Lawsuit Claims Mueller Blocked Probes Into Saudi Arabia’s Complicity in 9/11 Attacks


Mueller is crook! He committed crimes gotten away with due to his FBI affiliation and I’m certain the Dems knew this when Mueller set him as the figure head of the Trump Witch Hunt! Prosecute him!

JRH 9/10/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

MyLegalHelpUSA

Lawsuit Claims Mueller Blocked Probes Into Saudi Arabia’s Complicity in 9/11 Attacks

Former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director Robert Mueller (shown) was hailed by the mainstream media for his lengthy investigation into allegations that Russia had interfered in the United States’ electoral process. But when Mueller, as FBI director, had the opportunity to investigate Saudi Arabia’s multiple connections to the 9/11 attacks, he impeded his own agents’ investigations, covered up evidence, and even helped Saudi suspects leave the country, reported the New York Post’s Paul Sperry.

Mueller “was the master when it came to covering up the kingdom’s role in 9/11,” Sharon Premoli, who was rescued from the rubble of the World Trade Center in 2001, told Sperry.

“In October of 2001, Mueller shut down the government’s investigation after only three weeks, and then took part in the Bush [administration’s] campaign to block, obfuscate and generally stop anything about Saudi Arabia from being released,” Premoli maintained.

A…

View original post 575 more words

ILHAN CALLS FOR UN OCCUPATION OF US


Ilhan Omar demonstrates AGAIN she has no business representing ANY District in the U.S. to be a member of Congress. She actually advocates for the UN to be on the U.S. border to benefit ILLEGAL immigrants.

 

JRH 8/31/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

*********************

ILHAN CALLS FOR UN OCCUPATION OF US

 

Ilhan Omar Superimposed on Chinese Appearing UN Soldiers

 

By Timothy Benton

August 30, 2019

Ocensor

 

We have heard enough of the four, seen their responses in ways that are anti-American, but the one thing we have never stood for was the occupation of our sovereign land, not Ilhan is asking for this by the UN.

 

Make no mistake, the UN is not the friend of the US, they want all nations controlled by this entity that is not in step with the values we as Americans show, is a wasted and bloated organization, yet she wants them to come here and occupy our land, thus giving up US sovereignty over some of our territory.

 

VIDEO: Omar Wants The UN To Handle The Migrant Crisis

 

[Posted by Daily Caller News Foundation

Published on Aug 29, 2019

 

Rep Omar expressed her desire for the US border and the illegal migrant crisis to be handled by the United Nations, rather than the Federal government.]

 

In a speech Ilhan said that we should do what other nations do, call the UN High Commissioner on Refugees, to allow the UN onto our southern border and control the borders.

 

She went on to say that our border security, not allowing illegals in is a gross violation of human rights. This was the reason she felt the UN should be called, they, not us, should be in control of our border, that we should step back and allow them to dictate to us our security.

 

The question I think one should ask, how has this worked out for Europe, not with enclaves that the authorities dare not enter, where people send out morality gangs that attack women they deem are misbehaving or dressed in an immoral way, at least according to their Islamic moral beliefs.

 

Ilhan Omar

 

This does not bring up the fact that more people have joined terrorist and other radical Islamic groups around the world than anyplace else in the US than from the area that Ilhan represents, but she wants to see this expanded.

 

What is more, now we see her embroiled in a host of corruption, marriage to family to give them visa’s, affairs outside of her marriage while lecturing us on her moral superiority, we have had enough.

 

Calling for the US to give up any sovereignty over any part of our nation is treasonous, not to mention the reaction places like Texas would have towards having foreign troops on our side of the US borders, would most likely quickly escalate into a shooting conflict, yet this is what Ilhan is calling for.

 

The question we need to ask is, “Do we want Chinese, Iranian, or any other nation’s soldiers under the UN flag ever placed on our sovereign territory?” It seems once more Ilhan has shown how little she understands the US, we value our sovereignty, trying to put troops on our own land would quickly escalate to violence. We must ask ourselves, “Is this really what the ultimate aim is, to bring in forces to control us since she can’t?”

 

Ilhan Omar is the best politician that we have ever seen to promote the GOP, just listening to her is driving people over to vote for anyone but the DNC. We should be thankful for her, Rashida, and AOC, they have aided more the GOP cause then all the money spent on commercials.

 

Ilhan Omar, What Was Minnesota Thinking?

What is also amazing is how little they have changed, the party that brought us the KKK, Jim Crow Laws, Segregation is now trying to reinstitute these laws. They changed the direction of their hate from the African American population to the whites, their sheets for Antifa and Black Lives Matter Shirts.

Ilhan After Screaming Racism Introduces Bill To Support BDS

Ilhan and friends, who we have had to sit and listen to lectures about racism and their great moral resolve, now are showing their true colors. Yesterday, after screaming about Trump’s racism introduced a bill to support the radical anti-Semitic movement BDS.

Now Ilhan Omar Calls To Overthrow Trump!

Ilhan Omar, the darling of the liberal left has now gone so far as to compare Trump to a dictator and say that she is 100% sure that they remove him as they have other dictators. One has to wonder, where are the leaders of the DNC?

____________________

Ocensor HOMEPAGE

 

Sex Slaves Being Held for Ransom by Iran


How wicked evil is Muslim Iran in the 21st century? The Clarion Project has the sex-slave story.

 

JRH 8/27/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

**************************

Sex Slaves Being Held for Ransom by Iran

 

By Clarion Project

August 26, 2019

Clarion Project

 

Distraught Child Female Iran Flag Backdrop (Illustrative photo: Clarion Project/images taken from MaxPixel.net)

 

Young Yazidi sex slaves kidnapped by ISIS in Iraq are being held in Iran and are up for sale. The girls were transferred to Iran by Iranian soldiers from the Syrian city of Kobani, which was once a stronghold of ISIS.

 

According to Iraqi Yazidi activist Ali Elchansuri, there is a significant number of kidnapped Yazidi girls – and boys— being held in Iran for the last two years.

 

At present, two of the children have been positively identified. They are both girls, ages 13-14, and were kidnapped by ISIS when the terror group took over the Sinjar region in Iraq in the summer of 2014. During that siege, most of the men and older boys were killed and the women and girls — some as young as six — were taken as sex slaves. The younger boys were made into ISIS fighters.

 

Iranian officials will only release the children after they have been identified – and for a price.

 

Speaking to Sputnik News Arabic, Elchansuri said, “The source of this information asked me to come to Iran and said he would set up a meeting for me with the head of the orphanage where they are being held, and if I recognize them, I can take them. But the same source told me that his ‘friend’ will demand $20,000 for each girl – meaning $40,000 for both girls.”

 

Elchansuri said that he has recordings and pictures that prove the existence of more Yazidi children, but was not at liberty to mention to name of the area or the place where they are being held.

 

He also said that the Iranian government knows about the children. Although he declined to say specifically, it is understood that the Iranian government is also aware of their soldiers’ demands for ransom money or even that the government is behind the ransom scheme themselves.

 

Elchansuri said his people in Iraq have not been able to locate the families of these children. “We are assuming that they are missing and most likely killed. There is no one left of them,” he said.

 

Elchansuri himself doesn’t have the money to travel to Iran and pay the ransom.

 

Echoing what Clarion Project has learned from Lisa Miara, who founded and runs the Springs of Hope Foundation organization in Iraq which works to rehabilitate Yazidi survivors of ISIS, Elchansuri related that these Yazidi children have been brainwashed by ISIS, forcibly converted and have even forgotten their Yazidi language. They have no memories prior to their kidnapping.

