10 thoughts on “What difference does it make?”

  1. The Question ….
    Why can’t we do that? Why can’t we revoke citizenship for Shorty, Milne, KRudd, SHY, G-Lard and all the rest?

    I thought it was called EXPULSION or “EXPULSION”

    And another concept ….
    Have them forfeit their Political entitlements and repay all benefits already received as compensation for the VERY BAD Financial Governance they oversaw and were responsible for !

    And that is – NOT just a thought – NOT just a request – but a demand !

    Plus the lead photo
    – just “the best” Schrillary Photo – ever !

  2. I thought it was called EXPULSION or “EXPULSION”
    (Meaning it is up to them as to where they go – but they have to go)

  3. @John Daniel,

    I believe there is a UN dictate that forbids forcing one’s countrymen into exile, thus your own can no longer be expelled.

    But. unwanted guests in your country from somewhere else is another story.

  4. @Hill
    Always excuses ….
    Through necessity
    Withdraw from the irrelevant 57 islam (Arab) Block controlled UN

    Irrespective – what is needed is
    Remove the Dhimmi Politicians and Politicals
    Then – Expulsion Expulsion Expulsion – with prior sterilisation.
    [and – my tag is john Daniel. (period) with a lower case ‘j’]

  5. Correction for above “Submit” ….
    “Remove the Dhimmi Politicians and Politicals”

    should be ….
    “Remove the Criminal(Assistors/Enablers/Traitors/Seditionists) Politicians and Politicals.”

    Dhimmi defined ….
    Non-Muhammadan “Assistors and Enablers of islam” who are living in the West are not Dhimmis – they are quite simply Assistors/Enablers of islam and Traitors/Seditionists of their own Countries and civilisations.

    A Dhimmi is a historical term referring to non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

    My apologies for the incorrect use of the term ‘Dhimmi’.

  6. @John Daniel,

    Hmm…excuses? Not from me. As I have stated previously on this site, the UN is a farce and no longer has any credibility.

    I do not agree with the UN law on exile. I believe that a country has a right to self determination, thus meaning that said country has the right to expel their treasonous citizens (Hello, George Sorso!) or those that are criminals of foreign nationality.

    Exile is not the UN’s business and goes beyond their remit IMHO. Better to exile their unwanted citizens than execute, which would also have the UN up in arms. Full disclosure, I make this statement as the living progeny of family that were exiled from the old Soviet Union, although it was done in absentia.

    Lastly, a perfect example of this quagmire is the example of modern Britain, thanks to the pernicious Blairs-Tony and his predatory wife, Cherie. She pushed (and profited) for and he created the 1998 Human Rights Act that has allowed criminals and terrorists to fight being kicked out of the country citing the 98 Human Rights law, using tax payer money to pay for their legal defense; as seen in the case of the vile Omar Bakri, which has cost the tax payers millions and millions of pounds.

    It should not cost the people millions of pounds or take years to kick out terrorists or the criminally unwanted people, especially those who do not belong their in the first place.

  7. Hill:
    – Saddened to hear of your families history.

    The UN is an Arab (Group of 57 islmic Countries) controlled “World Arbiter” who always vote in a “BLOCK” to enhance islam.
    The UN should always be ignored by the West when islam is presented favourably in any agreement.

    [and – my tag is john Daniel. (period) with a lower case ‘j’]

  8. First and foremost john Daniel., apologies for the error in your name.

    “The UN should always be ignored by the West when islam is presented favourably in any agreement.”

    Agreed. If this corrupt version of the UN, ever puts boots on the ground in the US, that is them finished.

Comments are closed.