Blog Archives

Culture Assimilation Matters – Ask Geert


Red-BHO- Change U Will Feel

John R. Houk

© December 10, 3014

 

In America this is an ethical argument between Leftists and Conservatives on how to deal with illegal aliens slipping across the southern border in droves. Leftists are dedicated to the concepts involved with diverse multiculturalism. Conservatives are dedicated to the concepts of maintaining the core values and heritage that have made America an exceptional nation, the freest nation in the world and the nation which foreign nationals desire to move into seeking a better life than existed in their homeland.

 

The irony is Leftists would agree with the immigrants looking for a better life in America. The problem is diverse multiculturalism enables immigrants to subscribe to the legal and social traditions of the homeland they are escaping from. In the mind of Conservatives this is a problem because the refusal to assimilate to the American culture that extols the language and history dilutes that which America exceptional and great.

 

The largest amount of ILLEGAL immigrants to the USA today tend to be Hispanic Latin Americans. The traditions brought to Latin America come primarily from Spain which has a heritage of authoritarian elites subjugating the less fortunate as laborers that benefit those elites.

 Caution Undocumented Dems

 

Here is an excerpt that explains Latin America’s heritage (in full disclosure if read entirely blames in part “North America” [meaning USA] and European interference):

 

 

… Latin America’s problems resulted from the Spanish colonial system that had offered native-born whites little opportunity or responsibility in government. The tradition of autocracy and paternalism was a poor precedent for would-be democratic republics. The emphasis on executive power inspired presidents, generals, landowners, and church officials to wield authority with arrogant disregard for public opinion and representative government.

The colonial economic system, based on raw materials rather than industry, encouraged concentration of land and other forms of wealth in a few hands. The church with its vast properties, monopoly on education and welfare agencies, and command over cultural life complicated the politics of every new nation.

In addition, the new states were cursed by problems associated with the wars of independence. Some of the most productive areas were devastated. Hatred and division remained. Many men who had fought the royalists remained armed, predisposed to a life of violence and pillage and likely to group themselves about the caudillos, who promised adventure or profit in revolutions.

 

The final problem facing the new states was that of racial disunity. In 1825 there were from 15 to 18 million people in the former Spanish empire. About 3 million of them were whites, the wealthiest and most educated population. That figure remained constant until the last third of the century, when immigration from Europe in[c]reased drastically. There were about the same number of mestizos, who scorned the Indians, but were not accepted by whites. Their numbers steadily increased, as did their ambition. During the nineteenth century at least half of the population in some states was Indian. Deprived of the small protection once offered by the Spanish crown, they either sank into peonage or lived in semi-independence under their tribal rulers. Finally, in Brazil and most of the Caribbean island, blacks were in a large majority. Conflicts of interest quickly developed between these broad racial groups, particularly between the Creoles and the mestizos. The pernicious effects of these divisive factors can be seen in the experiences of each nation.

Mexico

Despite its promising beginning in 1821, Mexico suffered a … (Latin America: Establishment of Latin American States; By Allen Pikermen; International World History Project; 2002)

 

The heritage of the United States of America as brought over from the English monarchy are quite different. Future Americans came to the New World to specifically find a life better than existed in their homeland. Those non-English colonials that came had to do so under the authorization of the English Crown. So even those earliest immigrants to North America that came from non-English but European roots still owed their legal-economic foundations derived from English law.

 

Here is an excerpt that a quick search on my part demonstrates (I could probably find a better source but I was in a hurry):

 

 

… The ideas and practices that led to the development of the American democratic republic owe a debt to the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome, the Protestant Reformation, and Gutenberg’s printing press. But the Enlightenment of 17th-century Europe had the most immediate impact on the framers of the United States Constitution.

 

The Philosophes

 

Europeans of the 17th century no longer lived in the “darkness” of the Middle Ages. Ocean voyages had put them in touch with many world civilizations, and trade had created a prosperous middle class. The Protestant Reformation encouraged free thinkers to question the practices of the Catholic Church, and the printing press spread the new ideas relatively quickly and easily. The time was ripe for the philosophes, scholars who promoted democracy and justice through discussions of individual liberty and equality.

 

One of the first philosophes was Thomas Hobbes, an Englishman who concluded in his famous book, Leviathan, that people are incapable of ruling themselves, primarily because humans are naturally self-centered and quarrelsome and need the iron fist of a strong leader. Later philosophes, like Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau were more optimistic about democracy. Their ideas encouraged the questioning of absolute monarchs, like the Bourbon family that ruled France. Montesquieu suggested a separation of powers into branches of government not unlike the system Americans would later adopt. They found eager students who later became the founders of the American government.

 

John Locke

 

The single most important influence that shaped the founding of the United States comes from John Locke, a 17th century Englishman who redefined the nature of government. Although he agreed with Hobbes regarding the self-interested nature of humans, he was much more optimistic about their ability to use reason to avoid tyranny. … According to Locke, a ruler gains authority through the consent of the governed. The duty of that government is to protect the natural rights of the people, which Locke believed to include life, liberty, and property. If the government should fail to protect these rights, its citizens would have the right to overthrow that government. …

 

Important English Documents

 

Ironically, the English political system provided the grist for the revolt of its own American colonies. For many centuries English monarchs had allowed restrictions to be placed on their ultimate power. The Magna Carta, written in 1215, established the kernel of limited government, or the belief that the monarch’s rule was not absolute. …

 

The Petition of Right (1628) extended the rights of “commoners” to have a voice in the government. The English Bill of Rights (1688) guaranteed free elections and rights for citizens accused of crime. …

 

The foundations of American government lie squarely in the 17th and 18th century European Enlightenment. The American founders were well versed in the writings of the philosophes, whose ideas influenced the shaping of the new country. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, and others took the brave steps of creating a government based on the Enlightenment values of liberty, equality, and a new form of justice. More than 200 years later, that government is still intact. (2. Foundations of American Government; ushistory.org – American Government; © 1995-2014 by the Independence Hall Association, a nonprofit organization in Philadelphia, PA founded in 1942. Publishing electronically as ushistory.org.; online since July 4, 1995.)

 

The largest problem I have with the excerpt above is that nearly ignores the influence of Christianity on the Founding of the USA. It is typical in this day and age to bend to Left Wing humanist interpretations of history which is more often critical of Christianity than supportive of the great faith’s influence not only in America but Western culture at large in general.

 

It is my opinion that the Left has acquired the keys that disseminate education in the USA which is not a good thing for Christians. The Christian Right the best defender of the faith in the 21st century has reacted by perhaps overemphasizing Christianity’s influence of the Founding Fathers. In turn the Left has reacted by overemphasizing the non-Christian influences amplified in the above excerpt. I like the middle ground taken by Mark David Hall, Ph.D. written in 2011. Dr. Hall explains why the far Left and the Christian Right are both wrong on a limited basis. Yes the influences of the great Philosophes were paramount to the Founding Fathers, YET every single Founding Father (even Jefferson and Madison) and the majority of the new USA’s voting enfranchised citizens attributed their social foundations to Christianity especially as they governed their individual lives by morality. Even the most deist of the Founding Fathers believed that without Christian ethics and morality, government would fall into chaos or tyranny. Read Dr. Hall’s essay entitled “Did America Have a Christian Founding?

 

Ergo it is my assertion that that the Left’s political motivation in encouraging open borders to a Latin American culture will ultimately lead to a dilution of the American culture that has made our nation exceptional and free. Immigrants must be welcomed into America but not at the cost of American culture. Immigrants must assimilate! Sure immigrants can honor their heritage by maintaining their memories on an individual basis. However, to maintain the American culture the maintenance of the American version of the English language is a paramount stepping stone for assimilation.

 

This leads me to an emerging multicultural immigration problem. That problem is the willingness of our government (largely under the tutelage of the Obama Administration) to bring foreign born Muslims to the USA. Before the Left Wing multiculturalists and Muslim apologists scream Islamophobe racist, I actually believe individuals that idiotically choose to worship an antichrist religion like Islam should be free to do so according to the First Amendment of the Constitution.

 

The thing is that Muslims that revere Allah, Islamic holy writings and the religion’s false prophet Mohammed WILL BE INTENT to refuse assimilation into American culture.

 

Islam’s Sharia Law is absolutely contradictory to the Liberty and Freedom inherent in the U.S. Constitution. Most adherents to any religion have supremacist ideals about their faith. I know I do pertaining to Christianity. HOWEVER the Islamic faith supremacists requires the blood of all humanity that refuse to submit to Islam or insults Islam (including its crazy prophet).

 

Any foreign culture that develops an ideology among individuals living in or outside the USA that rejects assimilation into American culture and our constitutional government is a threat to the USA remaining free with individual rights and liberty.

 

It’s bad enough that illegal Latin American aliens are coming to America just as much to send money back to their homelands while enjoying taxpayer supported programs, it is worse to take in legal immigrants that have no intention to assimilate but rather to overthrow the Constitution and replace it with Sharia Law.

 

Those Muslims that identify the Quran and Mohammed as perfect and that people must be in submission to Islam are individuals that have the imperative to bring down our Constitution and culture of Freedom and Liberty. If those particular Muslims tell you differently they are either intentionally lying or are unintentionally self-deceived. Allah commands Muslims to eradicate or reduce the non-believers of Islam to a cruel second class citizenship of obeying the rules of Sharia (or else!).

 

This is as evil as when the old Soviet Union cultivated American Communists to use the American system to bring down America or a few radicalized self-starting Communists acting as anarchists (cough can you say Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrnfriends to Obama) to bring down the Constitution and the American heritage.

 

These thoughts are largely inspired by some Geert Wilders information posted by the Gatestone Institute. In case you don’t know who Wilders is, he became known to me largely through a mini-documentary entitled “Fitna”. Wilders takes the title from the same Arabic word that means “a state of trouble or chaos”. “Fitna” is roughly about 16 minutes long and worth the view. The tiny documentary caused quite a stir in the Western World and in Muslim dominated nations. Wilders’ home nation of Netherlands even prosecuted him for hate speech when the documentary is actually truth speech. The Netherlands prosecution lost.

 

Lo and behold the Leftist government of the Netherlands is once again going after Geert Wilders’ free speech rights by interrogating him about a speech encouraging his Dutch constituents (he is a member of whatever the Netherlands calls a Parliament) to support legislation that limits the immigration of Moroccan Muslims who refuse assimilation into Dutch culture.

 

Under heavy pressure by the Dutch left, national government, and the North African immigrants themselves for a rallying cry where Wilders asked a campaign-stop crowd in The Hague if they wanted ‘more Moroccans  or ‘less Morrocans’ in Holland (followed by predictably raucous cheers for the latter), the Dutch politician is fighting back and -per usual- speaking his mind…

 

With the new left-leaning government in charge, they now have the top public prosecutor attempting to build a case against Geert for ‘hate speech’, asking the the (sic) police to retain and question him, etc.

 

But of course, as a man of deep thought and clear logic, he says things for a reason- Wilders had no trouble explaining himself, and even issued a public statement. As is his manner, the Dutch Freedom Party leader didn’t back down a millimeter… while offering an eloquent defense of his position.

 

Some highlights:

 

·         I name the problems that I see…. That is my duty. That is why I have been elected. I rely on objective facts and figures….
Because they are the truth.

 

·         I do not intend to hurt or offend people, either

 

·         In my fight for freedom and against the Islamization of the Netherlands, I will never let anyone silence me. No matter the cost, no matter by READ THE REST (Geert Wilders in Interrogation by State Police: ‘I have yet to meet the Dutchman who wants more Moroccans in the Netherlands…’; By The Reaganite Republic; 12/10/14)

 

Geert Wilders has made a statement about the interrogation according to what I have read was released while being subjected to the police questioning. I discovered through Google Wilders’ statement is all over the web but I am going with the Gatestone Institute version.

 

JRH 12/10/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Statement of Geert Wilders during His Interrogation by the State Police

 

By Geert Wilders

December 9, 2014 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

As a democratically elected politician I name the problems that I see…. That is my duty. That is why I have been elected. I rely on objective facts and figures…. Because they are the truth.

 

I do not intend to hurt or offend people either… Already for over 10 years, I have lost my personal freedom.

 

In my fight for freedom and against the Islamization of the Netherlands, I will never let anyone silence me. No matter the cost, no matter by whom, whatever the consequences may be.

 

To speak with the words of Martin Luther King: “I close by saying there is nothing greater in all the world than freedom. It’s worth going to jail for. It’s worth losing a job for. It’s worth dying for.”

 

The Hague, December 8, 2014.

 

Today, Dutch parliamentarian and PVV leader Geert Wilders made a statement during his interrogation by the Dutch State Police. The State Police interrogated Mr Wilders on behalf of the Dutch Public Prosecutor, who is considering to prosecute Mr Wilders because the politician had asked his voters during the election campaign whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.

 

Our freedom is being threatened. Threatened by a violent totalitarian ideology – Islam – that brings with it death and devastation. Threatened by a politically correct elite that does not tolerate criticism of Islam and mass immigration, and that nurtures cultural relativism.

 

I rise up against this.

 

As a democratically elected politician I name the problems that I see. I name the dangers and disadvantages that we experience in the Netherlands as a result of cultural relativism, mass immigration and the ongoing Islamization. That is my task. That is my duty. That is why I have been elected. That is the reason why I am in politics and why I founded the Party for Freedom (PVV).

 

I am fighting for a better Netherlands.
To preserve our own culture.
Our own identity.
Our safety.
Our freedom.

 

I do not discriminate. I do not spread hatred, nor do I incite to it. I do not intend to hurt or offend people either. However, I do not mince my words when I defend our established freedoms and name the dangers to our society.

 

I dedicate my life to the fight against this evil ideology and the defense of our liberties. Every day, I pay the price for this fight. Already for over ten years, I have lost my personal freedom.

