Posted on 07/01/2012 2:50:38 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
The U.S. Senate recently passed a precedential decision regarding refugees, UNRWA and the Palestinian Arabs....
.....
This paradox is known to anyone who has eyes in his head. It has many causes. One is the strange definition of an UNRWA refugee as those who: “... were in the territory of Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948 and lost both their homes and livelihoods as a result of the Arab- Israeli conflict.” But over time their descendants also came into the framework, and strangely enough, and contrary to the definition, those who were not needy in the first place, and even those whobecame wealthy later were still considered refugees. As a result, the number of “refugees” is rising over the years in a somewhat exponential and strange manner.
Against this background, in recent months, MK Dr. Einat Wilf worked, in cooperation with AIPAC, to influence the primary source of funding for UNRWA - the United States. The result is the "Kirk Amendment," named after the Republican senator Mark Kirk. His amendment would require the State Department to report what is the actual remaining number of original refugees, answering to the definition that appears in the origina mandate of UNRWA. It is estimated at only 30,000.
There is something odd about Kirk’s amendment, because the Amendment does not demand a cut in aid or a change in criteria. These are reporting requirements only - a report on the number of original refugees, and a report on the number of descendants. But reports on the amendment made it clear that it is a first step towards a more fundamental change. Following the report, the question would naturally arise - why should taxpayers pay for those who are not really refugees?
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
...The result is the "Kirk Amendment," named after the Republican senator Mark Kirk. His amendment would require the State Department to report what is the actual remaining number of original refugees, answering to the definition that appears in the original mandate of UNRWA. It is estimated at only 30,000. There is something odd about [Senator] Kirk's amendment, because the Amendment does not demand a cut in aid or a change in criteria. These are reporting requirements only -- a report on the number of original refugees, and a report on the number of descendants. But reports on the amendment made it clear that it is a first step towards a more fundamental change. Following the report, the question would naturally arise -- why should taxpayers pay for those who are not really refugees?Watch for the "Kirk is a RINO" drumbeat start among the false flag FReepers -- it will happen, it's only a matter of time, and this amendment will be the reason.
?????????????????????????????
Rightly or wrongly, people have been attacking Kirk as a "RINO" for a while now -- you can find a story from 5 years ago, before he got involved in any of this refugee stuff.
If there were something sketchy in his background support for this sort of thing is an easy and painless way of shoring up his support without making any real changes.
Whether his critics are right or wrong, you do them an injustice.
Uh, no.
Kirk was called a RINO years ago, then nothin’ — did he *stop* being a RINO?
IOW, I stand by my original statement.
He got elected. You can find Kirk-RINO stories here from 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011. Enough people found that an accurate description.
Now that Mark Kirk is actually in the Senate, most of the votes are party line so he hasn't done much to offend people.
But if you think somebody here calling him a RINO has more to do with the Middle East than with abortion or cap-and-trade, you are uninformed or imperceptive or unfair.
No, actually, I am not any of those things.
Maybe when he fell ill? Mark Kirk had a serious stroke, which doesn't leave him likely to say or do many RINO things.
I'm not aware that anybody's called him a RINO since the stroke or since this legislation was proposed, however strongly they may have felt about his earlier liberal record.
People here have been nice that way. What they say in the future will have more to do with abortion or climate change than with anything in the Middle East.
Kirk's liberal opponents are wondering about this refugee legislation that was apparently drafted when he was at a rehabilitation center, though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.