not the answer. Under international law, the occupier has responsibilities and duties to those subjected to his occupation. Under international law, the victims of occupation have rights and claims against the…

View original post 291 more words

Brexit, law firms, PR, lobbying and the communication ‘dark arts’ political hires

Politics and Insights


Media Intelligence Partners’ lobbying aims.

Dark arts.” “Peddling.” “Salacious.” These are just a handful of terms the media has used to describe campaign, ‘corporate research’ and ‘strategic communications’. Even the lighter description “opposition” doesn’t quite capture what companies like Cambridge Analytica do. 

The Cambridge Analytica scandal has highlighted that the power and dominance of the Silicon Valley – Google and Facebook and a handful of very wealthy individuals – are at the centre of the global tectonic shift we are currently witnessing, as democracies are increasingly being stage-managed by those who can afford the props and scripts. In a way, it was inevitable that sooner or later, politics would be reduced to branding and ‘market competition’, and that political outcomes would become aligned with neoliberal outcomes. 

Surveillance strategies and targeted marketing also include the use of biometrics. The private company Endless gain, for example, use biometrics and psychology…

View original post 4,068 more words

UK Jewish MP: Israel acting like Nazis in Gaza – YouTube

what do Zionist Jews hate the most? answer other regular upstanding Jews . Yes all Jews are not zionists not extreme secular groups, just regular NORMAL people. They have opinions and a moral attitude. They know THAT ISRAEL has grown and stolen the land and culture of the country that was once Palestine and the Zionist objective is to create greater Israel in the middle east. To erase everything that existed that was Palestine, the land the people, the culture.

The regular non-zionist jews do not want or wish for this to happen, they want at the very least to co-exist peacefully with Palestinian people in a country that is Palestine. ONE UNIFIED STATE OR TWO. Return the land that is stolen, free the Palestinians, LIVE NOT IN AN APARTIED STATE WHERE GENOCIDE ETHNIC CLEANSING IS BEING PRACTISED, PERFORMED, THE FINAL SOLUTION BEING TO ERASE THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH. These Jewish people only want peace unity and well being.

listen to the words of a Jewish  UK MP -“ISRAEL ACTING LIKE NAZIS IN GAZA”.


YOU WILL ATTACK me NOT THE JEWS THAT HATE THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF ZIONISM. THE JEWISH MOVEMENT AGAINST ZIONISM AND THE RETURN OF PALESTINE IS LARGE AND DIVERSE. You cannot call them anti-semitic they are the Jewish people the majority of the world population of Jewish people are not ZIONISTS.





Government U-turn over anti-terror law used to deport migrants | UK news | The Guardian

Government U-turn over anti-terror law used to deport migrantsSection of Immigration Act to be reviewed after misuse of clause saw highly skilled migrants forced from UKAmelia Hill @byameliahillTue 29 May 2018 21.22 BST Last modified on Wed 30 May 2018 08.16 BST Use of the section 322(5) clause by the Home Office has been condemned as ‘truly wicked’ and ‘an abuse of power’. Photograph: Oli Scarff/Getty Images

The government has agreed to stop deporting people under an immigration rule designed to tackle terrorism and those judged to be a threat to national security pending a review, after the Guardian highlighted numerous cases in which the power was being misused.The news came as the home secretary, Sajid Javid, admitted on Tuesday that at least 19 highly skilled migrants had been forced to leave the country under the rule.A review of the controversial section 322(5) of the Immigration Act was announced in a letter to the home affairs select committee.A life ‘completely destroyed’ by one paragraph of immigration law Read moreJavid said one person had been issued with a visa to return to the UK as a result of ongoing inquiries. He also said that all applications for leave to remain that could potentially be refused under the section have been put on hold pending the findings of the review, which is due to be completed by the end the month.Javid’s letter to the home affairs select committee also admitted that the Home Office’s use of the clause – condemned as “truly wicked” and “an abuse of power” by MPs and experts – could have spread to other applications, including that of any migrant applying for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) who might have been asked to submit evidence of earnings.

At least 1,000 highly skilled migrants seeking indefinite leave to remain in the UK are facing deportation under the section of the act.The high-tax paying applicants – including teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers and IT professionals – have been refused ILR after being accused of lying in their applications for making minor and legal amendments to their tax records.The controversial paragraph comes with devastating conditions. Migrants, some who have lived here for a decade or more and have British-born children, immediately become ineligible for any other UK visa. Many are given just 14 days to leave the UK while others are allowed to stay and fight their cases but not to work.