 

Meanwhile in Syria, another Yazidi activist, Eisa Saadu, reported that a kidnapped Yazidi girl was killed by ISIS women inside the Al Hawl refugee camp in northeast Syria.

 

The girl, who was in her 20s, was beaten to death by ISIS women and their families in the camp.

 

The girl was originally kidnapped by ISIS in the Sinjar region of Iraq in August 2014 and was killed in the camp because she tried to escape.

 

The Al Hawl camp, which houses 74,000 people from 43 different countries, is known to be one of the most dangerous places in Syria, housing ISIS families – women, children and foreign male fighters — and their supporters.

 

Thrown into the camp together with them are other refugees from Syria.

 

“It is a very dangerous place,” commented Ran Meir, Clarion’s Arab affairs analyst and Shillman Fellow. “We can assume that the women in this camp have weapons and other means of death and destruction. Children parade with ISIS flags, pledging their support to this brutal terror organization.

 

“Even though ISIS has officially been defeated in Syria, ISIS controls this camp with the same brutal laws they enacted when they took over towns in Syria and Iraq. Yazidi slaves are still being held and hidden inside these camps. This Yazidi girl didn’t have a chance – her only choice was to continue living under ISIS or be killed.”

 

Watch this clip from inside the Al Hawl camp [Blog Editor: The following video is only in Arabic leaving the English speaker to only surmise by the title I derived from Google Translate the topic. All the females shown in this refugee camp wear the head to toe covering Burka or Niqab so identifying any victimized gals is impossible]:

 

VIDEO: [Google Translate] Houl camp in Syria: extremist women are threatened by more extreme women!! [Original Arabic] مخيم الهول في سوريا: نساء متطرفات يتعرضن لتهديد من نساء أشد تطرفا!!

 

[Posted by فرانس 24 / FRANCE 24 Arabic

Published on Apr 2, 2019

 

Most of the descriptive text is Arabic]

______________________

Copyright 2019 Clarion Project Inc. All Rights Reserved

 

The Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to educating both policy makers and the public about the growing phenomenon of Islamic extremism. The Clarion Project is committed to working towards safeguarding human rights for all peoples.

 

DONATE to the Clarion Project

 

Killer Pseudo-Palestinian Terrorists as Human Rights Activists?


John R. Houk

© August 8, 2019

 

As a Christian Zionist I’ve never believed the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians should get 0ne inch of the Biblically Promised Land God gave to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; then God enabled the first Jewish possession under the leadership of Moses and Joshua.

 

I realize that is a minority opinion in this world’s geopolitics. And I believe my opinion is even vilified by Left-Wing Jews globally and in Israel, more concerned about their politics than their God-given heritage.

 

Saying that, there are MUSLIMS in Congress that are supporters of Arab-Islamic terrorists calling themselves Palestinians that these Muslim members of the U.S. Congress call the indiscriminate murder (oft times butchery) of Jewish men, women and children human rights activism. I’m telling you this terrorist focus against Jews by Arabs who call themselves Palestinians make themselves undeserving of political power ANYWHERE let alone in their own fake nation that might be called Palestine.

 

Clare Lopez illustrates the picture of these Arab-Islamic-Palestinian killers centering on Congress member Rashida Tlaib.

 

JRH 8/8/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

Rashida Tlaib Glorifies Palestinian Terror While HAMAS, Iran & the PA Pay For It

 

Rashida Tlaib at her campaign headquarters in Detroit Michigan 8/7/18

 

By Clare M. Lopez

August 8, 2019

Center for Security Policy (CSP)

 

No, Representative Tlaib, when two Palestinian savages stabbed to death five members of the Jewish Fogel family in their home in 2011, including an 11-year-old, a 3-year-old, and a little baby only 3 months old, they were not “human rights activists.” That is called terrorism, even though the murderous Palestinian Authority (PA) will pay to the families of the two killers a monthly stipend of $3,200 each as long as they remain jailed in an Israeli prison.

 

What about the Palestinian savage who fatally stabbed Ari Fuld, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen, father of four and grandson of a Holocaust survivor, one day in 2018 when he was out shopping? That savage, another Palestinian from a village near Hebron, was shot by the heroic Fuld before he himself collapsed, but his family will be receiving around $400 a month from the ever-generous Palestinian Authority while he spends the rest of his life in jail. Then there was Omar al-Abed, who stabbed a Jewish father and two of his children to death and seriously injured his wife in a July 2017 attack.  The PA will be paying his family $3,120/month as a reward for that depravity.

 

These payments are nothing less than incitement to murder and terror. Thankfully, the Taylor-Force Act passed the U.S. Congress in March 2018 and will halt U.S. funding to the PA until it stops paying Palestinian killers and their families for heinous acts of pure evil. But given the depth of the hatred spewed by Palestinian terrorists and their official HAMAS and PA enablers, who vow to continue the payments anyway, that may not be enough.

 

Unfortunately, it is the Iranian-regime-funded HAMAS, PA, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)—and those who insist upon funding them through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and other programs—that poison the minds of young Palestinians from the earliest ages, teaching them that Islam holds  it  glorious to murder Jews because they are Jews, an act they are told will earn them Allah’s approval and eternal reward (on top of those payments to their families). That is called Islamic supremacy, Rep. Tlaib.

 

When a Palestinian suicide bomber detonated his shrapnel-laden explosives inside a Sbarro Pizza shop in 2001, killing mothers, fathers, and children, maybe that wasn’t terrorism either? Or when a HAMAS suicide bomber massacred 30 innocent people and injured 140 in the 2002 Passover attack at the Park Hotel in Netanya, he was just trying to promote human rights? No, the Palestinian savages responsible for those atrocities thought they were going to be shaheeds, rewarded with the 72 virgins in paradise that Islam promises to such monsters. They might even get to have a park, school, or street named after them, to inspire future generations to more such depravity.

 

Until the Palestinians, whether it’s HAMAS and PIJ in Gaza or the PA in Ramallah, stop running children’s summer camps and TV programming that teach young Palestinians genocidal Jew-hatred and provide the paramilitary training to act out that hatred, there will never be peace in the Middle East. But, although her parents were immigrants from Jerusalem and the West Bank, Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) herself was born and raised in the United States. She graduated from Detroit, Michigan public schools. We Americans obviously have some work to do right here at home: what kind of education at home, in madrassa, mosque, or public school turned out a graduate imbued with such hatred as Tlaib’s? Unless we root out the inculcation of such Jew-hatred and glorification of Islamic terror right here in the USA, there will be more like her, possibly even in the U.S. Congress.

 

Murder of innocent human beings just because they are Jews is not human rights activism, Representative Tlaib. It is a despicable crime against humanity called terrorism.

______________________

Killer Pseudo-Palestinian Terrorists as Human Rights Activists?

John R. Houk

© August 8, 2019

_____________________

Rashida Tlaib Glorifies Palestinian Terror While HAMAS, Iran & the PA Pay For It

 

Clare M. Lopez is Vice President for Research & Analysis at the Center for Security Policy.  She previously was a Senior Fellow with the Center as well as with the London Center for Policy Research, member of Sen. Ted Cruz’ 2016 presidential campaign national security advisory team, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee, and a career operations officer with the CIA. Read her complete bio here. Follow Lopez on Twitter @ClareMLopez

 

Copyright © 1988-2018 Center for Security Policy | All Rights Reserved 

 

SUPPORT CSP with a DONATION

 

ABOUT CSP

 

Democrats Protect Illegal Alien Criminals


Why do you think the Dems are so supportive of ILLEGAL Aliens invading the USA? How does such an influx of criminals by virtue of being here illegally benefit the objectives of the Democratic Party?

