Connect with us

Videos

Is Israel an Apartheid state? A South African explains…

Published

on

It’s shocking and surprising how many college students subscribe to the BDS movement, and who believe Israel is an “apartheid state” that treats its Arab population as second-class citizens.

Though the 60-plus year “Palestinian problem” continued to vex Israel, it’s not for lack of effort to solve it on Israel’s part. But within the Jewish state, is there truly “apartheid” like existed in South Africa? South African human rights activist Olga Moshoe offers her explanation in a PragerU video.

As for Israel, a place Moshoe has visited often, she said:

“To call it an apartheid state is not only an insult to the only democracy in the Middle East and the only country with equal rights for all its minorities, it’s also an insult to the actual victims of apartheid — like my parents and all those who suffered under it.”

This leaves the question: what does the BDS movement want? Moshoe quotes its co-founder:

“We oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. … Ending the occupation doesn’t mean anything if it doesn’t mean upending the Jewish state itself.”

That seems clear enough. BDS is about destroying Israel, not about equality for Israeli Arabs, because Israeli Arabs already have equality.

Videos

President Trump expresses extreme discontent with Russian investigation

Published

on

President Trump expresses extreme discontent with Russian investigation

Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference of the 2016 election has struck nerves in President Trump off and on for a year. The last couple of days, those nerves have been tweaked to the point that the President is lashing out harder than he ever has before.

Has anything changed? Is this a release of pent up agitation he didn’t want to voice before the midterm elections? Is Mueller getting closer to finding something? At this point, we really have no idea. All we know for sure is the President isn’t happy and even Fox News panelists are starting to scratch their heads.

Is this investigation a farce? Probably. Is it helping the President to lash out on Twitter? Probably not. The only resolution will come when the Mueller investigation wraps up and the President can Tweet his vindication all the way to reelection in 2020.

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

State Department denies claims MBS involved in Khashoggi killing

Published

on

State Department denies claims MBS involved in Khashoggi killing

Yesterday, reports were flying across the news wire that the CIA had concluded Saudi Crown Prince and de facto ruler Mohammed bin Salman was involved in the killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The State Department issued a statement today denying the claim, stating no conclusion has been reached.

My Take

This is a lie. The State Department has seen and heard the mountains of evidence. The various cover stories put forth by the Saudi government have been hollow and debunked. They aren’t investigating further. They’re simply buying time and hoping other stories will help sweep this one under the rug.

Either MBS is so incompetent and disrespected that members of his own team went behind his back to murder someone, or he gave the order. The fact that Saudi Arabia wants us to buy the “rogue killer” is absolutely pitiful.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Intellectual ammunition, part 3: Armed with logic and a mistake by SCOTUS

Published

on

By

Intellectual ammunition part 3 Armed with logic and a mistake by SCOTUS

Is nuclear annihilation less of a threat than purchasing a lower parts kit?

In the third part of a multipart series, Gardner Goldsmith @gardgoldsmith of MRCTV addresses the issues surrounding Liberty Control, destroying some of the prevalent mythologies in the process.

Which is more intimidating: purchasing an inanimate object or the threat of gun confiscation?

In the beginning of the video, he asks the very pertinent question:

“Who engages in threats of gun violence, the civilian who owns, or attempts to own, a firearm, or the civilian or politician intent on passing ‘gun control’ statutes?”

Which is quite an interesting point in light of the comments from Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) who wants the government to make gun owners an offer they can’t refuse on their freedom. Rejecting said offer could see them and millions of other die in a thermonuclear style gun confiscation.

That threat being just the latest of the long list of over 70 instances of Leftists demanding gun confiscation. Note that number could easily be doubled or tripled if one were to account for the number of times those demands were syndicated or excerpted in other publications.

The video details the point that it is the people wanting to impose controls on freedom that are threatening violence – up to and including nuclear genocide. But perhaps if one if of the Liberty grabber set on the Left it’s possible that someone having a scary looking rifle is far more of an issue than the wiping out of an area via nuclear incineration with fallout contaminating everything down wind.

The illogic of so-called ‘Gun-free’ zones.

Further on he addresses question of whether the passage of more and more restrictions on freedom and setting up ‘gun-free’ zones keep people safe? Consider the scenario he proposes in how a mass murderer might select is his target:

And what of the idea that, practically, passing gun statutes will make areas safer? In Part One of this series, we looked at the real-world numbers on that question, but here is a logical argument to pose to gun-grabbers.

Suppose you are in a paintball game. You have a paintball gun, and you will win $10,000 if you enter one of three houses and, in five minutes, hit ten people with pellets. If you get hit by a pellet, you will have to pay $200,000… There are forty people in each house. In House One, you know that there is no one with a paintball gun. In House Two, you know that there are a few people with paintball guns, and in House Three, you know that there are many, many people with paintball guns.

Which house would you choose?

The answer is obvious. Let’s not be foolish about pretending that we would choose anything other than House One.

The logic of self-protection through firearm possession and use is irrefutable. The statistics of it are clear. The history of despots disarming citizens prior to destroying their lives is also clear, as is the history of what the Founders thought when they wrote the Second Amendment.

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report