Home Office faces pressure over deportation of highly skilled migrants Read moreIn addition, those deported under the terrorism-associated paragraph will have that permanently marked on their passports, making it highly unlikely they will ever get a visa to visit or work anywhere else in the world.In one case exposed by the Guardian the applicant’s tax returns were scrutinised by three different appeal courts who had found no evidence of any irregularities.Other cases included a former Ministry of Defence mechanical engineer who is now destitute, a former NHS manager currently £30,000 in debt, thanks to Home Office costs and legal fees, who spends her nights fully dressed, sitting in her front room with a suitcase in case enforcement teams arrive to deport her, and a scientist working on the development of anti-cancer drugs who is now unable to work, rent or access the NHS.

The same figures were nevertheless used as the basis for a refusal because of basic tax errors allegedly made by the Home Office itself.Commenting on the home secretary’s letter, the Labour MP Yvette Cooper, chair of the committee, said: “We’ve heard of a series of cases of highly skilled workers, employed in our -public services and senior jobs legally for many years, now being told to leave apparently due to minor tax errors.“So it is welcome that the home secretary is now reviewing all those cases and putting decisions on hold.”

At least 1,000 highly skilled migrants wrongly face deportation, experts reveal Read moreA group of about 20 MPs and a member of the House of Lords have establish separate pressure groups to persuade the Home Office to stop deporting highly skilled migrants under the terms of the section.The home affairs select committee highlighted the issue after questioning Caroline Nokes, the immigration minister, about it in early May.

A few days later, they publicly accused the Home Office of being unfit for purpose and guilty of “shambolic incompetence” after the Guardian found letters written by Nokes that appeared to contradict her claim that she had only recently learned of the Home Office’s use of the section.

Source: Government U-turn over anti-terror law used to deport migrants | UK news | The Guardian


“One sad day Theresa May dies. Her soul arrives in heaven and she is met by St.Peter at the Pearly Gates.Welcome to Heaven,” says St. Peter. “Before you settle in, it seems there’s a problem. We seldom see a Conservative here and we’re not sure what to do with you.””No problem, just let me in; I’m a believer.” says May.”I’d like to just let you in, but I have orders from the Man Himself. He says you have to spend one day in Hell and one day in Heaven. Then you must choose where you’ll live for eternity.””But, I’ve already made up my mind; I want to be in Heaven.””I’m sorry, but we have our rules.”And with that, St. Peter escorts her to an elevator and she goes down, down, down, all the way to Hell.

The doors open and she finds himself in the middle of a lush country house garden. Standing in front of it her dad…and thousands of other Conservatives who had helped her out over the years……. The whole of the “Right” was there…everyone laughing…happy…. casually but expensively dressed.They run to greet her, hug her, and reminisce about the good times they had getting rich at expense of the “suckers and plebs”. They play a friendly game of croquet and then dine on lobster and caviar.The Devil himself comes up to May with a frosty drink, “Have aMargarita and relax, Theresa!””Uh, I can’t drink any more, I’m watching my weight” says May, dejectedly.”This is Hell, Theresa: you can drink and eat all you want and not worry, and it just gets better from there!”May takes the drink and finds herself liking the Devil, who she thinks is a really very friendly guy who tells funny jokes and pulls hilarious nasty pranks. kind of like an Oxford undergrad.They are having such a great time that, before she realizes it, it’s time to go. Everyone gives her a big hug and waves as May steps on the elevator and heads upward.

When the elevator door reopens, she is in Heaven again and St. Peter is waiting for her. “Now it’s time to visit Heaven,” the old man says, opening the gate.So for 24 hours May is made to chill with a bunch of honest, good-natured people who enjoy each other’s company, talk about things other than money, and treat each other decently. Not a nasty prank or mean joke among them; no fancy country seats and, while the food tastes great, it’s not caviar or lobster, and these people are all poor. She doesn’t see anybody she knows, and she isn’t even treated like someone special!Worst of all, to May, Jesus turns out to be some kind of Jewish hippie with his endless ‘peace’ and ‘do unto others’ stuff.

“Whoa,” she says uncomfortably to herself, “Margaret never prepared me for this!”The day done, St. Peter returns and says, “Well, then, you’ve spent a day in Hell and a day in Heaven. Now choose where you want to live for eternity.”With the ‘Jeopardy’ theme playing softly in the background, Mayreflects for a minute, then answers:”Well, I would never have thought I’d say this — I mean, Heaven has been delightful and all –but I really think I belong in Hell with my friends.”So Saint Peter escorts her to the elevator and she goes down, down, down, all the way to Hell.

The doors of the elevator open and she is in the middle of a barren scorched earth covered with garbage and toxic industrial waste. She is horrified to see all of her friends, dressed in rags and chained together, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags. They are groaning and moaning in pain, faces and hands black with grime.The Devil comes over to May and puts an arm around her shoulder.”I don’t understand,” stammers a shocked May, “Yesterday I was here and there was a country house and we ate lobster andcaviar…drank cocktails. We lounged around and had a great time. Now there’s just a wasteland full of garbage and everybody looks miserable!