 

Answer: a future voting base to further transform America away from its founding roots and heritage of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness in the land of entrepreneurial opportunity.

JRH 7/17/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*******************

Democrats Protect Illegal Alien Criminals 

Open to Every Stranger Under the Sun – Disgusting and Shameful

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent  7/16/2019 8:48 PM

 

Today in America, there isn’t any other issue more dangerous to all Americans and poised to completely ruin America and tear Her asunder than the necessity of stopping the anti-American, communist inspired globalist and Democratic Party initiatives and policies, that advocate and facilitate Open Borders, free healthcare, voting rights and U.S. citizenship for ILLEGAL Aliens. America is either a nation of laws and the rule of law or it isn’t. America and Her people either stop this madness or Americans will watch as we lose our culture and our American heritage, and indeed, America as She has stood for over 200 years. [Bold Text by Blog Editor]

 

Over a year and a half ago, President Trump called for American’s to set aside their differences and “to seek out common ground, and to summon the unity we need to deliver for the people … the people we are elected to serve.”

 

I’m pretty damned certain President Trump was speaking about the American people and not the Illegal Alien invaders now attempting to force their way into the nation and even demanding entrance. There isn’t any common ground to be found today between the Democratic Party, who represents Illegal Aliens’ interests over those of actual citizens and the Conservatives of America, who are fighting to save the Republic from their Open Borders policy and their flagrant flaunting of the law.

 

Recently, in response to an ICE operation aimed at carrying out thousands of deportation orders on July 14th, some two thousand protesters gathered outside of the GEO Group’s federal immigration detention center in Aurora, Colorado on July 12th, voicing their anger over Illegal Aliens being held in “cages”, in the same manner seen in at least ten other U.S. cities over this particular weekend. In what has become all too common place a display of Anti-American sentiment, shocking and despicable nevertheless, these protesters defaced an American flag with spray painted words “Abolish ICE” and the raised it upside down and alongside the Mexican flag.

 

Flag Desecration at GEO Group Federal immigration detention center Aurora CO 7/12/19 

 

One young toddler of obvious European descent was pictured in a stroller carrying a sign that read, “Would you steal me from my mother and lock me in a Filthy Cage?”

 

They seem to have forgotten, or they simply choose to ignore, the fact that rivers of blood have been spilled under the American Flag to defend and preserve the freedom they enjoy today, as they use their “rights” to abuse the nation in such a vile, despicable and reprehensible fashion, placing their hatred for America on full display.

 

Claudia Castillo, a former U.S. Army Major and an intelligence officer, was there as a representative for the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition. She told the Denver Post that those who took part in the disrespect of the American Flag shoved her, cursed her and spit on her when she tried to stop them. Castillo said, “It was disgusting and shameful”. And many Americans agree with you Major.

 

Meanwhile, at approximately 4:00 a.m. on Saturday, July 13th, Willem Van Spronsen, an Antifa member, attacked the Northwest Detention Center, the local ICE facility in Tacoma, Washington. According to the Tacoma Police Department, Spronsen was throwing incendiary devices, setting cars ablaze, and armed with a “homemade” AR15 when they stopped him, killing him, before he could detonate the facility’s propane tank, which could have resulted in the mass murder of the facilities guards and those in detention.

 

Willem Van Spronsen Antifa terrorist killed police Tacoma WA

 

In his manifesto [Blog Editor: Manifesto text on pro-Antifa website actually eulogizing the terrorist as a hero. Can you say seeds of Civil War?], released by KIRO7, Spronsen said he wanted to make a statement at the facility, writing: “I regret that I will miss the rest of the revolution. Doing what I can to help defend my precious and wondrous people is an experience too rich to describe. I am Antifa.” If he was truly interested in defending his “precious people”, he would have been defending them against being robbed, raped and murdered by illegal aliens every day, every week and each year.

 

While Spronsen was attacking an ICE facility, New York’s Marxist Mayor Bill de Blasio was telling Illegal Aliens, “we will do everything we can to protect you.” DeBlasio and others have essentially announced that they are openly violating federal immigration laws.

 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged Illegal Aliens to resist deportation on July 11th. She suggested that they have the right to refuse to open their doors to ICE agents who try to apprehend them in any national sweep aimed at their deportation. In similar fashion, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign sent out a mass email, that said the same thing, except with a lot more detail on how to interact with ICE, and in seventeen different languages.

 

What a load of Bull Manure. It is this sort of Commie Lunacy that aids criminal Illegal Aliens over the good and decent Americans. These nuts in our society and even Congress are protecting Illegal Alien criminals.

 

Thankfully, on July 12th, acting ICE director Thomas Homan gave a compelling and emotionally charged accounting for his actions, before Congress, and put AOC in her place, when she castigated him on separating children from families, by noting that even U.S. citizens are separated from their children when they commit a crime. AOC countered that seeking asylum isn’t illegal, but was shown her error and left speechless and fumbling with her papers, when Homan stated: “if you want to seek asylum, then go to a port of entry. Do it the legal way. The Attorney General (Barr} of the United States has made that clear.”

 

https://youtu.be/BRvaqcgbx8k

 

In connection with their report on July 12th, Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirmed to the Prairie State Wire in Illinois, that Jose Rodriguez, who struck and killed Corey Cottrell on June 22nd, is an illegal alien. And, according to ICE, Rodriguez had an expedited removal order dating all the way back to April 17th 2013.

 

 Corey Cottrell (left), Jose Rodriguez (right)  

 

Breitbart reports that there are 1.7 million people from Central America and Mexico living in the United States who have been issued final deportation orders. Breitbart also noted that Illinois became a sanctuary state in 2017 and currently harbors 400,000 illegal aliens from being detained and deported. Rodriguez was even granted bail by Illinois despite his deportation order.

 

Engulfing our country with their outrageous and dangerous crap, the blood of thousands of maimed and murdered Americans is on the hands of the corrupt and criminal Congressmen and their supporters, who are obstructing good immigration law and securing our borders. Every damn day more Americans die at the hands of Illegal Aliens and Congress does nothing other than continue their protection of criminal Illegal Aliens.

 

From the first day of the 1965 Immigration Act, the law has been utilized by Democrat administrations to single-handedly alter the face of America forever, and rather than do their duty to America and the Constitution, we see political prostitutes in Congress, represent the antithesis of America’s Founding and openly defy the intelligent enforcement of more than four hundred federal statutes aimed at preventing illegal aliens, drugs and terrorists and weapons of mass destruction from crossing our borders. They have turned the nation into a flaming cauldron of cultural and ethnic differences, in the name of multiculturalism and diversity, and their efforts are resulting in the erosion and destruction of our entire Founding, through mass migrations of people with little respect or love for America’s Western and Judeo-Christian Principles, much less our Constitution.

 

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution reads: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

 

And yet, mass legal immigration into America isn’t adequate enough for the red, radical, communist Democrats, who scream “racist” at the very mention of the border wall, calling it a “monument to white supremacists”. However, anyone paying attention understands this is all theater in their fight to ensure their power and control of the U.S. government for the rest of the century.

 

Today, rather than throw America’s doors wide open forever to hordes of the Ungrateful and despite Emma Lazarus’ words, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free …”, America should take sound counsel and allow entry to only those hopeful immigrants who support our principles and Constitution and come not to subvert and overthrow our republic as aliens and enemies.