 

During the past 10 years, I have drawn attention to the Moroccan problem which we have here in the Netherlands. These include serious problems with integration, crime and welfare dependency. The majority of the jihadis travelling from the Netherlands to Syria is Moroccan. In order to see the whole context, the contents of the attachments that I deposit with you here today must be taken into consideration.

I rely on objective facts and figures. Facts that I must name. Because they are the truth. If we had had the same problem in the Netherlands with Canadians, I would have named them.

 

Those who do not understand that we have an enormous problem with Islam and with Moroccans in the Netherlands, though seeing, they do not see, and though hearing, they do not hear.

 

For the reasons above, while on campaign in The Hague, I argued that there need to be fewer Moroccans. And, at an election meeting in The Hague, I asked those present a number of questions, one of which was “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?”

 

Geert Wilders 3-2014 speech- 'Do you want more or fewer Moroccans'

Geert Wilders during his March 2014 speech, where he asked “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?” (Image source: nos.nl video screenshot)

 

 

Indeed, I want fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands for the reasons and context that I have previously expressed in this statement as well as in Parliament and for which I refer you to the documents that I now deposit.

 

I have yet to meet the Dutchman who wants more Moroccans in the Netherlands. Asking for fewer Moroccans is something totally different than if I were to want all Moroccans to leave the Netherlands or than if I were to object to every Moroccan.

 

Like me, 43% of all the Dutch and 95% of my supporters want fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. I have said what millions of Dutchmen think.

 

I also want less Islam in the Netherlands.

 

And like me, 65% of all the Dutch and 100% of my supporters think that the Islamic culture does not belong to the Netherlands.


Since the establishment of the PVV, I have advocated fewer immigrants from Islamic countries.


Since the establishment of the PVV, I have identified the Moroccan problem and presented (democratic) solutions for it, such as:

 

·         limiting the immigration of people from Islamic countries, hence also Morocco

 

·         promoting the voluntary remigration of non-Western foreigners, hence also Moroccans

 

·         expelling criminals with dual nationality after denaturalization, hence also Moroccans. Since Moroccans living in the Netherlands are significantly overrepresented in crime statistics and often have dual citizenship, this would also lead to fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.

 

I do not retract anything of what I have said.

 

Because I have said nothing wrong.

 

In my fight for freedom and against the Islamization of the Netherlands, I will never let anyone silence me. No matter the cost, no matter by whom, whatever the consequences may be.

 

To speak with the words of Martin Luther King: “I close by saying there is nothing greater in all the world than freedom. It’s worth going to jail for. It’s worth losing a job for. It’s worth dying for.”

 

For these above reasons, I assume that the Public Prosecutor will decide not to prosecute me.


Any other decision cannot be interpreted otherwise than politically motivated.

 

Geert Wilders

_________________________

Culture Assimilation Matters – Ask Geert

John R. Houk

© December 10, 3014

_________________________

Statement of Geert Wilders during His Interrogation by the State Police

 

Copyright © 2014 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved.

Human Rights Denied in the Name of Human Rights


HRC on Free Speech Punishment

 

Apparently Canada is growing closer and closer to the EU rule of law paradigm of punishing Free Speech that is truthful in its criticism of Islam due to the Left thinking of multicultural diversity. Elsa Schieder continues her report on the issue which follows her report on Canadian Free Speech persecution of Ezra Levant.

 

(To my fellow Americans: In case you are unaware I’m letting you know that Canada is officially a bi-lingual nation. Both English and French are the official languages of Canada. This largely due to Britain conquering French Canada in the 1700s from France. French Canadians have proudly retained their culture primarily in the Province of Quebec. This explains the French references used by Elsa that Canada is currently dealing with.)

 

JRH 12/8/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Human Rights Denied in the Name of Human Rights

 

By Elsa Schieder

Sent: 12/7/2014 8:42 PM

World Truth Summit Update

 

Last week I wrote about a judgment, in Canada, against Ezra Levant.

 

This week, there’s the threat of another attack on freedom of speech in Canada. It’s from the “commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse” – the commission of human rights and youth rights. A nice name. But the head of the commission is proposing legislation to further curb freedom of speech. There’s already lots of legislation in place. The additional legislation would go further: one could make a complaint even if one isn’t any particular victim and can’t show that any particular person has been hurt. (In French, “on n’a pas besoin d’être une victime particularisée et de le démontrer.”)

 

For those of you who speak French, here’s a link, including to an interview with the head of the commission:

 

http://www.postedeveille.ca/2014/12/commission-des-droits-liberte-dexpression.html

***[Blog Editor: I posting the Google Translation to the French in the above link. There is a video which I am not including largely because I do not speak French. If you speak French and wish to listen, you’ll have to use the above link.]

 

I listened to the interview and once more felt: the world has gone upside down. “Anything you say may be used against you.” Watch out!

 

As usual, there’s no indication that, if the legislation goes through, those making the charges will need to pay anything, even if charges are shown to be frivolous, ungrounded, or even malicious. On the other hand, those defending themselves against charges will need to pay.

 

“Oh Canada, glorious and free.” Those words are part of the Canadian national anthem. Not appropriate with the legislation which is already in place, and even less appropriate with the proposed further legislation against freedom of speech.

 

 

Then, in case any of you should feel like wishing someone else Merry Christmas, here is Islamic cleric Abu Musaab Akkar:

 

“Saying ‘Merry Christmas’ is worse than fornication, drinking alcohol, and killing someone.”

 

His comments are available in many places, including:

 

http://shoebat.com/2014/12/04/according-muslim-saying-merry-christmas-worse-committing-murder/ 

 

Of course, according to the politically correct, all cultures are equal (including the one of the above cleric) and who are we to judge? It seems we are to ignore that the cleric is judging that saying Merry Christmas is worse than killing someone. But perhaps, in the weird world of the politically correct, the cleric is somehow entitled to judge, while for some inexplicable reason, we are not.

 

What do we do? How to show the absurdity of such opinions? Lots of us are trying to figure out the answers.

 

Here’s a politically correct guide to opinions about kittens. It starts:

 

All kittens are equal.

All kittens are not equal.

All opinions about

kittens are equal.

One must not judge

opinions about kittens.

Who are we to judge

if all kittens are equal?

Except Israeli kittens …

http://elsasblog.com/logical-fallacy-in-politically-correct-thinking.html

 

I will end with Professor Emeritus Joan Wiggins on politically correct people vs. human rights people.

 

But first, now or later, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and whatever else you may enjoy celebrating.

 

All the best,

 

Elsa

 

Promo Photo Joan Wiggins

Joan Wiggins - PC vs Pro-Human Rights promo

 

___________________

***[Blog Editor: Here is the Google Translation to English of the link http://www.postedeveille.ca/2014/12/commission-des-droits-liberte-dexpression.html.]

 

Towards a ban on criticizing Islam in Quebec?

12/04/2014

Poste de veille [Post standby]

 

After two terrorist attacks, the Quebec Human Rights Commission proposes to limit the freedom of expression. One comes to believe that terrorism is an effective weapon: freedom back, and Sharia advance.

 

However, the Islamists should avoid too excited because censorship can be a double-edged weapon.

 

The Premier of Quebec Philippe Couillard announced recently the formation of a group of representatives of the Muslim community to “fight against youth radicalization and the rise of Islamophobia.”

 

As part of the fight against Islamophobia, President of the Commission on Human Rights of Quebec, Jacques Frémont, recommends * to add to the Charter of Rights a new provision that would prohibit “public incitement to hatred “to groups protected against discrimination. However, criticism of Islam is equated with “hate speech” by Islamists.

 

In an interview with Radio-Canada, Jacques Frémont   justified the relevance of limiting freedom of expression, relying in particular on the teachings of the Supreme Court of Canada on a case to be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States, and on the UN Recommendations:

 

This new provision “would allow victims including about hate crimes and making complaints, and possibly receive compensation, if any.

 

“With Article 10.1 of the Charter, which recognizes the right to equality without discrimination or harassment, “it is necessary that the injury is personal and individual, that is to say, it needs to be a victim who comes and who demonstrates the victim, she was assigned, and is entitled to damages, and then section 10.1 is used for this purpose.

 

“Now it is clear that with the new provision we offer, such as when there is a web site that raves, which has about the hatred of incentives in relation to particular groups, think of Muslim groups we saw some of the sites currently no sufficient interest to be present with us and make the request. With the new provision, then, there is a way for us to investigate (ourselves, even if there is no person who shows up) and for a person who, for example, if the site web is Muslim, and it was a francophone Quebec person francophone Quebec person could come forward and make a complaint. “

 

The new provision “is much more general public incitement to hatred on a prohibited ground of discrimination. So you do not need to be a victim and particularized to demonstrate. “

 

“What we propose is a remedy that does not currently exist. If we had been complaints over anti-Muslim websites, for example (as we had in), we must reject the current situation – whereas now, if we had this provision there could accept them and move forward. “

 

“It is clear that what is being proposed, it has to be attached to discrimination, harassment and exploitation. These are the three criteria. “

 

“We, it was inspired by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, because ultimately, it is the freedom of expression that is in question. And as human rights commission, freedom of expression is very important, so it should not restrict unduly. But the Supreme Court tells us that in cases of discrimination, harassment or exploitation, we can move forward. It is legitimate and what is legitimate for the provinces to act in that field. “

 

“There is a recommendation of the United Nations General Assembly, the High Commissioner of the United Nations Human Rights, which is exactly in the same direction. And from what I understand in dispatches in the newspapers, even the Supreme Court of the United States, now when we speak, is ready to challenge for First Amendment when it comes to hate speech.

 

“In other words, there is a movement across the world is to respond to that hate speech of this kind are not acceptable in any society whatsoever.

 

“It’s when you have about generals, hateful general, incitement to hatred, etc. where there no casualties particularized, the group in general who is a victim – – that’s what we aim by this provision.”

 

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

 

Mr. Frémont refers to the case of William Whatcott (judgment of 27 February 2013), a Christian from Saskatchewan who had distributed pamphlets disparaging homosexuality, and was convicted of incitement to hatred of homosexuals.

 

Mario Roy had spoken in an editorial in La Presse in 2011, before the Supreme Court rendered its judgment. Roy placed the lawsuit against Whatcott in the context of the arrival in Montreal at the invitation of a Muslim student association at Concordia University, Muslim preachers known for advocating the criminalization of homosexuality.

 

If the Charter of Rights is changed according to the terms described by Mr. Fremont, homosexuals will be available to the new provisions against this type of preachers and those who invite them (student associations, mosques, etc.). The favorable Islamist censorship could see that this is a double edged sword.

 

Case to be heard by the US Supreme Court

 

The cause to which referred Mr. Frémont is Anthony Elonis case, which at first sight seems somewhat related to proposed amendments to the Charter of Rights. CBC summarizes well the cause:

 

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States has heard the arguments of both parties in the case of Anthony Elonis, a resident of Pennsylvania, which was found to have threatened to kill his ex-wife.

 

The man had displayed particular, on Facebook, a “poem” particularly violent in the place of his former wife. (… )

 

The Supreme Court must now determine whether these publications Mr. Elonis are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression.

 

UN Recommendation

 

When Mr. Frémont speaks of a recommendation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights along the lines of a limit on freedom of expression, it refers to the Istanbul Process, which is nothing but a result of the continuous efforts of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) for over ten years in order to prohibit “defamation of religions” in international law. This is a modern version of blasphemy.

 

In analyzing the “Istanbul Process”, a perverse process, Nina Shea reports on the conference held in Washington with the OIC in order to implement UN resolutions on the pretext to fight “religious intolerance” threaten to lead to the suppression of any criticism of Islam and Sharia. The Washington meeting was planned in Istanbul, hence the name “Istanbul Process”.

 

Sectarian rivalries within Islam

 

The proposed amendment to the Charter of Rights could also be used by sectarian Muslims against peaceful Muslims. For example, the United Kingdom, Fadak TV satellite channel founded by a Shiite anti-Khomeini shiraziste, which promotes the freedom to criticize religions, is the subject of an investigation of the British regulatory authorities to “hate propaganda “following complaints from Sunnis and Khomeinists.

 

Federally, Ottawa is considering criminalizing the glorification of terrorism

 

According to the Press:

 

The federal Justice Minister, Peter MacKay, considering to pass a law that would make crime to applaud a terrorist act.

 

The law in the UK is tackling the “encouragement of terrorism”. This “encouragement” direct or indirect, is illegal. A person guilty of this crime may be assessed up to seven years imprisonment.

 

Civil liberties groups, the United Kingdom, are worried.

 

Initiatives to limit freedom of expression are worrying. Islamists seek to roll back the freedoms in the West, and particular freedom of expression, the foundation of democracy. A government that advocates censorship makes them a dangerous concession. In fact, one could almost say that it encourages terrorism, because after two attacks, Quebec wants to limit criticism of Islam. Or if you cannot criticize Islam is that already lives under Sharia law. What is the message? The message is that terrorism is an effective weapon: it pushed back the freedom of expression and advance the Sharia.

 

If Ottawa gives up his plan to punish advocating terrorism, we risk ending up in an absurd situation: the glorification of terrorism would be legal, but criticism of Islam which terrorists claim may be illegal.

 

The federal government had a provision similar to the one proposed by the Human Rights Commission, namely Article 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the person who gave the Canadian Human Rights Commission, investigative powers over “speech hate “online. Ottawa repealed this article, which was misused. These abuses are explained in an editorial in the National Post and a section of Lorne Gunter’s Edmonton Sun.

 

* I have commented out the Human Rights Commission, the relevant extract of memory on the proposal to amend the Charter of Rights.

 

See also:

 

Dossier: Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)

 

 

The “Istanbul Process”, a perverse process

 

 

USA: the “Istanbul Process” is a bad idea

 

 

USA: State Department against Freedom of Expression

 

 

The OIC recovery efforts for the criminalization of defamation of religions

 

 

The International Humanist and Ethical Union laws against the “defamation of religions”

 

 

GB: A Shiite Sheikh shiraziste advocates for the right to criticize Islam

 

 

Canada: The Rights Commission loses his powers of censure

 

 

Canada: A bill abolishing censorship powers of the human rights commission

 

[Blog Editor: running a spell check on the Google Translation]

________________________________

Human Rights Denied in the Name of Human Rights

 

From Elsa Schieder of World Truth Summit

_________________________

Towards a ban on criticizing Islam in Quebec?