“The Devil looks at her, smiles slyly, and purrs, “Yesterday we were campaigning; today you voted for us.”

Source: We Support Jeremy Corbyn


If Roseanne Barr was fired for saying racist things, why do Americans still employ Donald Trump? 

If Roseanne Barr was fired for saying racist things, why do Americans still employ Donald Trump?

For ABC, the decision to dump Barr was based on American values of equality and tolerance. For Trump, there’s somehow a different standard Trump.ABC did the right thing Tuesday when it canceled the “Roseanne” show after its star, Roseanne Barr, described former Obama administration official Valerie Jarrett as the product of a union between the “Muslim Brotherhood and Planet of the Apes.”As someone noted when Carl Paladino, who co-chaired Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in New York, compared Michelle Obama to a gorilla, even the Ku Klux Klan is more subtle than that.There’s nothing complicated about this kind of racism. Barr was comparing Jarrett, who is African-American, to an ape — and also suggesting Jarrett is a terrorist.

It wasn’t the first time Barr had done something like that. In 2013, Barr compared Susan Rice, another African-American former Obama administration official, to an ape.There has been some (vague) suggestion that ABC’s actions infringe on Barr’s right to freedom of speech. It’s worth noting why there is no free speech issue here — and what was really at stake when Barr tweeted out her racist slur.

As a legal concept, the First Amendment applies only to government action, although we may value free speech as a norm in other contexts. In other words, by definition, only the government is legally capable of violating someone’s right to free speech.

ABC, as a private entity, cannot do so. In fact, in some cases, ABC (like other employers) could be legally required to punish racist speech in the workplace because of anti-discrimination laws.It’s unlikely that ABC would have faced any legal jeopardy if it had done nothing about a tweet not directed at any of Barr’s co-workers. But it is very likely ABC would have faced consequences from angry members of the public if it had failed to take action.There’s nothing wrong with that — from a legal standpoint or otherwise.

ABC, as an employer, generally has the right to choose whom it employs (with some exceptions; for instance, it cannot refuse to hire people because of their race or sex). No one can, or should, be able to force ABC to employ a racist. Among other things, doing so could be bad for business.That principle, of course, applies in other contexts.

When comedian Kathy Griffin grotesquely and offensively displayed a replica of Donald Trump’s bloody, severed head for a photo shoot, she suffered a number of canceled shows. Private employers don’t owe Barr or Griffin a job, and are not required to put up with offensive speech by those they employ. (If Barr or Griffin were criminally prosecuted by the government, that would be a different story and would indeed implicate First Amendment protections.)

Cherished valuesABC took action not because it was legally required to do so, but because it understands how Barr’s racism was understood by the majority of Americans. We have made a decision as a society that racism is something worthy of condemnation — as reflected in amendments added to the Constitution after the Civil War and in ordinary laws passed by federal, state and local legislators.

Those principles are often applied, by choice, outside of a legal or governmental setting. Even though the law does not require action, deeply rooted social principles move most of us to recognize that racism, such as Barr’s, is simply out of bounds.That is, of course, no coincidence. There was a time when white Americans could compare African-Americans and other people of color to animals with impunity. In fact, racism was the law of the land, both during the hundreds of years when human beings were held as slaves and in the hundred years after the Civil War when Jim Crow laws enforced an apartheid system in many parts of the United States (not only the South).

This isn’t about being holier than thou. As I have acknowledged, and I fully include myself, it’s essential not to shrink from the racism inside all of us. Most of us would never use Barr’s outrageous terms, but even more subtle racism is also dangerous.Trump’s racismFor instance, while Donald Trump never compared Barack Obama to an animal, he did — as Barr did with Jarrett — suggest Obama might be a terrorist. And Trump, of course, launched his national political career on the wings of the “birther” lie that Obama, the nation’s first black president, was not a real American.After ABC canceled “Roseanne,” Matthew Miller quipped that: “You just can’t expect to say blatantly racist stuff and expect to keep your job

Source: If Roseanne Barr was fired for saying racist things, why do Americans still employ Donald Trump? – MarketWatch

TJ-My opinion for what it is worth is if you are a supporter of TRUMP AND YOU BELIEVE HE IS A GOOD PRESIDENT NAY THE BEST PRESIDENT. YOU BY ASSOCIATION ARE A RACIST, WHITE SUPREMACIST, BIGOT AND As president, Trump has suggested that Nigerians live in huts, while describing Haiti and countries in Africa as “shitholes.” He defended white supremacists who marched with torches and chanted anti-Semitic slogans as “some very fine people.”

You cannot cherry pick  and ignore these facts , WHO IS THE ANTI-SEMITIC JEW HATER NOW .WELL DONALD TRUMP SURE AS HELL IS.