 

No nation can last forever when its borders are open to every stranger under the sun.

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism


John R. Houk

© July 11, 2019

 

After WWII the image of the United Nations was an international organization that the Allied victors would utilize to prevent another nation to pull any conquest objectives ala Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. After the war and the public emerging of atrocities committed by Nazis and the Japanese war machine populations of Western nations breathed a sigh of relief that a UN would prevent global despotic atrocities.

 

The first dent in this relief was the Communist international revolutionary agenda of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR – essentially Russia) and Communist (Red) China. Those Communist giants used their satellite vassal yet officially independent nations to fill the UN with Marxist opposition to everything Western especially to the USA.

 

The USSR and Red China in their efforts to woo global Communism began to assist Third World nations willing to be anti-Western (with anti-Americanism as the focus) in their development. Hence Communist revolutionaries began to emerge in newly independent nations formerly dominated as Western Colonies primarily of European nations.

 

The Muslim world advanced despots as monarchs and dictators who nationalized the Western control of the oil industries managed by Multinational Corporations (MNC). Islam is inherently antagonistic to all things non-Muslim inspired by Islamic revered writings.

 

The USSR tried to use this Islamic antipathy to export Communist principles to the Muslim world. However, Islam-alone brainwashing ultimately meant the Muslim despots used the USSR support to offset the power of Western supported MNCs. Essentially Muslim despots played an international game of pitting the USA and the USSR against each other to shore up their own Islamic authoritarian regimes.

 

THEN the unthinkable according to Islamic doctrine occurred. Jews abused for centuries in the West gained sympathy due to Nazi genocide resulting in a gradual reclamation of the Jewish Homeland. A homeland that had been under one form or another of Islamic control due to conquest since the mid-600s AD.

 

A Jewish Homeland is unthinkable because in intolerant doctrine, once conquered by Islam a land must remain Islamic forever. The Islamic vision of conquest domination in three opinions:

 

 

 

 

Five Stages of Islamic Conquest

The absence of Communist satellite nations due to the collapse of the USSR led to the domination of two groups in the UN: Nations dominated by Leftist Globalist Multiculturalism and Nations dominated by Islamic Thought.

 

Since I’m not really an erudite writer let’s look at some quotes relating to Leftist (perhaps Marxist) Globalist Multiculturalism (all from essays or opinions that should be read in full at your leisure):

 

The Pox of Multiculturalism; By Bruce Walker; American Thinker; 5/19/18:

 

What the left calls “multiculturalism” is actually the systematic destruction of cultures and the replacement of these cultures by a synthetic, artificial, and meaningless global culture.  When the left talks about “diversity,” it really means the crushing of differences in thought, values, and art into a sort of baby food which neither nourishes the soul or elevates the mind.

 

 

Multiculturalism is an effort to destroy culture in the name of harmonizing cultures.  It is, at best, gross globalist imperialism.  It is, at worst, the Orwellian deconstruction of all societal values and beliefs.

 

Multiculturalism: As A Tool To Divide And Conquer – The Layman’s Primer; By Louis Beam; LouisBeam.com:

 

No nation is born multicultured. Multiculturalism is an unnatural as well as unhealthy condition that can only afflict states in national decline. A multicultural state carries in it’s [sic] geneses the seeds of eventual national destruction.

All multicultural nations will be found to be in a state of political, moral, economic and social decay. Greed and corruption will characterize the government coupled with oppressive measures directed against citizens. Lies and deceit will be stock and trade of media, politicians, and educational institutions. Such are the bellwethers of a multiculturalist advent.

In modern times multiculturalism is instituted from the top down as an elitist ruling class tool used to play one or more racial or ethnic groups against another. The ensuing cultural melee serves the political designs, economic goals and power needs of elitist rulers and their sponsors. This technique was developed by Marxist ideologues who used multiculturalism in Russia to divide and conquer resistance to the institution of a communist state. The end result of their successful takeover was the murder of thirty million humans in the Soviet Union alone. Many more elsewhere.

The same internationalist cabals who sponsored Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin as the multicultural leaders of the Soviet state from their banking houses in New York, similarly sponsor the multicultural leaders of the United States, Canada, and Europe today. An interlocking network of foundations such as Ford and Carnegie, international banking empires such as Rockefeller and Rothschild, and government agencies firmly in their control work in tandem with controlled propaganda outlets such as the New York Times, CBS, and Hollywood, to promote, foster, and institute multiculturalism today. While the examples used in this essay deal primarily with the United States the same process with the same methods is being employed elsewhere. This of itself is prima facie evidence of a cabal which promotes multiculturalism as a tool to achieve its objectives.

Multiculturalism is being used as a hammer to forge the compliant people who will compose the obedient states of the New World Order. As a weapon of post modern political warfare multiculturalism has few equals, which, thus explains its use currently against all of Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Deliberate fragmentation of these nations and the resultant loss of national identity and purpose into politically disharmonious units, serves as a stepping stone to world government. And who will compose that world government? A ruling class consisting of an “economic hierarchy” that replaces the philosophy of the nineteenth century “natural hierarchy.” A force that views countries and the people that live in them first as economic targets to be exploited, and second as military targets to be defeated if they resist.

 

 

Social instability, caused by a steady erosion of standards and values, coupled with a scramble over dwindling economic opportunities by conflicting ethnic groups, produces precisely the alienation and conflict needed to implement a multicultural state. Further, the lack of common standards and values leads to personal disorganization, resulting in unsociable behavior. This is the life support system of a multicultural state. In a word: anomie.

As a political tool multiculturalism has several applications. It is used to prevent a national consensus among the electorate. The confluence of divergent life views, cultures, beliefs, religions, ethnic habits, etc. insures a swirling river of discontent upon which the multiculturalist rides. It is a perfect method of ensuring that there can never in the future be accord, unity, and a common agreed upon destiny among those ruled. Multiculturalism represents a basic form of divide and conquer, to the benefit of corrupt government and its sponsors.

Multiculturalism is likewise a financial tool used to socially and economically level a targeted population. When implemented, it becomes in fact a battle over scarce resources and shrinking economic opportunities, with government weighing in on the side of cheap labour. A continual flow of impoverished workers is insured through immigration (both legal and illegal), who by working for less compensation continually drive wages down. For the vast majority of citizens the standard of living will not increase, but rather constantly decrease.

 

As a general rule:

 

The amount of multiculturalism in any society is directly proportional to the corruption at the top of a political system and inversely proportional to national unity.

This means: multiculturalism will have succeeded in so much as the country has failed.

 

Multiculturalism can further be used as “transitional tool” to take a targeted population from one form of government to another. When a political condition of greed, massive corruption, and diversity of objective is coupled to a social condition of drugs, violence, and discontent, therein exists the perfect environment for governmental change to a system that more closely serves long term interests of ruling elitists. Seeing that both the problem and solution are provided by the same people makes the CIA’s importation of some one hundred billion dollars worth of cocaine and other drugs into the United States understandable. While at the same time explaining FBI, ATF, and other, more secretive federal government agencies involvement in domestic terrorism or its cover-up. Suddenly, that which erroneously was previously thought to be unrelated events show their common thread and purpose.