In French: Vers une interdiction de critiquer l’islam au Québec?

 

Poste de veille [Post standby] Homepage

 

If Muslims Can Express Free Speech Rhetoric, so Can Christians


MB-Hamas terrori network USA

John R. Houk
© December 6, 2014
 
Muslim terrorists have infiltrated American Universities. These sly devils don’t openly practice Islamic terrorism on American soil (anyway, not yet). Rather via Professors and university student activists they foment the Jew-hatred and Christian-hatred inherent in the Quran. A part of this hatred is to propagandize Muslim students and idiotic Left leaning students that America is the great satan and that Israel is the little satan.
 
The propaganda comes from foreign sources pulling the strings to undermine the USA. Those foreign agents of propaganda originate from the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt and the Islamic terrorist organization Hamas.
 
The Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated to establish a global caliphate reminiscent in power of the bloody ruthless days of conquest that brought the initial cancer to spread across the world that began to metastasize in the early 600s AD (that’s right Anno Domini – year of the Lord, not CE – Common or Christian Era).
 
Hamas is a wing of the MB embedded in Gaza that agrees with the MB agenda but is dedicated to destroy Israel and kill Jews pretending to be a non-existent people called Palestinians.
 
This network of radical Muslims foment the destruction of U.S. Constitutional rights while using the very same rights to do so. The U.S. government allows this out of the self-destructive concepts of political correctness, diverse multiculturalism and the vagueness in defining the width and depth of the First Amendment rights of Free Speech and Religious Freedom.
 
The universality of Free Speech rights in the First Amendment has left the courts to try and define what the extent of Free Speech should be. For most of the U.S. history the courts erred on the side of allowing government-Congress to define the line not to be crossed in Free Speech. Erring on the side of the government defining the limits of Free Speech began during WWI with the head of the American Socialist Party convicted in breaking the Espionage Act by printing pamphlets to resist the draft into the Army.
 
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the 1919 SCOTUS decision defining the limits of Free Speech is measured by how it is or is not a Clear and Present Danger to nation (as in National Security) and the public good. In this way SCOTUS effectively amended the First Amendment to bring a narrower grasp of the extent of the First Amendment.
 
Although the Clear and Present Danger doctrine established by SCOTUS rather than the Amendment process brought new legal challenges. It turns out there is a lack of definition to the context of the meaning to a Clear and Present Danger.
 
Between 1919 and 1969 SCOTUS struggled to pin down the parameters of a Clear and Present Danger.
 
The great break came in the Court’s 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio. There the Court said the government could not take action against a member of the Ku Klux Klan, who said, among other things, “We’re not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengence taken.” The speaker did not explicitly advocate illegal acts or illegal violence. But in its decision, the Court announced a broad principle, ruling that the right to free speech does “not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” (Bold Emphasis Mine – Is Violent Speech a Right? By Cass Sunstein; The American Prospect; 12/19/01)
 
This Brandenburg v. Ohio decision provided a little more clarity in getting a grasp on judging a Clear and Present Danger. This refined Clear and Present Danger legal doctrine runs like this according Cass Sunstein:
 
First, the speaker must promote not just any lawless action but “imminent” lawless action. Second, the imminent lawless action must be “likely” to occur. Third, the speaker must intend to produce imminent lawless action (“directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action”). (Ibid.)
 
There still is leeway in pushing the envelope on what is legal and what is illegal. An example from I read from Sunstein is Civil Disobedience. Obviously if Civil Disobedience in non-violent in its nature one would think there would be no Clear and Present Danger to the public good. But what if the peaceful Civil Disobedience advocated by speech or print are acts that might be illegal. For example a march without city permission down a street, 18-wheeler trucks are advocated to block traffic on a busy Inter-State, a city ordinance requires Preachers to turn in a copy of their sermons to city government for speech approval and the preachers refuse and so on scenarios.
 
Those acts of Civil Disobedience are illegal by at least statute. Does promoting an illegal activity constitute a Clear and Present Danger to the public good?
 
No the KKK dude managed a Free Speech victory the 1969 SCOTUS:
 
We’re not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengence taken.
 
I am fairly convinced that alluding that “revengence” could be taken if the three branches of the Federal government suppress White Supremacist ideology. A “revengence” act is an act of violence.
 
As a Christian Right political blogger I often call on readers to stand up to the government on restricting where and when Christians can practice their Religious Freedom. Am I inciting violence?
 
When I advocate Christians and Americans to stand up against Muslims in America promoting the destruction of the USA in favor of a Sharia based Caliphate, am I inciting violence?
 
When I advocate Christians to understand that Islam’s revered writings is full of Jew-hatred and Christian-hatred, am I inciting violence?
 
If I call for Americans – especially college age Americans – to protest Islamic hatred on American campuses, would I be inciting violence? After all the modern history of Islam shows that Muslims enter into crazy violence when non-Muslims have the courage to protest Muslim-hate ideology pertaining to Jews, Christians, Israel and American constitutional Liberty (because Sharia Law elements run counter to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights).
 
I ask these questions because the reading of the Quran, Hadith and Sunna enlists me to tell you that Islam is no religion of peace and spiritual fulfillment. The Quran specifically calls for the death of all people who refuse to submit to Islam. The evidence of this is the FACT that over the last 1400 years of Islamic history Muslim conquests have resulted in 270 MILLION non-Muslims (Christians, Jews, Hindus and more) killed in the name of Jihad to spread Islam around the globe. Obviously these 270 MILLION people refused to submit to Islam and lost their lives for it.
 
When hear, read about or see Muslims expressing this hate ideology on American campuses, it is this Islamic Superiority mentality of Jihad that killed 270 MILLION people.
 
 
Published by forbidislam
Published: Nov 16, 2010
 
This vid consolidates the points in Frontpage’s interview with Bill Warner “Islam: 270 Million Bodies in 1400 Years”.

May every kafir wake up and smell the coffee.

Islam is aids. Whoever in bed with it will be infected and die eventually. I used to say Islam is cancer, every muslim is a cancer cell in our society. Though some cancer cells may not or never spread, but once it does, it kills you. Now I found cancer is better than islam, at least cancer is not contagious.

Since EVERY Muslim supports jihad through the even division of their zakat, the mosque offering/tax, EVERY Muslim’s hands are full of innocent blood! Remember, 270 million died under the sword of Islam so that Muslims were able to enter Allah’s paradise full of beautiful virgin sex slaves!

In more than 1400 years, muslims have killed much much more than 270 million people:

http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html [Blog Editor: The Masada 2000 website (Wikipedia) has had a history of trouble to exist. This link may be dead. Webhosts tend to get complaints because of a controversial “S.H.I.T. LIST” which points toward Leftist Jews and I am guessing Muslim apologists. The website always seems to pop up again under another Webhost.]

Studies show that at least every three minutes is a Christian is tortured in the Muslim world and that in 2009 alone, more than 165,000 Christians have been killed, mainly in Muslim countries due to their Christian faith.

There are a number of organizations that report about this, but the cases are still greatly hampered by the power of the lefti’s journalistic elite, that READ THE REST

 
I want so badly to condemn the ideology of the haters of Islam, but I am choosing to err on the side of Free Speech. Muslim Apologists and Leftists could very easily come after me for hate-speech for exposing the true nature of Islam or for saying Biblical Morality trumps the legalization homosexual normalizing.
 
So those morons do have a right to express their moronic ideology. HOWEVER, that means I also have the right to upbraid anything that diminishes Christianity and the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution. Shutting me up violates my First Amendment Rights as much as forcing Radical Muslims to shut up.
 
On the other hand as a free society Institutions, organizations, business owners have the right to decide whose interests to support. So Universities that allow Muslims to express violent hatred toward Israel, Jews and Americans that want nothing to do with Sharia-hatred of Constitutional Liberty should – rather MUST – must have the freedom to shut down the hate.
 
In the case of Public Universities voters actually have the power to focus on the hate spewing from Muslims in racist overtones. Most sovereign States in America have an initiative process in which voters can legislate where state congresses fear to tread.
 
So embark on your own Civil Disobedience and protest those haters of Israel, Jews, Christians and American Constitutional Liberties!
 
JRH 12/6/14 (Hat Tip: Stop Islam Facebook Closed Group)

Please Support NCCR

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

 
 
Published by Hamas On Campus
Published: Sep 30, 2014
 
The Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) is Hamas on Campus. An organization dedicated to wiping Israel off the map.

Find out how the The SJP was created to be Hamas on Campus and work in tandem with the Muslim Brotherhood proxy, the Muslim Students Association (MSA).

______________________________
If Muslims Can Express Free Speech Rhetoric, so Can Christians
John R. Houk
© December 6, 2014
_____________________________
 
HamasOnCampus.org was set up by a group of students and alumni from different campuses across the USA and Canada. We represent both Jews and non-Jews, left and right, liberal and conservative. We value freedom of speech, women’s rights and human rights. For this reason we are disturbed by the increasingly radical behaviour and rhetoric by Hamas supporting organizations on campus.
 
In particular, we are concerned by the activities of the MSA (Muslim Students Association) and SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine).  Both share anti-Israel and anti-democratic values.  We are most concerned about the SJP. It declares itself to be secular in nature but in fact, supports the values and deeds of Hamas. The SJP is financially connected to Hamas via a network of organizations including the MSA, CAIR and the AMP.
 
Please join us in exposing the SJP, also known as Hamas On Campus.
 
 

Homosexuals Attack Free Speech with Petition Threat


Jim Bob & Michelle Dug 2

John R. Houk

© December 5, 2014

 

Do you know who Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar are? If you do then good, you’ll already have an inkling about the nature of this post. Admittedly I never heard of them until I received an American Family Association (AFA) email alert about them. Evidently the Duggars – including their 19 children – are the stars of a family reality show on the TLC Network.

 

Duggars are a faith based family. Being Christians supporting Christian morality drives atheists, Leftists and – wait for it- homosexuals very apoplectic. Michelle Duggar has gone on record protesting a city ordinance in Fayetteville, Arkansas that allows transgender men in the Lady’s room in public places. And the real fits began against the Duggars when Michelle stuck to her Christian principles and got involved in some grassroots lobbying with robocalls condemning the Fayetteville ordinance.

 

Homosexual activists became so annoyed with Michelle Duggar that they began a Change.org petition to have the Duggar reality show “19 Kids and Counting” removed from the TLC Network line-up. 

 

This is another example of the Left Wing war on Christians, particularly against traditional Biblical based Christians that adhere to Christian morality. The propaganda from the Left and Homosexual activists that Christian morality is aberrant and offensive belief system in the 21st century.

 

It is both sad and joyous that America is in a day when homosexuals can call Christians an aberrancy and an offensive group of people. It is sad because Christianity is one of the hallmarks of America’s exceptionalism even as far back as colonial days. It is joyous because when society voluntarily falls away from the Christian faith it is one of the evidences of a soon return of Jesus Christ the Son of God to govern the entire planet as King of kings and Lord of lords.

 

3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

 

9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. (Matthew 24: 3, 9-13 NKJV)

 

1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ[a] had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin[b] is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God[c] in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

 

9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2: 1-4, 9-15 NKJV)

 

Truthfully I doubt that I will ever watch the Duggar family reality show on TLC; but I can’t sit here and not do anything to stand against homosexual bullying of Christians and the opinions of Christians. The AFA email has link to their November 21 post of a petition. There are other supportive petitions to sign as well. Dear God sign every petition that supports the Christian faith above making ungodliness an accepted practice.

 

The First Petition: Life Site News

 

JRH 12/5/14

Please Support NCCR

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

The Duggar family is counting on you

 

Sent: December 1, 2014

American Family Association

 

In a short time, we will be sending our petition signed by hundreds of thousands of good people, who refuse to be bullied by a noisy group of angry homosexual activists.

 

Sadly, we’re missing your signature!

 

The Duggar family is standing firm on God’s word that marriage is sacred and can only be defined as God intended – one man and one woman. They (and we) would love to know you stand with them!

 

The cruel and hateful rhetoric coming from the liberal left against the Duggar family has been relentless, and their campaign strategy is always the same – attack everyone who disagrees with their unnatural view of same-sex “marriage.”

 

Can we count on you to stand with the Duggars by signing the petition to TLC, urging them to keep “19 Kids and Counting” on the air?

 

Support the Duggars by signing the petition to TLC now!

 

TLC needs to know you support the Duggars and 19 Kids and Counting. If TLC hears from enough viewers, they will not even consider canceling the show.

 

Help us reach our goal of 1,000,000 signatures by Christmas. Add your name to the petition today!

 

TAKE ACTION NOW!

 

_____________________________

TLC stays mum on call for 19 Kids and Counting cancellation; 200,000 sign petition to keep the show

 

By Cath Martin

December 1, 2014

Christian Today

 

TV network TLC is staying silent in the battle of petitions over the future of reality TV show 19 Kids and Counting.

 

Pro-gay advocates have been calling for the show’s cancellation via a petition on the Change.org website, but their efforts have triggered a groundswell of support for the Duggar family from others who support their position on sexuality.

 

The Change.org petition was launched back in August attacking Michelle Duggar’s “fearmongering” and “hatred” after she publicly challenged an ordinance in Fayetteville, Arkansas, that would have allowed transgender women to use female restrooms.

 

It was also critical of the oldest son of Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar, Josh, because of his involvement with the conservative think tank, Family Research Council.

 

“Duggar words reek of ignroance and fear mongering. Just because someone is transgendered doesn’t mean they are a child predator or a rapist. The claim that this ordinance would provide predators with access to women’s restrooms in order to assault or leer at girls or women is nothing more than fear-mongering and spreading ignornace and hatred,” it read.

 

It has been signed over 170,000 times, and signatures spiked in recent weeks when it was widely publicised on entertainment media outlets.

The petition defending the family, launched a week ago on the LifeSiteNews website, has been signed by over 204,000 times.

 

“The Duggar Family is under attack from anti-marriage advocates for standing for traditional marriage,” the petition says.

 

“We commend The Duggar Family for their brave stand in defending marriage as ordained by God between one man and one woman. No individual’s sexual behavior and chosen lifestyle has the right to redefine marriage.

 

Its supporters include senator Rick Santorum, who told the website that the Duggars were “a wonderful family, and Karen and I support them and encourage folks to stand with the Duggars against these ridiculous attacks from the left”.

 

The Christian Post said it had contacted TLC for its reaction to the petitions and a spokesperson said they had no comment to make on the matter.

___________________________

SEE ALSO:

 

Fans of ’19 Kids and Counting’ Support Duggar Family After Gay Activists Push TLC to Cancel Popular Show – 11/24/14

 

Petition Calling for Duggars to Remain on TV Passes 200,000 Signatories; TLC Refuses Comment on Issue – 11/28/14

 

Don’t Let Them Perish – 11/28/14

______________________________

Homosexuals Attack Free Speech with Petition Threat

John R. Houk

© December 5, 2014

____________________________

The Duggar family is counting on you

 

American Family Association
P O Drawer 2440  |  Tupelo, MS 38803  |  1-662-844-5036
Copyright ©2014 American Family Association. All Rights Reserved

__________________________

TLC stays mum on call for 19 Kids and Counting cancellation; 200,000 sign petition to keep the show

 

Christian Today is a CMCi Group Company

Copyright © 2014 Christian Today. All Rights Reserved.

WHAT! Legal Jihad against Ezra Levant Successful, BUT …


Ezra Levant

Ezra Levant
 
 
John R. Houk
© December 1, 2014
 
If you are not already cognizant about the terms Legal Jihad and Lawfare you should study up.
 
Lawfare: The Use of the Law as a Weapon of War
 
 
Lawfare denotes “the use of the law as a weapon of war”** or, more specifically, the abuse of Western laws and judicial systems to achieve strategic military or political ends.
 
It consists of the negative manipulation of international and national human rights laws to accomplish purposes other than, or contrary to, those for which they were originally enacted.
 
Lawfare is also evident in the manipulation of domestic legal systems (by state and non-state parties) to implement laws inconsistent with general principles of liberal democracy.
 
The principles underlying lawfare are also present in glaring failures to apply human rights law and in the disproportionate and biased application of the law.
 
Modern-day lawfare has five goals:
    
1. To silence and punish free speech about issues of national security and public concern;
    
2. To delegitimize the sovereignty of democratic states;
    
3. To frustrate and hinder the ability of democracies to fight against and defeat terrorism;
    
4. To confuse laws of armed conflict with human rights law; and
    
5. To prevent the application of human rights law in situations where it is needed the most.
 
READ ENTIRETY (Lawfare: The Use of the Law as a Weapon of War; The Lawfare Project)
 
If this Lawfare Project explanation piques your interest you should check out the PDF ‘“LEGAL JIHAD”: HOW ISLAMIST LAWFARE TACTICS ARE TARGETING FREE SPEECH’ Brooke Goldstein and Aaron Eitan Meyer published in 2009.
 
Now I encouraged you to read up on Legal Jihad due to an update email from Elsa Schieder in relation to the World Truth Summit which brings in Counterjihad speakers and writers addressing the threat of Muslim jihadi terrorists to the Western World.
 
Elsa is identifying a Canadian victim of Legal Jihad in Ezra Levant. Mr. Levant was sued by the Radical Muslim Khurrum Awan for publicly calling him an Antisemite. AND the Canadian Courts actually agreed with Awan that Mr. Levant made a defamatory accusation against him. It didn’t matter to the Canadian Judge that Awan was the youth president of the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC – See Also HERE). The CIC is a virulently Antisemitic organization that at the very least offers support for Islamic terrorists who demand the destruction of Israel and the death of Jews.
 
So this how this cross post is going to work. First I’m posting Elsa’s email then I’m following that with Ezra Levant plea for funds to appeal the Canadian dhimmi Judge that failed to connect Antisemitism with Khurrum Awan who has been in the upper levels of leadership in the Radical Islamic Jew-hating CIC.
 
JRH 12/1/14

Please Support NCCR

************************
The Judgement against Ezra Levant, and Politically Correct Nuttiness
 
By Elsa Schieder
Sent: 11/29/2014 11:50 AM
Sent as World Truth Summit Update
 
Do I have any news or thoughts I’d especially like to share?  Today, with the sun glinting on the snow, the temperature outside at minus 10, the existence of a force like Islam seems impossible. But I know it’s around, with an ideology against the freedoms I value.
 
This week, on November 27, I got an email from Ezra Levant of Sun News, letting me know that he had just “lost a defamation lawsuit … brought by Khurrum Awan, the former youth president of the Canadian Islamic Congress.” Ezra called Awan an anti-Semite. On what basis? “Awan was, at one time, the youth president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, an anti-Semitic organization. At the time Awan was its youth president, the CIC was led by a notorious anti-Semite, Mohamed Elmasry. Elmasry famously went on national TV** to state that any adult in Israel is a legitimate target for terrorism. The CIC has publicly called for the legalization of anti-Semitic terrorist groups.”
 
However, all that wasn’t evidence enough. Ezra has been called upon to pay 80,000 plus court costs.
 
On what basis? “The judge ruled that it is defamatory to call the former youth president of an anti-Semitic organization, anti-Semitic.” Why? Because Awan denied it in court, and said “he never knew about his organization’s infamous misconduct.”
 
Ezra is appealing. Good. As for the ruling, I find it utterly appalling. Here’s where you can contribute to Ezra’s legal costs:
 
I’d say we urgently need a Freedom Community!
 
 
Another thought. Sometimes it feels urgent to DO SOMETHING about Islam. After all, 125,000 Christian deaths at the hands of Muslims over the past year. Women used as sex slaves.
 
And sometimes it feels: time to slow down, time to pace yourself. After all, they’ve had 1400 years. Most of us are just starting to understand what we are dealing with.
 
First, it takes most of us (me, anyway) years to come to anything like a full understanding of political Islam with its plan to conquer the world – to dominate or slaughter those it labels kafirs, to slaughter those it labels atheists, polytheists, apostates. It takes most of us years to understand how far the tentacles of political Islam reach – into text books, government, the media.
 
And then there are the politically correct. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. WHAT FOLLOWS IS UTTER NUTTINESS. They hold: all opinions are equal; morality is relative. Yet they denounce Israel as an apartheid state. But if all opinions are equal, then they should equally accept that Israel is not an apartheid state – but they don’t. Instead they tend to foam at the mouth at the suggestion. Likewise, they shrug off that Saudi Arabia is an apartheid state – going against their own position, that all opinions are equal, and morality is relative, and we must not judge. Instead, they’re harshly judgemental of Israel – going against their own supposed stance on “all cultures are equal.”
 
As I said, this is all utter nuttiness. But it takes most of us a long time to figure out just how nutty it is – and longer to figure out how to get through to people who hold: All positions are equal, as long as they’re whatever I believe.
 
 
All the best to all of us who care and dare – to think and to speak.
 
Elsa
 
PS. There are also bits of sunshine here and there, not only right outside my window. In Montreal, there have recently been 2 excellent speakers – Nitsana Darshan-Leitner (Bankrupting Islam, One Lawsuit at a Time) and Bill Warner (Why We Are Afraid and A Voice for the Voiceless).
 
Then, at 7:30 pm, Monday, Dec 1, there will be a third speaker,
Jamie Glazov of FrontPageMag (Ruby Foos Hotel, 7655 Decarie Blvd).
 
For more info, you can email: valerieprice@sympatico.ca
 
 
PPS. By the way, why isn’t the site for The Freedom Community already up and running? It will include a membership site, where members can contact each other, and interact. That takes a lot of technical work. There are also loads of other questions, quite everyday, but they still take time – like, what will be the image on top? You can see the current image here:
 
 
PPPS. Here’s another question we’ve been dealing with: in how many languages will the site be available? That’s not decided. There will be at least 3: English, French and German. If you speak another language, and want to get involved, please let us know.
 
** Elmasry famously went on national TV:
 
Published by AlohaSnackbar01
Published: Mar 11, 2014
 
Now that the testimony phase of the Khurrum Awan/Ezra Levant libel suit is over, I thought I’d re-up this little clip of Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress from the old Michael Coren Show many years ago – Sun News Network has been using a copy from one of my old suspended Youtube accounts – here’s a new copy for ya boys!

==========================
The following shamelessly stolen from

http://eyecrazy.blogspot.ca/

 
========================
As a reminder, Awan was the Youth President of the CIC while its founder, Elmasry, was its head. The CIC is hardly a gigantic organization. it has and had only a handful of permanent staffers, and any reasonable person could draw obvious inferences about whether or not the Youth President of that small organization would have substantial dealings with the President. Though Awan has claimed he was unaware of the antisemitic stances of the CIC, he was its Youth President shortly after Elmasry, as its head, had become nationally infamous for declaring, on television in 2004, that he believed any Israeli civilian over the age of 18 was a valid target for murder while excusing terrorist suicide bombings as “a means to an end.”

There was more testimony today that was as plausible as Awan’s denial that he was unaware of the antisemitic support for terrorist groups by the CIC, for which he served as a political advocacy organizer. In court today, Awan denied that he was close to Elmasry despite agreeing to introduce his former alleged mentor at a fundraising event for the latter’s news magazine website, The Canadian Charger. The fundraiser occurred after Awan READ THE REST

 
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’ve lost my lawsuit. But I’m going to appeal. Here’s why.
 
By Ezra Levant
November 28, 2014
 
Today I lost the lawsuit against me brought by Khurrum Awan, the former youth president of the Canadian Islamic Congress.
 
You can read the full ruling here. The judge awarded Awan a whopping $80,000 plus legal costs.
 
I am reviewing the technical aspects of the ruling with my lawyer. But there is something terrifying, buried in this ruling, that I already know I simply must appeal — all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
 
On paragraph 166 of the decision, the judge ruled that calling Awan an anti-Semite is defamatory, and that’s one of the reasons I lost, and have to pay him so much money.
 
Decision Against Ezra Levant Paragraph-166 
 
But Awan was, at one time, the youth president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, an anti-Semitic organization. At the time Awan was its youth president, the CIC was led by a notorious anti-Semite, Mohamed Elmasry. Elmasry famously went on national TV to state that any adult in Israel is a legitimate target for terrorism. The CIC has publicly called for the legalization of anti-Semitic terrorist groups.
 
And yet the judge ruled that it is defamatory to call the former youth president of an anti-Semitic organization, anti-Semitic. Because he denied it in court, and said he never knew about his organization’s infamous misconduct.
 
This should concern anyone who is worried about radical Islam, the right to criticize it, and the right to call out anti-Semitism in the public square.
 
If this judgment stands, anyone who dares to challenge members of Muslim extremist groups on the basis of their affiliation with such groups is at risk of costly lawsuits — and all the member of the anti-Semitic group needs to do is to deny that they share the beliefs of their organizations that they work hard to promote, or say they had no clue their anti-Semitic group was anti-Semitic.
 
If this ruling is allowed to stand, it will hinder anyone who campaigns against anti-Semitism — any Jewish group, any pro-Israel group, even anyone who criticizes radical Islam.
 
This ruling doesn’t just affect my rights. It’s a setback for freedom for everyone.
 
The comments in question were written on my personal blog six years ago, and so I’m footing the legal bills for this fight myself. The cost of the appeal will surely be at least $30,000 — and I’ve got to come up with that right now. If you share my belief that we cannot let this ruling stand please help me appeal this case now, by clicking here to contribute to my legal costs.
 
Yours gratefully,
 
Ezra Levant
___________________
WHAT! Legal Jihad against Ezra Levant Successful, BUT …
John R. Houk
© December 1, 2014
___________________
The Judgement against Ezra Levant, and Politically Correct Nuttiness
 
World Truth SummitELSA, TRUTH SLEUTH
__________________
I’ve lost my lawsuit. But I’m going to appeal. Here’s why.
 
 
 

WAKE-UP AMERICANS! No Liberty in Muslim World


Blasphemy Law Persecutes Christians

John R. Houk

© November 25, 2014

 

Pakistan persecution of Christians appears to have escalated through Sunni Muslims utilizing the Blasphemy Law on that nation’s legal books. Breaking the Blasphemy Law in Pakistan results in harsh punishment up to and possibly including execution. No one in Pakistan has actually been executed by the hands of the law for blasphemy violations BUT there are many awaiting a death sentence to be carried out.

 

From my perspective there are two horrors involved in Pakistan’s Blasphemy Law:

 

1.  Most accused of violating the Blasphemy Law have not actually perpetrated the violation they are accused of. Typical reasons for a blasphemy accusation are disputes, prejudices and business greed by a Muslim against a non-Sunni. Most of the falsely accused are Christians but Hindus, Shia Muslims, Ahmadiyya Muslims and whatever other non-Sunni people are also among the accused.

 

2.  Non-Sunnis who may have uttered disparaging remarks about Islam, Mohammed or the Quran also face a death sentence. THAT IS CRAZY! The Muslim holy book known as the Quran specifically disparages Jews and Christians. My God a Christian proclaiming Jesus as the Son of God is disparaging Islam because the Quran says that is a lie. Even though the New Testament tells me to do my best to get along with people; nonetheless the New Testament also tells us to expose darkness with the Light of Christ. This Blasphemy Law load of manure is something I find horribly offensive. Even though I am offended I do not stand on the roof tops calling for the death of all Muslims – Vengeance is God Almighty’s (cough not the fake deity proclaimed by Mo).

 

Okay, I am getting ready to go an ‘everything that is wrong about Islam’ rant. That is not the purpose of this post.