Within the deleterious milieu of multiculturalism exists the propaganda opportunity for re-education of the people into a more malleable entity. A targeted population will be shaped mentally by new forms of public education in the schools, media indoctrination, and by elitist pronouncements. Thus placed in a crucible of economic necessity and social pressure, once free citizens become despondent masses, adjusting to and accepting fundamentally changing national circumstances as a matter of expedient survival. For the reticent, conformity by force will ensue in the form of legal penalties disguised as ant-drug, anti-terrorism, or anti-hate laws. All of this leading toward what George Orwell so aptly predicted in his book 1984:

 

“Almost certainly we are moving into an age of totalitarian dictatorships. An age in which freedom of thought will be at first a deadly sin and later on a meaningless abstraction.”

A society is being spawned where those with the most unsociable behavior, deviant lifestyle, or personal failures are given the most by government. This is TRUST ME READ ENTIRE ESSAY

 

The Globalism Threat – Socialism’s New World Order; By Jeff Carlson, CFA; TheMarketsWork.com; 2/24/17:

 

 

Globalism is often clad in free trade garb but in fact there is a hindrance of free trade with globalism. Globalism, through its attempt to erase national borders (and identities), applies a broad economic brush to varying problems and economic conditions of differing regions and as a result fails by definition. Globalism tends to exacerbate economic problems rather than fixing them, and hinders free trade by distorting market responses.

Globalism initiates with talk of open borders and free trade but inevitably leads to concentrated government and centralized planning. …

 

 

Although the terms are often used interchangeably, Globalization is NOT the same as Globalism. They are very different things. Globalization is a natural economic outgrowth of trade. Globalism is a political goal – plain and simple.

 

 

Globalism differs from Capitalism in several distinct aspects. Globalism promotes globally centralized control of laws, foreign policy and monetary policy. Unlike Capitalism, Globalism inherently blends rule of law with rule of man. Globalism comes into existence through the ownership of laws. And through the ownership of law, Globalism gains ownership of nations.

 

If you refer back to Gramsci, Alinsky and the Left, you will recall I introduced several concepts – Counter Hegemony, Critical Theory and Gradualism. Antonio Gramsci created the Theory of Cultural Hegemony – the way in which nations use cultural institutions to maintain power in capitalist societies. Gramsci felt that in order to change society, the entire value systems of Societal Institutions must be overturned. This would require the introduction of an entirely new set of values and beliefs – Counter Hegemony. Gradualism – along with Critical Theory – were the processes used to achieve Counter Hegemony. Marxist/Socialist philosophers – led by the Frankfurt School – picked up where Gramsci left off and brought these ideas to America. They refined Gramsci’s Marxist ideas – they reshaped them.

 

 

If Culture is the true source of Capitalism – how do you truly change Culture? You change it by removing the identities of Culture. As Theodor Adorno stated, you create a “genuine liberal” – an individual “free of all groups, including race, family and institutions”. A Global Citizen.

 

The tool used to accomplish this goal? Political Correctness – or “same thinking”. Raymond V. Raehn put it this way; “Political Correctness seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature”. Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism – also known as multiculturalism. Political Correctness is the translation of Marxism from economic to cultural terms. And once you’ve changed the culture you can change the laws.

 

The end game of Political Correctness – its ultimate goal – is Globalism.

 

And it is here we must be careful. For Globalization has opened a pathway to Globalism. This is the very reason the two are so often presented as the same. An economic process – Globalization – has been altered and repackaged to further a goal of societal change. This is why Globalists so often dress Globalization as Globalism. Globalization is required for Globalism to become a reality. But Globalism is NOT a necessary prerequisite for Globalization.

 

 

… Just as Communists first seek to impose Socialism on their way to Communism, so do Globalists seek to turn Globalization into a stepping stone towards Globalism. Their goal is to convince citizens they are one and the same. Using Gradualism.

 

But there is a distinct difference – and an obstacle. Globalization can lead to benefits for all while still preserving the nation-state. Which means the concept of national identity stands firmly in the way of Globalism. In order to maintain national identity you must first maintain self-governance and full sovereignty. Globalism seeks to break national identity by subsuming national laws. Ultimately, preservation of national or sovereign law is the key to preventing Globalism.

 

In 1995, the Commission on Global Governance issued a report titled Our Global Neighborhood. The report advanced the view that nations are interdependent and called for a strengthened United Nations. The Commission made a standard definition of global governance stating that;

 

“Governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest…It is our firm conclusion that the United Nations must continue to play a central role in global governance.”

 

It was the U.N.’s first real published step towards World Governance. Towards Globalism.

 

 

… Of particular note is the UN’s focus and treatment of Israel. Since the creation of the UN’s Human Rights Council in 2006, there have been 121 condemnations of nations for human rights violations. Of these, 62 condemnations were of Israel. Condemnations for the rest of the world’s nations combined equaled 59.

 

Corruption, fraud and mismanagement in U.N. procurement have been ongoing since the organization’s creation.

 

 

How is “piercing the shell of state sovereignty” accomplished? It is done slowly and incrementally. It is done through division – by undermining society through created rifts. It is accomplished through the application of Political Correctness. Society is slowly fractured into divisions of class, race and gender. Sub-groups are created within these divisions to further enhance societal stress. By lessening national identity the process of usurping national sovereignty becomes easier. There is a reason why George Soros, the self-avowed billionaire globalist, funds 150 different progressive organizations through his Open Society Foundation. Groups like the ACLU, Black Lives Matter, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), Human Rights Campaign, La Raza and the Women’s March. More importantly, this is why Globalists are in favor of unlimited immigration – and the national strife and divisions it creates.

 

… THIS MAY SEEM A LONG QUOTE BUT THE ESSAY IS MUCH LONGER AND WORTHY TO BE READ

 

I used a lot of posting space to understand the influence of Leftist Globalist Multiculturalism in the United Nations. The other influence in the UN is from Muslim dominated nations committed to Islamic Thought.

 

A rational person would think or wonder: How in the world can Marxist oriented Globalist Multiculturalism and those committed to Islamic thought be on the same page?

 

The simplistic answer is both concepts seek a global New World Order by dismantling the Old World Order.

 

The Old World Order is currently dominated a Western Christian Heritage that has developed governing institutions related to various forms of Representative Democracy. For clarity: Not absolute Democracy which degenerates into mob rule which is its own form of despotism. At present, the American Republic form of governance is the best paradigm of Representative Democracy.

 

The American Republic is the ideological enemy Globalist Multiculturalism and Islamic Thought.

 

What in the essence of the traditional sovereign American Republic bugs the crap out of Islamic Thought? For brevity’s sake here is a quick (meaning not exhaustive) comparison between Islam and guarantees in the U.S. Constitution courtesy of Bill Federer at WND:

 

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion, yet Mohammad said “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57). The Quran also states in Sura 4:89 “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.”

 

The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer, ringing church bells or say anything considered “insulting to Islam.” Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs among Muslims and cannot display a cross, Christmas decorations, or the Star of David.

 

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot repair places of worship or build new ones, they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings, they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.

 

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility towards the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

 

The Second Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.

 

The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill, and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.

 

The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.

 

The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime … without due process of law,” yet Mohammad said “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).

 

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury” and the Seventh Amendment states “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting them from testifying in court against Muslims.

 

The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Quran states: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” (Sura 5:38) A woman who has been raped is also punished “with a hundred stripes.” (Sura 24:2) Women can be beaten: “If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them” (Sura 4:34). Honor killings of wives and daughters who have embarrassed their families have been reported by the United Nations in Muslim populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and increasing in Western nations.

 

The 13th Amendment states there shall be no “slavery or involuntary servitude,” yet the Quran accommodates slavery as Mohammad owned slaves.

 

The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens “equal protection of the laws,” yet the Quran does not consider Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims as equal to Muslims before the law. Referring to Jews as “the People of the Book,” Mohammad said: “They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine” (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65).

 

The 15th Amendment guarantees “the right of the citizens … to vote shall not be denied … on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” yet strict interpretation of Islamic law does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves in the place of Allah by making the laws.

 

The 16th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.” Mohammad said “Fight those who believe not in Allah … until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Sura 9:29)

 

The 18th Amendment [Blog Editor: Repealed by 21st Amendment] has some similarities with Islamic law, as “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors … for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”

 

The 19th Amendment allows women to vote, yet in strict Islamic countries women cannot vote.

 

The 21st Amendment allows for the sale of liquor, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to sell or drink wine and liquor openly. [Bold text by Blog Editor]

 

It is my humble opinion if the Globalist Multiculturalist Left and the Muslim World ended sovereignty nations, eradicated effective Representative Democracy and/or caused the demise of the American Republic; the Globalists and some kind of Muslim coalition would engage in a bloody war for global domination. You could count on genocides from both sides.

 

NOW! To the inspiration of these thoughts leading to global strife with unpredictable winners and losers. The Gatestone Institute has posted some news about how the United Nations intends to “War” on Free Speech at least as America knows it. Many UN speech restrictions have already affected Free Speech in the rest of the so-called Free World.

 

JRH 7/11/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*************************

UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

 

By Judith Bergman

July 10, 2019 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down.

 

  • Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.

 

  • Except the UN most definitely seeks to prohibit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN’s agendas. This was evident with regard to the UN Global Compact on Migration, in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should be stopped.

 

  • In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN’s action plan against hate speech doescontain a definition of what the UN considers to be “hate” and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible: “Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”. With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled “hate”.

 

  • The new action plan plays straight into the OIC’s decades-long attempts to ban criticism of Islam as ‘hate speech’. In the wake of the launch of Guterres’ action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan “to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia” at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See and the UN.

 

In January, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres commissioned “a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis,” and said that governments and institutions need “to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers…” One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech. Pictured: Antonio Guterres. (Image source: Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)

 

In January, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, tasked his Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, to “present a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis”. Speaking at a press conference about the UN’s challenges for 2019, Guterres maintained, “The biggest challenge that governments and institutions face today is to show that we care — and to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers…”

 

One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech.

 

“We need to enlist every segment of society in the battle for values that our world faces today – and, in particular, to tackle the rise of hate speech, xenophobia and intolerance. We hear troubling, hateful echoes of eras long past” Guterres said, “Poisonous views are penetrating political debates and polluting the mainstream. Let’s never forget the lessons of the 1930s. Hate speech and hate crimes are direct threats to human rights…”

 

Guterres added, “Words are not enough. We need to be effective in both asserting our universal values and in addressing the root causes of fear, mistrust, anxiety and anger. That is the key to bring people along in defence of those values that are under such grave threat today”.

 

In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down. Not only that, but — disingenuously — the UN is comparing dissent from its agendas with the rise of fascism and Nazism in the 1930s.

 

Now the action plan that Guterres spoke of in January is ready. On June 18, Guterres presented the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech:

 

“Hate speech is…an attack on tolerance, inclusion, diversity and the very essence of our human rights norms and principles,” Guterres said. He also wrote in an article on the subject, “To those who insist on using fear to divide communities, we must say: diversity is a richness, never a threat…We must never forget, after all, that each of us is an “other” to someone, somewhere”.

 

According to the action plan, “Hate is moving into the mainstream – in liberal democracies and authoritarian systems alike. And with each broken norm, the pillars of our common humanity are weakened”. The UN sees for itself a crucial role: “As a matter of principle, the United Nations must confront hate speech at every turn. Silence can signal indifference to bigotry and intolerance…”.

 

Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.

 

Except the UN most definitely seeks to limit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN’s agendas. This was evident with regard to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should be stopped.

 

Whatever constitutes intolerance, xenophobia, racism or discrimination was naturally left undefined, making the provision a convenient catchall for governments who wish to defund media that dissent from current political orthodoxy on migration.[1]

 

In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN’s action plan against hate speech does contain a definition of what the UN considers to be “hate” and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible:

 

“Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”. With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled “hate”.

 

The action plan, “aims to give to the United Nations the room and the resources to address hate speech, which poses a threat to United Nations principles, values and programmes. Measures taken will be in line with international human rights norms and standards, in particular the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The objectives are twofold: Enhance UN efforts to address root causes and drivers of hate speech [and] enable effective UN responses to the impact of hate speech on societies”.

 

The UN makes it clear in the plan that it “will implement actions at global and country level, as well as enhance internal cooperation among relevant UN entities” to fight hate speech. It considers that “Tackling hate speech is the responsibility of all – governments, societies, the private sector” and it envisages “a new generation of digital citizens, empowered to recognize, reject and stand up to hate speech”. What a brave new world.

 

In the plan, the UN sets up a number of areas of priority. Initially, the UN will “need to know more to act effectively” and it will therefore let “relevant UN entities… recognize, monitor, collect data and analyze hate speech trends”. It will also seek to “adopt a common understanding of the root causes and drivers of hate speech in order to take relevant action to best address and/or mitigate its impact”. In addition, the UN will “identify and support actors who challenge hate speech”.

 

UN entities will also “implement human rights-centred measures which aim at countering retaliatory hate speech and escalation of violence” and “promote measures to ensure that the rights of victims are upheld, and their needs addressed, including through advocacy for remedies, access to justice and psychological counselling”.

 

Disturbingly, the UN plans to put pressure directly on media and influence children through education:

 

“The UN system should establish and strengthen partnerships with new and traditional media to address hate speech narratives and promote the values of tolerance, non-discrimination, pluralism, and freedom of opinion and expression” and “take action in formal and informal education to … promote the values and skills of Global Citizenship Education, and enhance Media and Information Literacy”.

 

The UN is acutely aware that it needs to leverage strategic partnerships with an array of global and local, governmental and private actors in order to reach its goal. “The UN should establish/strengthen partnerships with relevant stakeholders, including those working in the tech industry. Most of the meaningful action against hate speech will not be taken by the UN alone, but by governments, regional and multilateral organizations, private companies, media, religious and other civil society actors” the action plan notes. “UN entities,” it adds, “should also engage private sector actors, including social media companies, on steps they can take to support UN principles and action to address and counter hate speech, encouraging partnerships between government, industry and civil society”. The UN also says that, “upon request” it will “provide support to Member States in the field of capacity building and policy development to address hate speech.”

 

The action plan also reveals that the first concrete initiative is already planned. It is an “international conference on Education for Prevention with focus on addressing and countering Hate Speech which would involve Ministers of Education”.

 

The new action plan plays straight into the decades-long attempts of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to ban criticism of Islam. In the wake of the launch of Guterres’ action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan “to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia” at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See and the UN.

 

According to news reports, the plan was proposed by Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi at a session titled “Countering terrorism and other acts of violence based on religion or belief”.

 

“A particularly alarming development is the rise of Islamophobia which represents the recent manifestation of the age-old hatred that spawned anti-Semitism, racism, apartheid and many other forms of discrimination,” the ambassador said in her speech. She added, “My Prime Minister Imran Khan has recently again called for urgent action to counter Islamophobia, which is today the most prevalent expression of racism and hatred against ‘the other'”.

 

“We are fully committed to support the UN’s strategy on hate speech,” said the Pakistani ambassador, “This is a moment for all of us to come together to reverse the tide of hate and bigotry that threatens to undermine social solidarity and peaceful co-existence.”