 

Shamim Masih has sent an update on Asia Bibi’s death sentence conviction for blaspheming Muslims for being a Christian gal drinking from a Muslim only well (Black Americans can you say ‘Whites only water fountain?). Shamim also reports there are even MORE Blasphemy Law violations recently filed against Christians.

 

Since Shamim writes about an open letter sent to the NY Times written by Asia Bibi’s husband (Ashiq Masih) I will finish with cross posting that letter including the NYT intro:

 

“Please Don’t Abandon Me”

By ASHIQ MASIH

NOVEMBER 19, 2014 9:52 AM

New York Times

 

Note: Asia Bibi, a Christian Pakistani woman, was sentenced to death for blasphemy against Islam in 2010. The year before, while picking fruit with Muslim women, she took a sip of water from the local well. She was immediately accused of making the water impure by the other workers, who told her that they could no longer use the well. According to her husband, Ashiq Masih, and others, men and women started beating her and accusing her of making derogatory remarks against the Islamic prophet Muhammad, a charge she denies. Asia is currently in prison waiting to be hanged after losing an appeal ​on Oct. 16. She has told her story in a memoir, Blasphemy, written with French journalist Anne-Isabelle Tollet.

 

Below is an open letter by Ashiq addressed to the world community. (Madam Mayor refers to Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo, who has offered her support to Asia.)

 

Ashiq Masih signs the letter.

Aashiq Masih signing open letter with thumb (Asia Bibi) 

 

Yesterday, I returned from the prison in Multan where my wife, Asia Bibi, was transferred eight months ago. Since Asia was sentenced to death in November 2010 for drinking a glass of water from our village well, my family has lived in constant fear and under death threats. I live in hiding with my five children as near as possible to Asia. She needs us very much to help keep her alive, to bring her medicine and good food when she is sick.

 

After my wife had spent four long years in prison in terrible conditions, we were hoping that the High Court of Lahore would free my wife. She did not commit blasphemy, never. Since the court confirmed the death sentence on the 16th of October, we do not understand why our country, our beloved Pakistan, is so against us. Our family has always lived here in peace, and we never had any disturbance. We are Christians but we respect Islam. Our neighbors are Muslims and we have always lived well with them in our little village. But for some years now the situation in Pakistan has changed because of just a few people, and we are afraid. Today many of our Muslim friends cannot understand why the Pakistani justice system is making our family suffer so much.

 

We are now trying our best to present the final case to the Supreme Court before the 4th of December. But we are convinced that Asia will only be saved from being hanged if the venerable President Mammon Hussain grants her a pardon. No one should be killed for drinking a glass of water.

 

My five children and I have only survived thanks to the protection of a few faithful friends who risk their lives daily to help us. We are the husband and family of Asia Bibi and many people want us to die. Thanks to our friend Anne-Isabelle Tollet, who has become our sister and helped us for four years now, we speak often about what is happening in Paris and the world to help save Asia. Hearing that people are supporting Asia from so far away is so important for us. It helps us to hold on. Every time I visit Asia in prison I tell her the news. Sometimes it gives her the courage to keep going.

 

Just before taking the ten-hour journey to visit Asia, I learned the wonderful news that Paris is offering to welcome Asia and our family to Paris if she is freed. This is a huge honor and we are very humbled. I would like to offer my sincere thanks to you, Madam Mayor of Paris, and to say that we are immensely grateful for your concern. I hope that one day we will visit you alive, and not dead.

 

When I visited Asia Bibi yesterday she asked me to give you this message:

 

“My prison cell has no windows and day and night are the same to me, but if I am still holding on today it is thanks to everyone who is trying to help me. When my husbnd showed me the photographs of people I have never met drinking a glass of water for me, my heart overflowed. Ashiq told me that the city of Paris is offering to welcome our family. I send my deepest thanks to you Madam Mayor, and to all the kind people of Paris and across the world. You are my only hope of staying alive in this dungeon, so please don’t abandon me. I did not commit blasphemy.”

 

Ashiq Masih
Pakistan, 17th of November 2014

 

Below is Shamim’s report which the posting of two emails.

 

JRH 11/25/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Asia Bibi Filed Final Option in Pakistan Supreme Court Filed

 

By Shamim Masih

Sent: 11/24/2014 12:20 PM

 

ISLAMABAD: Christian woman, Asia Bibi, filed an appeal in the Supreme Court after being rejected from the Lahore High Court (LHC) last month. Attorney Saif ul Malook filed the appeal petition for Asia Bibi in the apex court on Monday in Lahore.

 

According to details, Asia Parveen known as Asia Bibi, was sentenced to death on November, 2010 after the court declared that she has committed blasphemy during an argument with Muslim women over a bowl of water.

 

The request was filed to reconsider deficiencies in the case which include poor investigation and manipulated evidence by the local police.

 

Sohail Johnson, chairman Sharing Life Ministry Pakistan (SLMP) said that we are providing legal assistance in this case as well as [to] her family and hoping [for] the early hearing of the appeal and believe that [the] SC will review the case on the basis of facts. He [Sohail Johnson] requested the Christians community around the world to pray for her early hearing.

 

Earlier this month, Aashiq Masih, husband of Asia Bibi asked President Mamnoon Hussain for her pardon and allow her to move to France. He also wrote an open letter which was published in the New York Times on November 17 [Blog Editor: Posted above].

 

Blasphemy has become [a] highly sensitive issue in [Pakistan]; Salman Taseer Governor [of] Punjab was killed by his own official security guard in the same issue. Saif ul Malook [was] also [the] to attorney in the Salman Taseer case.

 

Despite the fact that Pakistan has never put to death any individual for blasphemy even if court [had] declared individual guilty, but [nevertheless] anyone convicted or even just accused of insulting Islam, hazards acts of violence [and/or] a bloody death at the hands of [Sunni Muslim] vigilantes.  

 

Be Blessed,

Shamim Masih

++++++

Slum settlers are targeted

Another blasphemy case is registered in the capital

  

By Shamim Masih

Sent: 11/24/2014 7:49 PM

 

ISLAMABAD: Another blasphemy case against 8 Christians of the capital is registered in the Capital on November 20. Christians of [the] slum area are alleged to disgrace the holy verses of the Quran. The outskirts of the capital is under threat again.

 

According to the police, Naheed Ahamd complained in the Police Station that he found half burnt pages of the Quran near PTV-2 building in Sector H-9, Islamabad. He also mentioned that name of Ps. Arif, Peera, Ch. David, Victor, Shamshad etc. were also found attached with these verses. Police registered First Investigation Report – FIR no. 596/14 under section 295-B, 6/7ATA against the offender and started investigations.

 

Basharat Khokhar local rights activist has been looking into the matter. He said that blasphemy law is frequently used to settle [personal scores], so this fresh episode in the capital [is probably one of those instances]. He assured the residents that [the] federal police is providing assistance in this case. Senior police officials have guaranteed to provide the protection to the innocent residents of the slum settlers, he added.

 

It [should be] also [be] mentioned that residents of that sector are the displaced people of Rawal Dam and sector G-12 Islamabad. Many displaced families of the famous Rimsha case (a minor Christian girl accused of burning the holy verses) were settled there since then. [The] Federal Government and Capital Development Authority (CDA) have promised to grant them a piece of land. But since then they [still have] not been provided a place to live. During the past months, Christian slum settlers are warned to clear the area under the umbrella of taking strict security measures.

 

Be Blessed,

Shamim Masih

 

Diplomatic Correspondent, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, UN, F & S, MOST, CADD & Human Rights Activist

 

Daily Khabrian – in Urdu (PakBiz.com description – in English) & Channel – 5 (A project of Khabrian Group of papers)

 

For Americans especially, I have discovered the best way to donate to Shamim Masih is via Western Union sending this LINK to a Western Union agent in Islamabad. Include Shamim’s phone – +92-300-642-4560

 

_________________________

WAKE-UP AMERICANS! No Liberty in Muslim World

John R. Houk

© November 25, 2014

_________________________

Asia Bibi Filed Final Option in Pakistan Supreme Court Filed and Slum settlers are targeted

 

Edited by John R. Houk

All content enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Shamim Masih

Will the West Abandon Asia Bibi to an Execution in Pakistan?


Save Asia Bibi - VOM appeal mercy

John R. Houk

© October 17, 2014

 

Islam is peace – NOT. With Islam there is no compulsion of religion – NOT. So-called Moderate Muslims (like CAIR, IST and ISGOKC for example) claim Sharia is compatible to the U.S. Constitution – NOT.

 

In 2009, Asia Bibi—a Pakistani Christian and mother of five—drew a cup of water from a Muslim’s well and incurred the wrath of villagers who accused her of slandering Islam. Convicted under Pakistan’s blasphemy law, which is often used to punish Muslims as well as religious minorities, Asia Bibi has languished in jail as she tries to overturn her death sentence. (For Blasphemy, A Death Sentence; From book review on Daily Beast of Blasphemy: A Memoir: Sentenced To Death Over A Cup Of Water; 8/30/13)

 

Asia Bibi has been imprisoned by Pakistan found guilty of breaking that Islamic Supremacist nation’s Blasphemy Law. Her accusers became agitated that a Christian would drink from a well designated for Muslims. The Muslim gals at the well decided to solidify their segregationist agitation by screaming Asia had responded by saying unpleasant things about their pseudo-prophet Mohammed.

 

As is typical in Pakistan prejudice and greed are the primary reasons Muslims use against Christians not liked. Asia is a victim of this prejudice. She denies she made any slurs; however even if she did – SO WHAT! By expressing any kind of displeasure with a religion that denigrates Christianity in its holy writings you receive a death sentence for expressing any displeasure Islam. After some intimidation by Muslim mobs Asia was convicted with a death sentence. Some Pakistanis including Muslims saw the irrationality of this conviction and have made a public case for Asia. Asia’s lawyers have fled. Judges have postponed and/or proceeded with the death sentence legal procedures out of fear from Muslim mobs threatening the Judges and their families. One Pakistan official was even assassinated for the near success of getting Asia Bibi released.

 

On October 16, 2014 Asia Bibi’s appeal was officially denied, placing her on the fast track to be the first Pakistani convicted (one of many convicted or accused) under the Blasphemy Law that will be put to death.

 

 JRH 10/17/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Death Sentence Upheld for Christian Mother Asia Bibi in Pakistan

 

By Morning Star News

October 16, 2014 06:39 PM EDT

The Gospel Herald

 

LAHORE, Pakistan - In spite of protests within Pakistan and abroad against the country’s blasphemy laws, the Lahore High Court today upheld the death sentence for a Christian mother accused of insulting Islam’s prophet.

 

Aasiya Noreen, commonly known as Asia Bibi, is the first woman to be sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan. Arrested in June 2009 after Muslim co-workers in a berry field 60 miles west of Lahore beat her when she refused to convert to Islam, her death sentence was announced in November 2010.

 

Bibi’s husband, Ashiq Masih, told Morning Star News that they were hoping for some relief, but that the verdict had devastated the family.

 

“I met Asia in prison a month ago,” he said. “She’s fine and was hoping to hear good news, but, alas, our ordeal is not over yet.”

 

Bibi’s lawyer, Naeem Shakir, told Morning Star News that Justice Anwarul Haq and Justice Shahbaz Ali Rizvi had rejected her appeal even though there were glaring contradictions in the witnesses’ testimonies.

 

“I pointed out the conflicting accounts of the prosecution witnesses, as each one of them had a different narrative regarding the exact location where the local village council was convened in which Asia had allegedly confessed that she had spoken ill of Islam’s prophet and sought forgiveness from the villagers,” Shakir said. “There is also discrepancy in the number of people present as each witness gave different figures.”

 

In addition, the court did not take into account the fact that the First Information Report (FIR) against her was registered six days after the alleged incident, “which clearly shows that the case was a premeditated conspiracy against the Christian woman,” he said.

 

The lawyer said that the complainant in the case, Qari Salem, was not even present in the berry fields where the alleged incident had occurred.

 

“One of the witnesses, a female co-worker of Asia named Maafia, used to study the Koran from Salem’s wife, and we believe that she is the one who provoked Salem, a prayer leader of the village’s local mosque, to lodge a case against Asia as she and her sister, Asma, had an altercation with Asia in the berry fields over drinking water from the same bowl,” Shakir said.

 

Bibi’s appeal had been delayed several times, but he had been confident that the verdict would be overturned, he said.

 

“I was shocked when the judges decided to uphold the sessions court decision,” he said, adding that the court had said that Noreen’s “confession” before villagers was sufficient evidence while ignoring that any such confession might have been coerced by Muslim mob.

 

“We will appeal the decision in the Supreme Court,” he said.

 

Given huge backlogs at the court, however, Christian rights lawyers said it would probably be at least three years before the appeal would be taken up.

 

Islamists Rejoice

 

The courtroom was packed with clerics and members of Islamist extremist groups who supported the prosecution, and they erupted in celebration upon hearing the two-judge panel’s decision to dismiss Bibi’s appeal.

 

“Let us celebrate by distributing sweets!” said one cleric who recited verses from the Koran throughout the almost two-and-a-half-hour court proceeding.

 

“I am very happy,” said Salem, the complainant. “The judges have given a verdict on merit, and Asia deserved it.”

 

Salem’s lawyer, Ghulam Mustafa said the court’s decision, was correct.

 

“Asia’s lawyer tried to prove that the case was registered on a personal enmity, but he failed to prove that,” he said.

 

David Griffiths, Amnesty International’s deputy Asia Pacific director, called the ruling a grave injustice.

 

“Asia Bibi should never have been convicted in the first place – still less sentenced to death – and the fact that she could pay with her life for an argument is sickening,” he said in a press statement. “There were serious concerns about the fairness of the trial, and her mental and physical health has reportedly deteriorated badly during the years she has spent in almost total isolation on death row. She should be released immediately and the conviction should be quashed.”