 

In 2017, Facebook’s Vice President of Public Policy, Joel Kaplan, reportedly agreed to requests from Pakistan’s Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan, to “remove fake accounts and explicit, hateful and provocative material that incites violence and terrorism” because “the entire Muslim Ummah was greatly disturbed and has serious concerns over the misuse of social media platforms to propagate blasphemous content”.

 

At the UN, Pakistan’s Ambassador Lodhi called for government interventions to fight hate speech, including national legislation, and reportedly “called for framing a more focused strategy to deal with the various expressions of Islamophobia. A ‘whole of government’ and a ‘whole of society’ approach was needed. In this regard, the Pakistani envoy urged the secretary-general to engage with a wide range of actors, including governments, civil society and social media companies to take action and stop social media users being funneled into online sources of radicalization”.

 

The UN’s all-out war on free speech is on.

 

Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

 

NOTES:

 

[1] According to Objective 17 of the UN Global Compact on migration, member states commit to: “Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media.” [Emphasis added.]

____________________

The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism

John R. Houk

© July 11, 2019

___________________

UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

 

© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor: Permission was not acquired to cross post. Upon request the cross post will be removed.]

 

 

If There Is a Neocon Warning – Pay Attention


John R. Houk

© June 26, 2019

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) in conjunction with the Think Tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has put together a report measuring Russia’s potential threat to American interests today.

 

In the Bush II Presidential years the AEI had a Neoconservative reputation in its policy advocacy. In this day and age Neocons are pretty much castigated by the American Left and American Right.

 

On a personal level I have been an admirer of Neoconservatism’s American Exceptionalism and a Foreign Policy based on military strength. Traditional Conservatives (sometimes called Paleocons) view this kind of aggressive Foreign Policy as a Big Government budget destroyer. There are those the American Left would label as the racist Right who castigate Neocons as ex-Communist Jews that can’t be trusted.

 

There is a large amount of truth to the “ex-Communist” association since a large number of early Neocon proponents were indeed Communists or at least Marxist sympathizers, BUT these rebels against Communism woke up to the ideological failures. Socialism (and yes this includes National Socialism aka Nazism) and varieties of Marxism have led to much of history’s oppressive regimes and the genocide of huge groups of human beings.

 

However, to label a “Communist” a “Jew” is a bit of an oxymoron. Communists are anti-religion atheists by nature and a good Jew practices the religious faith of Judaism. It is true there are people of a Jewish heritage that have repudiated the religious tenets of Judaism and embraced Marxist-Communist ideology. If one embraces Communism one rejects religion. That would make a Jew who became a Communist an ex-Jew. Incidentally, a person of Christian heritage, Islamic heritage, Buddhist heritage or any religious heritage who embraces Communism have rejected their religious heritage and have become an ex-whatever heritage.

 

Condemning all Jews because a few rejected their religious heritage should logically lead to the same condemnation of other people rejecting their religious heritage. I doubt Jew-haters follow that logic since one rarely hears the label that all Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. are evil because a few accept atheistic One World Government Communism. Hence the hypocrisy of hating Jews because of Communism is just plain racism. (Muslims hate Jews because their revered writings tell them to hate Jews [Percentages]. That’s a whole different kind of racism. One sees that kind of racism among idiot Christians who believe all Jews are responsible for killing Jesus when it was a secret night tribunal of Jewish leaders fearing a rebellion would displace status among their Roman overlords. Human fear and jealousy got Jesus Crucified. God’s love Resurrected the Son of God which offers Saving Redemption to ALL who Believe in the Risen Savior – to the Jew first then to the non-Jew.)

 

The American Left deride the Neocons’ American Exceptionalism as nationalistic anti-globalist rejectors of Socialism/Marxism.

 

Have Neocons made mistakes? DEFINITELY! The principle of nation-building based on American Republic Representative-Democracy only works in cultures amenable to the Western heritage. This unfortunate discovery became evident in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those cultures have been brainwashed into Islamic thought for too long for the populace to understand let alone accept Western Representative Democracy.

 

When Neocons have a warning about Russia in relation to American National Interests and National Security the benefit of the USA is what is in mind.

 

JRH 6/26/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

**********************

CONFRONTING THE RUSSIAN CHALLENGE

 

Russian Soldier

 

By Frederick W. KaganNataliya Bugayova, and Jennifer Cafarella

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (PDF)

Institute for the Study of War

[Institute for the Study of War (ISW) and Critical Threats Project (CTP) at the American Enterprise Institute]

June 2019

 

Russia poses a significant threat to the United States and its allies for which the West is not ready.  The West must act urgently to meet this threat without exaggerating it.  Russia today does not have the military strength of the Soviet Union. It is a poor state with an economy roughly the size of Canada’s, a population less than half that of the U.S., and demographic trends indicating that it will lose strength over time.  It is not a conventional military near-peer nor will it become so.  Its unconventional warfare and information operations pose daunting but not insuperable challenges.  The U.S. and its allies must develop a coherent global approach to meeting and transcending the Russian challenge.

 

[Download the full report here and the Executive Summary here.]

 

The Russian Threat

 

President Vladimir Putin has invaded two of his neighbors, Georgia and Ukraine, partly to stop them from aligning with NATO and the West.  He has also illegally annexed territory from both those states. He has established a military base in the eastern Mediterranean that he uses to interfere with, shape, and restrict the operations of the U.S. and the anti-ISIS coalition.  He has given cover to Bashar al Assad’s use of chemical weapons, and Russian agents have used military-grade chemical weapons in assassination attempts in Great Britain.  Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons, even in regional and local conflicts. And Moscow has interfered in elections and domestic political discourse in the U.S. and Europe.

 

The Russian threat’s effectiveness results mainly from the West’s weaknesses.  NATO’s European members are not meeting their full commitments to the alliance to maintain the fighting power needed to deter and defeat the emerging challenge from Moscow. Increasing political polarization and the erosion of trust by Western peoples in their governments creates vulnerabilities that the Kremlin has adroitly exploited.

 

Moscow’s success in manipulating Western perceptions of and reactions to its activities has fueled the development of an approach to warfare that the West finds difficult to understand, let alone counter.  Shaping the information space is the primary effort to which Russian military operations, even conventional military operations, are frequently subordinated in this way of war.  Russia obfuscates its activities and confuses the discussion so that many people throw up their hands and say simply, “Who knows if the Russians really did that?  Who knows if it was legal?”—thus paralyzing the West’s responses.

 

Putin’s Program

 

Putin is not simply an opportunistic predator.  Putin and the major institutions of the Russian Federation have a program as coherent as that of any Western leader.  Putin enunciates his objectives in major speeches, and his ministers generate detailed formal expositions of Russia’s military and diplomatic aims and its efforts and the methods and resources it uses to pursue them.  These statements cohere with the actions of Russian officials and military units on the ground.  The common perception that he is opportunistic arises from the way that the Kremlin sets conditions to achieve these objectives in advance. Putin closely monitors the domestic and international situation and decides to execute plans when and if conditions require and favor the Kremlin. The aims of Russian policy can be distilled into the following:

 

Domestic Objectives

 

Putin is an autocrat who seeks to retain control of his state and the succession.  He seeks to keep his power circle content, maintain his own popularity, suppress domestic political opposition in the name of blocking a “color revolution” he falsely accuses the West of preparing, and expand the Russian economy.