 

The ruling is the latest chapter in a long ordeal for Bibi, whose case has focused international attention on how Pakistan’s blasphemy laws have become a weapon against religious minorities.

 

While Bibi’s death sentence led to international protests, the possibility of overturning it provoked outrage within Pakistan. Punjab Gov. Salman Taseer was slain by his bodyguard on Jan. 4, 2011 because of his support for Bibi and his criticism of the blasphemy law; the bodyguard believed Taseer, a Muslim, had blasphemed by criticizing the law.

 

Meeting with Bibi after her sentencing in 2010, Taseer had told her he believed the charges against her were fabricated and promised to recommend a presidential pardon. He called Pakistan’s blasphemy statutes “a black law” and called for their repeal.

 

Former Minister for Minority Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti, the first Christian, cabinet-level minister, was shot and killed on March 2, 2011 for calling for reforms to blasphemy laws following Bibi’s trial.

 

“The laws are often used to settle personal vendettas – both against members of minority religious groups and Muslims – while individuals facing charges are frequently targeted in mob violence,” Griffiths said. “Those who speak out against the laws face terrible reprisals. However, the blasphemy laws violate international law and must be repealed or reformed immediately to meet international standards.”

 

Death sentences have rarely been carried out in blasphemy cases, but that is in part because such allegations have frequently led to deadly vigilante attacks on the accused or their lawyers. Pakistan is nearly 96 percent Muslim, according to Operation World, and religiously charged court cases commonly involve clamoring crowds of Muslims and other pressures coming to bear on lawyers and judges. Christians make up 2.45 percent of the population.

 

Mother of two children and stepmother to three others, Bibi was convicted under Section 295-C of the defamation statutes for alleged derogatory comments about Muhammad, which is punishable by death, though life imprisonment is also possible. Pakistan put a de facto moratorium on executions into place in 2008, though one person has been executed since then.

 

In the harvest fields of Ittan Wali in June 2009, her co-workers objected to her touching the container for the water she had fetched, saying that her Christian faith made it impure for them, and they told her to convert to Islam, according to her husband. Her objections were taken as blasphemy, and they beat her before dragging her to a police station, he said.

 

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has stated that Christians and Ahmadis, a minority sect within Islam, are vulnerable to Pakistan’s draconian blasphemy law, according to The New York Times. More than 20 men have been sentenced to death under the blasphemy law, most of them Christians, though none have been executed, human rights groups say.

 

Pakistan’s blasphemy laws have been routinely misused to settle personal scores with false accusations. Police have found most blasphemy accusations to be false during investigation, but accusers can make innocent victims suffer months in jail with quick and easy registration of such cases.

 

Of 5,000 cases registered between 1984 and 2004, only 964 people were charged with blasphemy, according to the Pakistani newspaper Dawn. A recent study by the Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) found that from 1953 to July 2012, there were 434 people blasphemy “offenders” in Pakistan, including 258 Muslims, 114 Christians, 57 Ahmadis and four Hindus.

 

Those acquitted of blasphemy charges also face threats from homicidal vigilantes. Of 52 people extra-judicially murdered after being charged with blasphemy in Pakistan, 25 were Muslims, 15 were Christians, five were Ahmadis, one was Buddhist and one was Hindu, according to the CRSS report.

 

Most blasphemy case acquittals take place at the appellate level, after courts have denied bail so often that the accused spend years in jail, as lower courts tend to decide based on fear of violence by Islamist groups rather than on merit.

 

Section 295-B of Pakistan’s blasphemy statutes makes willful desecration of the Koran or a use of its extract in a derogatory manner punishable with life imprisonment. Section 295-A of the defamation law prohibits injuring or defiling places of worship and “acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class of citizens.” It is punishable by life imprisonment, which in Pakistan is 25 years.

 

Blasphemy charges against Rimsha Masih, a girl whose mental age was determined to be less than 14 years old, were dismissed on Nov. 20, 2012 after a judge ruled that they were baseless (see Morning Star News, Nov. 20, 2012). She has since been relocated to Canada.

 

The original article was published on Morning Star News

________________________

Will the West Abandon Asia Bibi to an Execution in Pakistan?

John R. Houk

© October 17, 2014

______________________

Death Sentence Upheld for Christian Mother Asia Bibi in Pakistan

 

Copyright © 2013 The Gospel Herald. All Rights Reserved.

 

About Us

 

General Information

 

The Gospel Herald (www.GospelHerald.net) is a leading online publication that brings you the most updated Chinese Christian issues around the globe. We feature the latest online information technology from website publication to newsletters and searchable archives.

Executives

 

Publisher/CEO: Edward Shih
Editor: Eunice Or

Board of Directors:

Chairman: Edward Shih
Directors: Chris Mak, Eunice Or, Joanna Wong, Susanna Lam

Mission

 

Gospel Herald is an evangelical, transdenominational, christian media company which serves to provide direct, and current news information to the general christian public.

 

Gospel Herald upholds the dictum found in Mathew 5:9, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.” In the midst of immensely secularized teachings of the gospel, Gospel Herald partakes in delivering only the veracity of the words of Jesus Christ.

 

Gospel Herald views all denominations as equal constituents of the body of Christ and READ THE REST

Pakistan’s Blasphemy Law vs. U.S. Constitution and Culture


Sharia Erases Liberty toon

Leftist Race Baiting is America’s of Executing Blasphemy Law

John R. Houk

© October 1, 2014

 

Shamim Masih is providing a follow-up (scroll below my thoughts) on the rumors and status of the Christian Zafar Bhatti who has been convicted for committing blasphemy in Pakistan.

 

As Shamim Masih reported yesterday in his report “CLAAS has nothing to do with Zafar Bhatti case, says Basharat Khokhar,” Pakistani Christian Zafar Bhatti has not been receiving the material and legal support publicized by the Pakistan Christian Civil Rights organization CLAAS. Regardless of the initial reported rumors, Bhatti is alive, unwounded but not well. This is the horrendous blasphemy Pakistan law that was supposedly committed and indeed convicted for (Sources on legal issues):

 

Zafar Bhatti is accused of blasphemy under Pakistan’s 295C blasphemy law. He was charged in July 2012, based on rumors that he insulted Muhammad’s mother in text messages. Zafar worked selling medicines, and he often went door-to-door with his presentation. He also used those opportunities to share Christ in the various homes, reading the Bible and praying with families. He also established a small NGO called “Jesus World Mission” [NGO link on Facebook] whose purpose was to assist the poor.

 

On July 11, 2012, he was accused by a fellow NGO worker of sending blasphemous text messages from a mobile phone that she had given him. Zafar and his wife left the village to avoid a massive riot. Police arrested him on July 26, charging him under 295c of the legal code, which are informally called the “blasphemy laws.”

 

In jail, Zafar has been beaten several times. Someone also tried to poison his food. Several of the Muslim prisoners pressure him, saying if he accepts Islam he will be forgiven. Zafar’s sister and wife are quite concerned for his well-being in prison as his case moves through the legal system. “Pray that God will help my brother stay strong in his faith,” said his sister. (Prisoner Alert: Zafar Bhatti; reposted from Persecution Blog [that link now dead]; Before It’s News; 9/4/13 12:32)

 

Once again, Pakistan’s blasphemy law has been used to bring unsubstantiated charges against members of religious minorities. Rev Zafar Bhatti, president of the Jesus World Mission, is in prison after he was accused of violating the ‘black law.’ Judges now must decide whether or not to heed the appeal made on his behalf and release him on bail. A Muslim leader said the Christian clergyman sent him text messages that insulted Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. Catholic leaders and human rights activists have responded immediately, pleading for his innocence, noting that police has been subjected to pressures and that the case is vitiated by errors in law.

 

Rev Bhatti hails from Karachi, but moved to Lahore in 2010, in Nawaz Sharif Colony, where he has worked on behalf of local Christians and religions minorities for the past two years. On 10 July, he decided to move with his family to the capital Islamabad. The next day, Ahmed Khan, deputy Secretary of the local Jamat Ehl-e-Sunnat, unexpectedly filed a complaint against the Christian clergyman at the New Town police station, in Rawalpindi.

 

According to the police report, Khan received some text messages on his mobile phone with insulting language towards Muhammad’s mother from an unregistered but visible number, which he kept in the phone’s memory. At the police station, he said that if the agents did not open an investigation for blasphemy under article 295-C of the Penal Code, his organisation would take matters in its own hands.

 

 

Police arrested Rev Bhatti on 16 July and his sister-in-law Nasreen Bibi. In custody, the pastor was physically abused and tortured to extract a confession but he stood his ground, rejecting the accusation and insisting on his innocence.

 

 

“Zhaffar Bhatti is innocent,” said Khalid Jill, of APMA. “We are going to fight for his release.” In his view, police began a case against him under “pressure,” but we “are going to appeal because he was charged under the wrong article of the law.”

 

Mgr Rufin Anthony, bishop of Islamabad-Rawalpindi, is of the same opinion. “How can police be sure” about the offender’s identity? “It is clear that it is a case of personal animosity,” probably in connection with some land. (Christian leader falsely charged of blasphemy in Islamabad; By Jibran Khan; AsiaNews.it; 8/13/12)

 

Zafar is accused of sending blasphemous cell phone text messages to an Islamic cleric. Problem is, Zafar is illiterate and would have no way of knowing how to write a text message.

 

The Pakistan contact says Zafar survived an assassination attempt in prison March 31. Apparently poison was placed in his food, causing him to bleed from his nose and mouth.

 

Here’s a portion of the email sent to me about Pakistani Christian prisoner Zafar Bhatti:

 

“Muslim prisoners told him he would be forgiven (for the alleged blasphemy incident) if he accepted Islam. But he refused to accept Islam. Muslim prisoners are trying to kill him… and are saying they will tell jail authorities that he is using bad language about Prophet Mohammed. Zafar’s sister says ‘everyday Muslim prisoners come around Zafar and call him kafar (infidel) and use bad language against him and Christianity.’ They are giving him mental torture. Zafar’s life is in danger in jail.” (Pakistani Prisoner in Urgent Need of Prayer; By Gary Lane; Blogs CBN.comThe Global Lane; 7/17/13 11:43 AM)

 

Zaffar Bhatti was poisoned in Jail and suffered unsasnitory (sic) living conditions which affected his legs and body, yet he survived. And as he hailed the Name of Jesus loud and clear echoing in the prison cell walls, the prison inmates and the guards became astonished and asked what was that? They never heard how Christians hail the name of Jesus aloud. But since then, they have kept their silence and refrained from persecuting Zaffar Bhatti. https://www.facebook.com/notes/jesus-world-mission/zaffar-bhatti-wins-his-safety-in-jail-through-jesus-name/653922414625661 (Updates on Zaffar Bhatti: Chairman Jesus World Mission; By Ahsan Nabi Khan; Ahsan Nabi’s Blog; 9/20/13)

 

I want you to notice the large bulk of this information is NOT from any Mainstream Media sources. The irony is if you Google ‘Zafar Bhatti’ most Mainstream Media sources still have the rumors that he was killed in Adayla Prison awaiting execution for the absurd Blasphemy conviction.

 

The Christians on death row for Blasphemy convictions are growing all the time. To my knowledge no one has been executed as yet. On the other hand death row Christians are victims often victims of attempted murder or murder by guards and/or inmates. Zafar Bhatti is an example of the many Pakistani Christians that are relatively unknown in America because our media has opted not to report on the horrendous treatment of Christians in Pakistan unless it is a catastrophic event in which many Christians die.

 

Shamim Masih is openly soliciting donations for care of Zafar’s legal bills and for his family that also live constantly under the threat of Muslim mob violence or mob execution. If you read this and KNOW someone or some Organization that can offer some very needed support Zafar you can send money directly to Shamim Masih who was contacted by Zafar’s family to get the word out on the Christian Pastor’s precarious life and death situation. For Americans willing to step up, the best way is through Western Union. Here is the Shamim Masih contact information to send money via Western Union for Shamim to present to the Zafar Bhatti family:

 

For Americans especially, I have discovered the best way to donate to Shamim Masih is via Western Union sending this LINK to a Western Union agent in Islamabad. Include Shamim’s phone – +92-300-642-4560

 

By clicking “LINK” above Western Union will take you through the process of donating in U.S. Dollars in which Western Union converts to Rupees. Shamim’s phone is needed because that is how Western Union contacts Shamim to make him aware funds are available.

 

If you desire a tax deduction for your giving you need to find a reputable organization that has the proper U.S. Non-Profit tax status to that will contribute to the needs of Zafar Bhatti and his family.

 

OR try contacting Tahir Naveed Chaudhary the Chairman of the Pakistan Minorities Alliance (PMA) specifying on how to help Zafar Bhatti: HERE.

 

There is more donation methods toward Shamim Masih at the end of his update report posted after my thoughts entitled, “Zafar Bhatti blasphemy accused is perfectly fine, says his wife Nawab Bibi”.

 

Can you imagine the silliness of being convicted to a death sentence for voicing your opinion about Mohammed in a negative way? If such laws existed in the USA I would have been lynched long ago. As a Christian living in the land of Liberty I often condemn the theology of Islam directly from that so-called religion of peace’s own revered books such as the Quran, Hadith and Sira. The Quran is considered immutable even by devoted Muslims that call themselves Moderate. It is misleading that the Quran is not presented in a chronological order because there are basically two sides of a coin in the book. One side concentrating mostly form Mohammed’s home town of Mecca prior to fleeing are all about peace and toleration through Allah. The flip side of the coin are Mohammed’s words and actions in Medina which by Western standards are quite lecherous, greedy, brutal and intolerant. According to Islamic theology, especially as seen through the Sunni sect and Abrogation, the Medina portion of the Quran outweighs the Mecca portion when consulted on a theo-political jurisprudence matter. I do not have an irrational fear of Islam as the word ‘Islamophobia’ might indicate, rather I have a very rational dislike for the Islam that is very anti-Christian (ergo antichrist religion) and anti-Jewish (ergo antisemitic) in their holy writings. Thank God I have the right to expose the essence of Islam’s antichrist nature in America. Pakistan I probably wouldn’t make it to the court house before Christ-hating Islamic Supremacists murdered me for my beliefs as blasphemous to Mohammed, Allah and Islam in general.