 

Putin has not fixed the economy, which remains corrupt, inefficient, and dependent on petrochemical and mineral exports.  He has focused instead on ending the international sanctions regime to obtain the cash, expertise, and technology he needs.  Information operations and hybrid warfare undertakings in Europe are heavily aimed at this objective.

 

External Objectives

 

Putin’s foreign policy aims are clear: end American dominance and the “unipolar” world order, restore “multipolarity,” and reestablish Russia as a global power and broker.  He identifies NATO as an adversary and a threat and seeks to negate it.  He aims to break Western unity, establish Russian suzerainty over the former Soviet States, and regain a global footprint.

 

Putin works to break Western unity by invalidating the collective defense provision of the North Atlantic Treaty (Article 5), weakening the European Union, and destroying the faith of Western societies in their governments.

 

He is reestablishing a global military footprint similar in extent the Soviet Union’s, but with different aims. He is neither advancing an ideology, nor establishing bases from which to project conventional military power on a large scale.  He aims rather to constrain and shape America’s actions using small numbers of troops and agents along with advanced anti-air and anti-shipping systems.

 

Recommendations

 

A sound U.S. grand strategic approach to Russia:

 

  • Aims to achieve core American national security objectives positively rather than to react defensively to Russian actions;

 

  • Holistically addresses all U.S. interests globally as they relate to Russia rather than considering them theater-by-theater;

 

  • Does not trade core American national security interests in one theater for those in another, or sacrifice one vital interest for another;

 

  • Achieves American objectives by means short of war if at all possible;

 

  • Deters nuclear war, the use of any nuclear weapons, and other Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD);

 

  • Accepts the risk of conventional conflict with Russia while seeking to avoid it and to control escalation, while also ensuring that American forces will prevail at any escalation level;

 

  • Contests Russian information operations and hybrid warfare undertakings; and

 

  • Extends American protection and deterrence to U.S. allies in NATO and outside of NATO.

 

Such an approach involves four principal lines of effort.

 

Constrain Putin’s Resources.  Russia uses hybrid warfare approaches because of its relative poverty and inability to field large and modern military systems that could challenge the U.S. and NATO symmetrically.  Lifting or reducing the current sanctions regime or otherwise facilitating Russia’s access to wealth and technology could give Putin the resources he needs to mount a much more significant conventional threat—an aim he had been pursuing in the early 2000s when high oil prices and no sanctions made it seem possible.

 

Disrupt Hybrid Operations.  Identifying, exposing, and disrupting hybrid operations is a feasible, if difficult, undertaking.  New structures in the U.S. military, State Department, and possibly National Security Council Staff are likely needed to:

 

  1. Coordinate efforts to identify and understand hybrid operations in preparation and underway;

 

  1. Develop recommendations for action against hybrid operations that the U.S. government has identified but are not yet publicly known;

 

  1. Respond to the unexpected third-party exposure of hybrid operations whether the U.S. government knew about the operations or not;

 

  1. Identify in advance the specific campaign and strategic objectives that should be pursued when the U.S. government deliberately exposes a particular hybrid operation or when third parties expose hybrid operations of a certain type in a certain area;

 

  1. Shape the U.S. government response, particularly in the information space, to drive the blowback effects of the exposure of a particular hybrid operation toward achieving those identified objectives; and

 

  1. Learn lessons from past and current counter-hybrid operations undertakings, improve techniques, and prepare for future evolutions of Russian approaches in coordination with allies and partners.

 

The U.S. should also develop a counter-information operations approach that uses only truth against Russian narratives aimed at sowing discord within the West and at undermining the legitimacy of Western governments.

 

Delegitimize Putin as a Mediator and Convener.  Recognition as one of the poles of a multipolar world order is vital to Putin.  It is part of the greatness he promises the Russian people in return for taking their liberty.  Getting a “seat at the table” of Western-led endeavors is insufficient for him because he seeks to transform the international system fundamentally.  He finds the very language of being offered a seat at the West’s table patronizing.

 

He has gained much more legitimacy as an international partner in Syria and Ukraine than his behavior warrants.  He benefits from the continuous desire of Western leaders to believe that Moscow will help them out of their own problems if only it is approached in the right way.

 

The U.S. and its allies must instead recognize that Putin is a self-declared adversary who seeks to weaken, divide, and harm them—never to strengthen or help them.  He has made clear in word and deed that his interests are antithetical to the West’s.  The West should therefore stop treating him as a potential partner, but instead require him to demonstrate that he can and will act to advance rather than damage the West’s interests before engaging with him at high levels.

 

The West must not trade interests in one region for Putin’s help in another, even if there is reason to believe that he would actually be helpful.  Those working on American policy in Syria and the Levant must recognize that the U.S. cannot afford to subordinate its global Russia policy to pursue limited interests, however important, within the Middle East.  Recognizing Putin as a mediator or convener in Syria—to constrain Iran’s activities in the south of that country, for example—is too high a price tag to pay for undermining a coherent global approach to the Russian threat.  Granting him credibility in that role there enhances his credibility in his self-proclaimed role as a mediator rather than belligerent in Ukraine.  The tradeoff of interests is unacceptable.

 

Nor should the U.S. engage with Putin about Ukraine until he has committed publicly in word and deed to what should be the minimum non-negotiable Western demand—the recognition of the full sovereignty of all the former Soviet states, specifically including Ukraine, in their borders as of the dates of their admission as independent countries to the United Nations, and the formal renunciation (including the repealing of relevant Russian legislation) of any right to interfere in the internal affairs of those states.

 

Defend NATO.  The increased Russian threat requires increased efforts to defend NATO against both conventional and hybrid threats.  All NATO members must meet their commitments to defense spending targets—and should be prepared to go beyond those commitments to field the forces necessary to defend themselves and other alliance members.  The Russian base in Syria poses a threat to Western operations in the Middle East that are essential to protecting our own citizens and security against terrorist threats and Iran.  Neither the U.S. nor NATO is postured to protect the Mediterranean or fight for access to the Middle East through the eastern Mediterranean. NATO must now prepare to field and deploy additional forces to ensure that it can win that fight.

 

The West should also remove as much ambiguity as possible from the NATO commitment to defend member states threatened by hybrid warfare.  The 2018 Brussels Declaration affirming the alliance’s intention to defend member states attacked by hybrid warfare was a good start.  The U.S. and other NATO states with stronger militaries should go further by declaring that they will come to the aid of a member state attacked by conventional or hybrid means regardless of whether Article 5 is formally activated, creating a pre-emptive coalition of the willing to deter Russian aggression.

 

Bilateral Negotiations.  Recognizing that Russia is a self-defined adversary and threat does not preclude direct negotiations.  The U.S. negotiated several arms control treaties with the Soviet Union and has negotiated with other self-defined enemies as well.  It should retain open channels of communication and a willingness to work together with Russia on bilateral areas in which real and verifiable agreement is possible, even while refusing to grant legitimacy to Russian intervention in conflicts beyond its borders.  Such areas could include strategic nuclear weapons, cyber operations, interference in elections, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty, and other matters related to direct Russo-American tensions and concerns.  There is little likelihood of any negotiation yielding fruit at this point, but there is no need to refuse to talk with Russia on these and similar issues in hopes of laying the groundwork for more successful discussions in the future.

 

READ THE FULL REPORT HERE.

________________________

If There Is a Neocon Warning – Pay Attention

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2019

_______________________

CONFRONTING THE RUSSIAN CHALLENGE

 

1400 16th Street NW, Suite 515 Washington, DC 20036
ph. (202) 293-5550


©2007 – 2019 THE INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF WAR