 

Every charge of Blasphemy in Pakistan is an attack on Civil Rights issues taken for granted in the United States of America. We as Americans have the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Bold text mine)

 

In America the Constitution is nearly holy writ for the American way of life. Hence Religious Freedom and Free Speech is protected even if individuals, people of devout faith, atheists or various political ideologies are offended. As Americans when a person or group of a divergent faith, no faith or political persuasion offends another American; the offended vents in written or peaceful protest form. Violent responses has become as heinous crimes in the minds of all Americans of faith, no faith, race, gender and politics. Now it is true peaceful protests have evolved into violence but this has occurred less and less in the USA since the 1960s. These days when violence does erupt it is almost never to do with religion or politics, rather when the perception of a minority race that their race has experienced a horrendous rupture in Civil Rights, the minority breaks out into violence. These days the majority population as a whole rarely if ever instigates violent protest over an incident. This was not the case during the 1960s and the very early 1970s in which the Civil Rights Movement was forcing the White majority to abandon long-time prejudices primarily against African-Americans (Black Community).

 

The Southern U.S. had been entrenched in the hostility toward Black Americans having the same Equal Rights as White Americans because of the former Black Slave status ended with the North (Union) victory over the South (Confederacy) States effectively ending the institution of slavery but not the White attitude toward former slaves. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution became the foundation to provide Equal Rights to American minorities even though the end of the slavery of Black Americans was the purpose. Those Amendments became ratified in 1865, 1868 and 1870 respectively. BUT full implementation was not forced upon the segregationist South and various non-South urban areas until the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. That is roughly 100 year variance between slavery emancipation and the enforcement of Civil Rights.

 

This is my point: other than some race baiting by certain politicians (coughPresident Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and more), Civil Rights violence has nearly ceased to exist. Regardless of the fact that discrimination does still exist it is not even close to the level that Black Americans experienced prior to the forced policies of the Civil Rights policies of the U.S. government in the 1960s and early 1970s.

 

As I was researching the limited sources I could access pertaining to Zafar Bhatti and his family I discovered that Zafar’s sister – Nasreen Bibi – experienced a tragedy at the hands of Muslims in 2010. Then 12 year old Shazia Bashir worked for a Muslim family as a domestic servant. When her parents were finally granted access to their daughter they found her tortured with cuts to her body of which Shazia eventually succumbed to in the hospital. At any rate forgive me for interjecting the U.S. Constitution be sure to read about Zafar Bhatti’s very urgent needs as reported by Shamim Masih.

 

JRH 10/1/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Zafar Bhatti blasphemy accused is perfectly fine, says his wife Nawab Bibi

Shamim Masih, Basharat Khokhar, Nasreen Bibi & Nawab Bibi

 Shamim, Basharat, Nasreen & Nawab

By Shamim Masih

Sent: 9/30/2014 6:06 AM

 

ISLAMABAD: Zafar Bhatti accused of blasphemy case confined in the Central Jail Adiala (or Adayla) Rawalpindi, is perfectly fine and fit, says his wife Nawab Bibi after visiting him in the jail on September 29, 2014. She is thankful to Tahir Naveed Chaudhary, Chairman Pakistan Minorities Alliance – PMA and Basharat Khokhar, Rights Activist for arranging their visit to Adayla Jail.

 

According to the details; there were rumors that Zafar Bhatti a victim of the 295-C [Blasphemy Law] imprisoned in Adayla Jail, was attacked after the attack of Muhammad [perhaps also Ali] Asghar, another blasphemy victim in the same premises. A police constable named Yousaf attacked Muhammad Asghar on September 25, 2014; he received a gunshot and was taken to the hospital and is still under treatment. Since then there were unverified reports [that Zafar was killed] and Zafar’s family was worried about him.

 

Early morning on 29th September, Tahir Naveed Chaudhary chairman PMA and Basharat Khokhar took Nawab Bibi and Nasreen Bibi and went to see Blasphemy victim Pastor Zafar Bhatti. They met Zafar in the jail and found him in good health. Tahir Naveed Chaudhary, who has been attorney to Rimsha (a minor girl, victim of blasphemy), said it was [his] first visit after the speculations and after the fact finding. We decided to take care of the family and the case as well. PMA has decided to provide assistance to the family and legal aid for the accused. Basharat Khokhar, a member [of] civil society, said that I voluntarily [provided] assist[ance] to the persecuted because I have faced the same charges. Human Rights champions work [assistance] as a business but I am passionate to save the beleaguered community.

 

Nawab Bibi, wife of the Zafar Bhatti, supported Basharat Khokhar and said that he [has] been helping us since the case is registered. Joseph Francis [of CLAAS] came to us and had a photo session, he also provided us assistance of Rs. 5000 twice, and she [had] answered when asked about the CLAAS assistance provision. Nasreen Bibi, sister of Zafar Bhatti, said he [i.e. Joseph Francis] is [the] least [to] bother solving the case and seems interested to prolong the case for his vested interest. That is the reason he uses delay tactics in the case. Both females showed their confidence on these gentlemen [i.e. Tahir Naveed Chaudhary and Basharat Khokhar].

 

The group came to my house after their meeting with Zafar Bhatti in the jail.

 

Persecution against religious minorities is very common in Pakistan. But it is observed that some Human Rights champions, without realizing the pain of the victims, play with the life of the poor Christian families.

_______________________

Pakistan’s Blasphemy Law vs. U.S. Constitution and Culture

John R. Houk

© October 1, 2014

______________________

Pakistan’s Blasphemy Law vs. U.S. Constitution and Culture

John R. Houk

© October 1, 2014

______________________

Zafar Bhatti blasphemy accused is perfectly fine, says his wife Nawab Bibi

 

Edited by John R. Houk

Text in brackets and all links are by the Editor.

 

© Shamim Masih

Special Correspondents

Daily Khabrian (PakBiz.com description) & Channel – 5

Human Rights Activist

 

Western Union to Pakistan Shamim Support Info:

 

For Americans especially, I have discovered the best way to donate to Shamim Masih is via Western Union sending this LINK to a Western Union agent in Islamabad. Include Shamim’s phone – +92-300-642-4560

 

Snapshot of Human Rights Activism from 2011

Christian Rights Activist
Freelance Journalist 

Secretary General of Information

Pakistan Christian Congress

 

MORE Shamim Masih’s Donate/Support info:

 

FOR USD TRANSFER.
Intermediary Bank:                         MASHREQ BANK, NEW YORK
Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC:         MSHQUS33
Beneficiary Bank:                         JS BANK LIMITED
Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC:                 JSBLPKKA
Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank:         70008227
Title Of a/c                                Shamim Masih
Beneficiary Account Number:                 405527

 

Top of Form

IBAN #                                        pk80jsbl9530000000405227

FOR GBP TRANSFER.
Intermediary Bank:                         MASHREQ BANK, LONDON
Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC:         MSHQGB2L
Beneficiary Bank:                         JS BANK LIMITED
Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC:                 JSBLPKKA
Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank:         00010855
Title Of a/c                                Shamim Masih
Beneficiary Account Number:                 405527
IBAN #                                        pk80jsbl9530000000405227

FOR EURO TRANSFER.
Intermediary Bank:                         MASHREQ BANK, LONDON
Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC:         MSHQGB2L
Beneficiary Bank:                         JS BANK LIMITED
Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC:                 JSBLPKKA
Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank:         10847
Title Of a/c                                Shamim Masih
Beneficiary Account Number:                 405527
IBAN #                                        pk80jsbl9530000000405227

 

In Support of Conservative Principles and Biblical Christianity


Ben Franklin praising Christian Morality quote

 

John R. Houk

© August 15, 2014

 

I have been having a discussion with a commenter on my NCCR blog. I had posted that discussion in portion under the title, “So who’s Full of Baloney?” As you can expect that discussion has continued in the comment section at the NCCR blog. We have both entered the realm of antagonism once in a while but for the most part the discussion has been civil. I have always assumed Bryan the commenter was a Leftist due to his way Left of Center defense. In his last comment he said he was neither a Leftist nor a Right Winger but read info and made his own decisions. I will probably get into trouble by trying to find a place on the political spectrum for a guy that puts up a stiff defense for Left Wing principle yet considers himself neither Left nor Right on that spectrum. So I won’t.

 

Anyway, Bryan posted a rather lengthy comment to a comment I made knocking a previous Bryan comment. Bryan’s most recent comment is an impressive evenhanded response to my comment. I am going to do you – the reader – a small disservice by not posting Bryan’s last comment. Bryan’s comment was posted on August 5th so I am a bit behind the curve in actually responding. As you read my most recent response you may feel the need to go to Bryan’s comment to read exactly what I am responding to. HERE is the link to Bryan’s most recent comment as of this post if you choose to read.

 

Thus begins my response:

 

Bryan I appreciate the civility of this last comment. The only thing I can get behind 100% is the concept of the Free Choice and the 1st Amendment. As you can guess there are some nuances that I can never agree with.

 

Leftists, Atheists and perhaps centrists that interpret the 1st Amendment as the Freedom from religion in the sense of Christian Morality is flawed. And you can realize why from our exchanges. On the other hand I absolutely support one practicing any faith that does not run contrary to the American-style of the rule of law and I absolutely support a non-religious life if so chosen. What I cannot support is for Leftists, Atheists, Centrists or non-Christian faiths forcing the practice of Christianity out of the public forum. That was never the Original Intent of the Constitution. Rather the Original Intent was to make the rule of Law to not force anyone practice a particular form of Christianity and I’ll accept by extension to not force anyone to practice any form of religion or atheism. However, unconstitutional Separation of Church and State enthusiasts force Christians NOT to practice their faith quite forcefully under the false that practicing faith forces the non-faithful to practice a religion or ideology that is against another’s faith or lack thereof.

 

The Original Intent of the First Amendment was to offer anyone to practice their faith even in a public forum without restrictions than with restrictive prohibitions. The government is not endorsing any religion because the public forum allows one to freely practice like-minded religious principles. After all there is a certain universality on the foundations of Christian between all the Denominations of Protestants (incidentally the Original thinking of the Founding Fathers), Roman Catholics and Eastern Rite Christianity. Hence a prayer by a football team or a city council will probably have more broad agreement than hostile disagreement. If an atheist chooses not to pray – so be it. If a non-Christian in attendance wishes to pray according their own faith – so be it. Don’t force a culture in which Christians cannot pray just because taxpayer money might be paying for a Public School Football team or Field or pays for the meeting room of a City Council et al. That is breaking religious freedom more than the fallacy of allowing prayer establishes a national Church. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a national Church (Original Intent) and by extension any national religion.

 

The case for or against abortion is argued as a woman’s free choice with their own body or against the personal life of the unborn baby in a woman’s womb. For a Biblical Christian calling an unborn baby a body extension with philosophically sanitized word of “fetus” is just smoke and mirrors to people of faith.

 

The increasing (and unfortunate) success of homosexual activists changing the minds of a huge chunk of American voters does not make the homosexual lifestyle any more acceptable to Biblical Christians. Yet homosexual activists have successfully used the legal system to force Biblical Christians to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, restricted Biblical Christian clubs or associations in Public Schools or Public Colleges from forming while allowing homosexual clubs and associations to prosper. This is a restriction of 1st Amendment religious freedom to accommodate a fairly recent acceptance of homosexuality. Indeed a Biblical Christian is now vilified as a bigot for demanding their religious freedom on a campus while a homosexual club or association gleefully mocks the Biblical Christians because they are restricted and the homosexuals freely practice a lifestyle Biblical Christians find abhorrent.

 

The one complaint you have that indicts me is my attitude toward Islam. I have a huge problem with Islam as a religion and Muslims that support Salafist (i.e. purest) Islam or even Muslims that might consider themselves moderate yet support Islamic terrorist like Hamas that are dedicated to killing Jews, Christians and Americans. I actually sway back and forth between Dajjal’s solution for Muslims who hate and the Christian principles of forgiveness and mercy. It depends on the Muslim atrocity, the Muslim self-justification or the Muslim lie of the day versus how much time I have spent in meditation in the Holy Scriptures. This inner struggle between ending Muslim hate and the patience of Jesus is constant. Perhaps you can be the conscience of the day once in a while that isn’t quite antagonistic.

 

Bryan I am certain I probably did not respond to all your concerns but I have run out of gas. I think you get the idea of my frustration with Leftist, Atheist and Centrist complainers of the practice of Free Market principles and Biblical Christianity. I am also certain your principles are no more tolerant of my Biblical Christian Conservative ideology than I would be with yours.

 

JRH 8/15/14

Please Support NCCR

The House should Investigate and Subpoena Obama Administration to the Hilt


BHO calls scandals - Americans Call Crimes

John R. Houk

© June 15, 2014

 

In a recent Conservative Campaign Committee (CCC) fundraising email I discovered even more SMOKING GUN evidence that the entirety of the Obama Administration conspired to lie about the Benghazi attack to American voters for political reasons. The CCC email doesn’t harp on the political reasons as I think it should. You have to realize the political reasons were to ensure the reelection of Comrade Obama as the President of the United States of America in November 2012. The Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack on the diplomatic annex was a planned attack on September 11, 2012. Obama tried to make that attack appear to voters that the Islamic terrorist attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous motivated riot due to a sophomoric made Youtube video produced in America that was designed to be provocatively racist against Islam.

 

If you have ever gotten to see what is billed as a Youtube trailer before it was yanked you know the video is so poorly made that it is almost humorous. Unfortunately Free Speech in Islam’s Sharia Law is blasphemous so it is true Muslims were offended. SO WHAT! The Obama Administration has forced American Christians to participate in so many offensive measures from killing unborn lives (taxpayer supported abortions), forcing Christian Hospitals to perform abortions on demand, to force businesses owned by Christians to cater to the service needs of homosexuals even though that lifestyle is an oft repeated abomination to the Presence of God in the Holy Bible and more.

 

Christian Rights are vacated in the name multicultural acceptance. Christians are forced to absorb the mirth of atheistic Leftists and abortionists, Muslims spewing hate toward Christians (See Also HERE), homosexuals spewing hate toward Biblical Christians and more.

 

AND YET when a Christian or Counterjihad writer exposes what the actual Quran, Hadith and Sira of Islam do proclaim, it is called hate-speech or bigoted Islamophobia! (See Also HERE and HERE)

 

I have no doubts that the Obama Administration tried to both assuage Muslims and fool American voters that his Presidency is totally supportive of a Muslim’s right to go crazy due to multicultural deference.

 

Is lying to voters to gain an election victory a crime in the USA?

 

This is not just executive overreach. In many cases, Obama’s exercise of authoritarian power is criminal. His executive branch is responsible for violations of the Arms Export Control Act in shipping weapons to Syria, the Espionage Act in Libya, and IRS law with regard to the targeting of conservative groups. His executive branch is guilty of involuntary manslaughter in Benghazi and in the Fast and Furious scandal, and bribery in its allocation of waivers in Obamacare and tax dollars in its stimulus spending. His administration is guilty of obstruction of justice and witness tampering.

 

And yet nothing is done. (Prosecute the President; By Ben Shapiro; FrontPage Mag; 6/12/14)

 

That excerpt above lists only a fraction of the legal infractions committed either by President Obama’s direction and/or Obama’s Executive Branch. And there is no criminal investigations! Why?

 

PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM JUDICIAL DIRECTION

 

By the decision of the Court in Mississippi v. Johnson,720 in 1867, the President was placed beyond the reach of judicial direction, either affirmative or restraining, in the exercise of his powers, whether constitutional or statutory, political or otherwise, save perhaps for what must be a small class of powers that are purely ministerial.721 An application for an injunction to forbid President Johnson to enforce the Reconstruction Acts, on the ground of their unconstitutionality, was answered by Attorney General Stanberg, who argued, inter alia, the absolute immunity of the President from judicial process.722 The Court refused to permit the filing, using language construable as meaning that the President was not reachable by judicial process but which more fully paraded the horrible consequences were the Court to act. First noting the limited meaning of the term “ministerial,” the Court observed that “[v]ery different is the duty of the President in the exercise of the power to see that the laws are faithfully executed, and among these laws the acts named in the bill. . . . The duty thus imposed on the President is in no just sense ministerial. It is purely executive and political.

 

“An attempt on the part of the judicial department of the government to enforce the performance of such duties by the President might be justly characterized, in the language of Chief Justice Marshall, as ‘an absurd and excessive extravagance.’

 

 

Rare has been the opportunity for the Court to elucidate its opinion in Mississippi v. Johnson, and, in the Watergate tapes case,724 it held the President amenable to subpoena to produce evidence for use in a criminal case without dealing, except obliquely,[p.580]with its prior opinion. The President’s counsel had argued the President was immune to judicial process, claiming “that the independence of the Executive Branch within its own sphere . . . insulates a President from a judicial subpoena in an ongoing criminal prosecution, and thereby protects confidential Presidential communications.”725 However, the Court held, “neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high–level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.”726 The primary constitutional duty of the courts “to do justice in criminal prosecutions” was a critical counterbalance to the claim of presidential immunity and to accept the President’s argument would disturb the separation–of–powers function of achieving “a workable government” as well as “gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III.”727

 

Present throughout the Watergate crisis, and unresolved by it, was the question of the amenability of the President to criminal prosecution prior to conviction upon impeachment.728 It was argued that the impeachment clause necessarily required indictment and trial in a criminal proceeding to follow a successful impeachment and that a President in any event was uniquely immune from indictment, and these arguments were advanced as one ground to deny enforcement of the subpoenas running to the President.729 Assertion of the same argument by Vice President Agnew was controverted by the Government, through the Solicitor General, but, as to the President, it was argued that for a number of constitutional [p.581]and practical reasons he was not subject to ordinary criminal process.730

 

Finally, most recently, the Court has definitively resolved one of the intertwined issues of presidential accountability. The President is absolutely immune in actions for civil damages for all acts within the “outer perimeter” of his official duties.731 The Court’s close decision was premised on the President’s “unique position in the constitutional scheme,” that is, it was derived from the Court’s inquiry of a “kind of ‘public policy’ analysis” of the “policies and principles that may be considered implicit in the nature of the President’s office in a system structured to achieve effective government under a constitutionally mandated separation of powers.”732 … Although the Court relied in part upon its previous practice of finding immunity for officers, such as judges, as to whom the Constitution is silent, although a long common–law history exists, and in part upon historical evidence, which it admitted was fragmentary and ambiguous,734 the Court’s principal focus was upon the fact that the President was distinguishable from all other executive officials. He is charged with a long list of “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity,”735 and diversion of his energies by concerns with private lawsuits would “raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government.”736

 

Supplement: [P. 582, add to text following n.738:]

 

Unofficial Conduct.—In Clinton v. Jones,9 the Court, in a case of first impression, held that the President did not have qualified immunity from suit for conduct alleged to have taken place prior to his election to the Presidency, which would entitle him to delay of both the trial and discovery. The Court held that its precedents affording the President immunity from suit for his official conduct—primarily on the basis that he should be enabled to perform his duties effectively without fear that a particular decision might give rise to personal liability— were inapplicable in this kind of case. Moreover, the separation–of–powers doctrine did not require a stay of all private actions against the President. Separation of powers is preserved by guarding against the encroachment or aggrandizement of one of the coequal branches of the Government at the expense of another. However, a federal trial court tending to a civil suit in which the President is a party performs only its judicial function, not a function of another branch. No decision by a trial court could curtail the scope of the President’s powers. The trial court, the Supreme Court observed, had sufficient powers to accommodate the President’s schedule and his workload, so as not to impede the President’s performance of his duties. Finally, the Court stated its belief that allowing such suits to proceed would not generate a large volume of politically motivated harassing and frivolous litigation. Congress has the power, the Court advised, if it should think necessary to legislate, to afford the President protection.10 (CRS ANNOTATED CONSTITUTION: Article II — Table of Contents; From Cornel University Law School, Legal information Institute)

 

Sifting through the legalese I am assuming that means the POTUS cannot be prosecuted for a crime but can be subject to a civil suit as long as it does not interfere with his Executive Branch duties. After his term of Office has expired then he may be subject to criminal proceedings. This is the unofficial reason President Gerald Ford gave President Richard Milhous Nixon a full pardon from any crimes committed while in Office. A sitting President that breaks the law can receive the equivalent of a political indictment called impeachment in the House of Representatives. The Senate acts as the equivalent of a political jury with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acting as Judge. A Senate conviction ONLY means a removal from Office. Then criminal proceedings can be executed judicially.

 

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

 

The U.S. Constitution provides impeachment as the method for removing the president, vice president, federal judges, and other federal officials from office. The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives and follows these steps:

 

1.      The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings and, if necessary, prepares articles of impeachment. These are the charges against the official.

 

2.      If a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles, the whole House debates and votes on them.

 

3.      If a majority of the House votes to impeach the official on any article, then the official must then stand trial in the Senate.

 

4.      For the official to be removed from office, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict the official. Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be forbidden from holding governmental office again.

 

 

The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes.

 

The Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment. They are “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” To be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the official committed one of these acts.

 

The Constitution defines treason in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:

 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 

The Constitution does not define bribery. It is a crime that has long existed in English and American common law. It takes place when a person gives an official money or gifts to influence the official’s behavior in office. For example, if defendant Smith pays federal Judge Jones $10,000 to find Smith not guilty, the crime of bribery has occurred.

 

 

What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.

 

The Origins of the Phrase

 

 

But the committee’s recommendation did not satisfy everyone. George Mason of Virginia proposed adding “maladministration.” He thought that treason and bribery did not cover all the harm that a president might do. He pointed to the English case of Warren Hastings, whose impeachment trial was then being heard in London. Hastings, the first Governor General of Bengal in India, was accused of corruption and treating the Indian people brutally.

 

Madison objected to “maladministration.” He thought this term was so vague that it would threaten the separation of powers. Congress could remove any president it disagreed with on grounds of “maladministration.” This would give Congress complete power over the executive.

 

Mason abandoned “maladministration” and proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.” The convention adopted Mason’s proposal, but dropped “against the state.” The final version, which appears in the Constitution, stated: “The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

 

The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. …

 

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

 

… (High Crimes and Misdemeanors; From Constitutional Rights Foundation; © 2014 CRF-USA)

 

Finding a crime directly linked to a sitting POTUS is difficult for justice to be maintained. President Barack Hussein Obama has pushed the criminal envelope to the limits and appears near untouchable because of the blathering love of most of America’s media and the love of political power by the most Left Wing Democratic Party in American history. I am surprised the numerous “phony scandals” has not produced links to actual murder in the name of political power. Thank God so far, that extant of nefarious scandalous illegalities has not come up pertaining to President BHO.  

 

The CCC email I referenced at the beginning of these thoughts exposes the fact that the Islamic terrorists that attacked Libyan Embassy annex in Benghazi had acquired stolen “State Department-issued cell phones from our U.S. diplomatic facility”. The Islamic terrorists utilized these phones to coordinate their attack on the annex mission that resulted in the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. The implication of the CCC email is that America’s Intelligence Community was listening to the Islamic attack coordination! This is another nail in the coffin of lies that exposes Obama and his Administration KNOWINGLY LYING to the American public just prior to the November 2012 election!

 

This is a ton of political evidence to bring Obama to an impeachment vote in the House of Representatives. BUT just like the Democrats in the Senate protected President Slick Willie Clinton from a Senate conviction, the same scenario would undoubtedly take place today in the Senate. EVEN if the GOP retakes the majority in the Senate there will be enough Democrats to ensure that a TWO-THIRDS majority would not be achieved to convict Obama and remove the most corrupt President from Office.

 

That leaves the only way for Obama to receive some justice for his criminal management of this Administration will be via the Civil Suit and/or criminal charges AFTER his term of Office ends in January 2017. AND there is a good chance Obama would escape that post-Presidential justice if a Democrat actually wins the 2016 election for President. Do you think someone like Hillary Clinton will allow civil or criminal discovery of Obama Administration law breaking to go on the public record? NO! A President Hillary would take a page out of the Republican playbook and give Obama a blanket full pardon preventing any kind of investigation from proceeding with the power of the independent Judicial Branch.

 

KNOWING these potential unjustified outcomes I say proceed with House impeachment proceedings at least after the 2014 election cycle to get something on the public record. Public revelations will make it more difficult for Hillary to become President and at the very least allow public opinion to force the Judicial Branch into action civilly or criminally.

 

JRH 6/15/14

Please Support NCCR

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

New Benghazi Scandal Revelations

 

From: Office of CCC PAC

Sent: 6/14/2014 3:35 PM

 

Fox News has a stunning new report that shows that the Benghazi terrorists stole the State Department-issued cell phones from our U.S. diplomatic facility that they had attacked – and they used the phones to coordinate their attack with fellow terrorists.

But the most shocking aspect of the new report is that American intelligence agencies were listening in to the calls – and KNEW instantly that the attack on our compound in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

 

US Spy Agencies Here Benghazi Plans - Obama Lied

 

These stunning new reports are further proof that the Obama administration lied to us about the Benghazi attacks, and then tried to cover up the fact that it was indeed a terrorist attack, and not a political rally in response to a YouTube video.

Please, do not let those four Americans who lost their lives on that fateful night of September 11, 2012 be forgotten, swept under the rug by Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who don’t want the American people to know about the lies and cover ups surrounding that horrific terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

Please review our TV ad below demanding that Barack Obama be held accountable for the Benghazi cover up, and if you want us to keep the pressure on the Obama administration for this scandal, make a contribution to our TV ad campaign – HERE.

 

VIDEO: TV Ad: Hold Obama Accountable for Benghazi Scandal

 

You can help us keep these ads running on the airwaves by making a contribution of any amount from as little as $5 up to the maximum allowed contribution of $5,000. 

To make a contribution online – JUST CLICK HERE.

Ever since the Benghazi terrorist attack the Obama administration, with significant backing from the liberal media, have attempted to hide the truth about what happened.  To cover their failures in combating terrorism, they told lies saying it was not a preplanned terrorist attack, even when they knew that to be an absolute falsehood.

 

Susan Rice- Benghazi Not Preplanned Attack

 

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and countless members of the Obama administration have lied, concealed and attempted to cover up not only the truth but their failures.  As has been his pattern of appeasement in the face of Islamic terrorism, Obama himself would not even call this an act of terrorism.

 

USA Today- BHO says Benghazi Not Terrorism

 

Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said it didn’t matter whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack or whether she and the Obama administration had lied about it.

 

Hillary- What Diff Does It Make

 

The Obama administration has dishonored those who lost their lives on that fateful night of September 11, 2012 and now they say it doesn’t matter because it happened “a long time ago.”

 

Jay Carney- Benghazi Happened Long ago

 

It’s time to hold the Obama administration accountable for their misdeeds.

 

We know the media will try to whitewash the seriousness of this issue.  We need to get the truth out as soon as possible, so please make a contribution to our TV ad campaign that holds Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton accountable – CONTRIBUTE HERE.

 

Again, you can contribute any amount from as little as $5 up to the maximum allowed amount of $5,000.

 

You can also make a contribution online here:

 

Conservative Campaign Committee
ATTN:  Benghazi Ad Campaign

P.O. Box 1585

Sacramento, CA 95812

_______________________________

The House should Investigate and Subpoena Obama Administration to the Hilt

John R. Houk

© June 15, 2014

_____________________________

New Benghazi Scandal Revelations

 

Paid for and authorized by the Conservative Campaign Committee.  Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 104 other followers

%d bloggers like this: