Blog Archives

To Speak or Not to Speak?


Rob Eshman

Rob Eshman
 
Ari and Norma focus this editorial essay on Rob Eshman, the Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of TRIBE Media. TRIBE media owns the largest Jewish circulated English Weekly The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. The “Postcards from America – Postcards from Israel” duo write about Rob Eshman because of a recent unfavorable editorial written by him in the Jewish Journal concerning Pamela Geller’s Mohammed Cartoon Contest and subsequent attack by radicalized Muslim Americans Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi at Garland TX event. Here is a short journalistic profile of Mr. Eshman:
 
Rob Eshman is Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of TRIBE Media, a niche multimedia company based in Los Angeles.
 
Rob started his career as a staff writer at The Jewish Journal in 1993, when it was a small community paper.
 
In 2009, Eshman founded TRIBE Media Corp, reimagining the community paper for the future.   Tribe Media Corp. produces The Jewish Journal,  the largest independent American Jewish weekly, Tribe magazine, a glossy four-color monthly lifestyle magazine, and jewishjournal.com, with 1.5 million unique monthly users, now the largest Jewish news website outside of Israel.   In 2011, Jewish Journal launched the world’s first multi-platform mobile Jewish news app.  In 2013 he launched HollywoodJournal.com.
 
Both The Jewish Journal and Rob have won numerous local and national awards for writing, design and community leadership.
 
A graduate of Dartmouth College, Eshman has written for The Jerusalem Post, The Los Angeles Times, and the Huffington Post.  He is a frequent commentator on Los Angeles-area radio and television, and has served as a Visiting Lecturer on journalism at the University of Southern California Annenberg School of Communication and the University of Missouri School of Journalism. Rob serves on the boards of the Media Policy Center, The Miracle Project and is a founding board member of the Daniel Pearl Journalism Institute in Herzliya, Israel.
 
In addition to his editing and publishing duties, Eshman writes the blog Foodaism, named one of the best food blogs in Los Angeles by CitysBest.com. At his home in Venice, Rob tends to fruit and vegetable gardens, as well as six chickens and two goats. (Rob Eshman; Alfred Friendly Press Partners; Copyright © 2013 Press Partners)
 
Ari and Norma offer some contrasting criticism and support of Pamela Geller per Rob Eshman’s editorial.
 
JRH 5/14/15

Please Support NCCR

****************************
To Speak or Not to Speak?
Pamela Geller – Two Sides of a Coin
 
By Ari Bussel and Norma Zager
Sent: 5/13/2015 11:02 PM
 
Rob Eshman, the editor of the largest-circulation English paper for the Jewish community in Greater Los Angeles, recently dedicated his column to Pamela Geller, declaring:  “You’re no Charlie Hebdo!” 
 
Eshman writes:  “In Texas, she just happened to frost her poisonous ideology with some free-speech icing.”
 
“Except in my opinion, Eshman got it all wrong,” says Ari.
“Except in my opinion, Eshman got it right,” says Norma.
 
Ari’s take is that Pamela Geller, rhetoric to the contrary, is not the enemy.  She is the guard at the crosswalk, keeping a watchful eye over the children on their way to or from school.  She raises her red and white “STOP” sign, warning drivers in stopped or approaching cars of their obligation to yield, be aware and not proceed until it is absolutely safe to do so.
 
Like her or not, call her “Bored Housewife,” “Fat,” “Shorty” (she is none of the above), insults will not deter her.  She is entrusted with protecting the children from a careless driver, from cutting their life short.  However, smearing her with insults may result in a punishment to the person doing the insulting.  Normally there is a police officer in sight, and then suddenly the rude behavior changes 180 degrees.
 
Someone needs to step in to protect Geller who is doing her job, and doing it well, not for the sake of the meager few dollars an hour she receives as a salary, but for knowing no one got hurt on her watch. Although that may not have been the case if one crack shot Texas policeman had not been on the scene.
 
One gets the distinct feeling Eshman really does not like Geller.  She spoils his kumbaya feeling and belief:  “Islam is a peaceful religion.  Muslims are good people (with the exception of those who belong to Isis, but they are an aberration).  We all get along so nicely together.”


To make the point stronger, Eshman points the finger at Geller.  She is the extremist, not those who say “Europe has fallen – America is next!”  She is the one who refuses to live in peace.  She does things “Davka” (to spite) and clearly is a menace to a peaceful society.  In short, she is worse than a troublemaker and must be a very troubled woman.
 
Geller indeed spoils the game.  She exposes the truth and puts it smack in one’s face.  The sights are not pleasant, but the dangers are real. She tells it like it is, as she sees the world, and of course she is not alone in her opinions.
 
The slick propaganda machine of the local Muslims (CAIR, MPAC, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, etc.) is soothing to the ear and smooth as silk.  They are the victims, never the perpetrators.  All terrorist acts carried out in the name of Islam do not belong to Islam but are singular acts by deranged individuals.  In fact, the word “Terrorism” and peace-loving Muslims are two concepts quite incompatible with one other.
 
Thus, continues Eshman’s rationale, Geller is at fault for painting Islam with a skewed brush.  She is a witch casting a devious spell on all Muslims, unjustly smearing their name.  And thus, Eshman who may disagree with her politically or ideologically paints a dreadful picture warning against the icing Geller applies.
 
Eshman is a pure reflection of the established American Jewry, the same “old guard” that surrendered to the Muslims and cancelled an appearance by Geller at the Jewish Federation of Greater LA building because some called to complain.  She was left in the street, doors locked in her face, lest she offend anyone for telling her truth.
 
When was the last time the local Muslims, out of consideration to Jews, turned down the hateful rhetoric against Israel (supposedly committing war crimes and being the new Nazis)?  When did they “disinvite” or even give a second thought when hosting a hateful speaker, one who not only uses blood libels, but also mobilizes listeners to action? Where is the outrage against Muslim students that prevent speakers and Jewish students from exercising their freedom of speech?
There is a tipping point where Eshman has no choice but to change his outer skin.  This was observed recently with the advent of the BDS movement and the thriving anti-Semitism found at local university campuses.  Even UCLA Prof. David Myers wrote a mesmerizing account against BDS, which Eshman to his credit prominently featured.  Yet, how pitiful that Prof. Myers is among those who contributed so much to the advent of this movement.
 
Editor-in-Chief Eshman got it wrong.  Geller is the warning sign that the light is changing from yellow to red.  She is trying to caution us to slow down to a complete stop, look around and be aware of the surroundings, before it is too late.
 
Geller seeks to wake us from our sleep – for our own sake, and for the benefit of the Jewish community at large. Allow me then to add a lesson history has taught us:  Those who helped the Communists attain power were the first to be executed.  That is good to remember even when one refuses to apply the lessons of the past to the present.
 
On another side of the coin – Norma’s – Eshman’s remarks are correct, although laced with insults and demeaning stereotypical comments.
 
There is a great difference between freedom and good sense. When the Nazis marched in Skokie many were appalled they should have the right to do so, but if Americans allow those who hate Jews to be denied free speech, who will be next? And most importantly who will make that call and decide whose speech is allowed and whose is not?
 
That is the slippery slope our forefathers in their wisdom wished to avoid when giving us that precious freedom. Do we all use it wisely and with restraint, perhaps not?
 
If every American agreed with one another’s speech, there would be no need for protection. It is most necessary when we disagree and was designed for that purpose.
 
Having said that, it is also important to note there are considerations of where and how to exercise that right.
 
Where the lives of oneself or others enter into the mix, perhaps a bit of wisdom and caution should prevail.
 
Did Pamela Geller have the right to do what she did? Absolutely and without doubt.
 
Might she have thought better of constructing a situation that would incite violence? Perhaps that would have been wise. Speaking your truth is fine, but when that truth endangers the lives of others, one should be compelled to use a rational and measured approach.
 
Personal attacks against Geller distract from the true issue inherent in her actions. They muddy the waters as much as anti-Muslim rhetoric emotionalizing a serious problem that must be addressed by today’s world.
 
As a Jewish woman I am offended by the “Housewife” remark as trivializing women as unfit to contribute in any remarkable manner. Was Betty Freidan no more than a bored housewife? Did she ignite the Feminist movement because she’d had her fill of “affairs?”
 
Are we not past the Philip Roth’s Sophie Portnoy era of marginalizing and demeaning Jewish women and stereotyping them as annoying and redundant?  If not, I strongly suggest we bury that offensive falsehood once and for all.
 
It is easy to find many on one side or the other of this issue. But free speech is an uncompromising and undeniable cornerstone of our democracy. When we deny it for any reason, we are giving in to the worst kind of terrorism.
 
Should we all exercise discretion in these highly charged and extremely volatile times? In my opinion, advises Norma, that would be the optimum way to proceed. No one benefits when gas is poured on an already raging inferno.
 
Is Ari correct? Yes.
Is Norma correct? Yes.
 
Would we all get along much better if the personal attacks were left at the door and intelligent and mannered conversation were allowed inside?
 
On that we hope we can all agree. 
______________________________________
This is the latest in the series “Postcards from America – Postcards from Israel,” a collaboration between Zager and Bussel, a foreign correspondent reporting from Israel.
 
Ari Bussel and Norma Zager collaborate both in writing and on the air in a point-counter-point discussion of all things Israel-related.  Together, they have dedicated the past decade to promoting Israel.
 
© Israel Monitor, May, 2015
 
First Published May 11, 2015
Contact:  bussel@me.com
 

ACLJ – Mr. President, Name the Enemy


Islam a Totalitarian Political Party

John R. Houk

© May 9, 2015

 

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has been running a petition campaign called “Mr. President, Name the Enemy”. The last time I checked the campaign was just over 90,000 signatures. Now I realize such petition campaigns are typically fund raising programs. But eh … In this case I am pleased that nearly ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND Americans have expressed their displeasure that President Barack Hussein Obama REFUSES to acknowledge America’s most current national enemy at the very least is the Islam interpreted in its purist form called Radical Islam by those who believe that there are Moderate Muslims who don’t believe the Quran is the express word of Allah.

 

Cartoonist Gary Varvel: ISIS self portrait

 

So this is what I’m going to do to encourage people to bring those signatures way over 100K, I going to cross post two ACLJ posts about the ISIS-Garland attack on American Free Speech followed by the wording of the petition. Then click on petition link I’ll provide at the end (or click HERE if you want to forego the actually pertinent information).

 

After you sign you will be taken to the typical donation page. It is not necessary to donate for your petition signature to count. NONETHELESS, the ACLJ is a very good Christian Civil Rights activist organization to support.

 

JRH 5/9/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Jihad Struck Texas But Will the Obama Administration Continue to Bury Its Head in the Sand

 

By Matthew Clark

May 5, 2015

ACLJ

 

Jihad struck Texas last night.  It’s just the latest skirmish in a global radical Islamic assault on free speech – on freedom.

 

It’s a war.  ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, and al Qaeda are just a few of the named brigades in this radical Islamic jihadist army.

 

The two Islamic terrorists who opened fire on a free speech art exhibit in Texas are merely the latest casualties in this war.  But they are a reminder of who the enemy is.

 

These radical Islamists are clear on who their enemy is.  To them, free speech is the enemy.  Islamic radicals made this clear through their murderous rampage at Charlie Hebdo in Paris and the free speech exhibit in Texas.  To them, Christians are the enemy, evidenced by the mass murders, propaganda beheadings, and vile statements carried out by ISIS, Boko Haram and other terrorist groups.

 

The terrorists who attacked free speech in Texas last night made it clear what their goal was, what they were fighting for, and who their enemy is.  One tweeted just moments before the attack.

 

Sharia is Light Tweet

Sharia is Light Tweet

 

That twitter account has now been suspended, but it contained a litany of jihadists tweets, pro-ISIS retweets, and radical Islamic propaganda.

 

In short, to the jihadists, we are the enemy.  They have named their enemy. And by doing so they have inspired the Tsarnaev brothers, the Texas attack, Nidal Hasan, and many others to carry out deadly terrorist attacks throughout America.

 

Yet the Obama Administration still only references these as “extremists.”  President Obama time and time again refuses to acknowledge that these vicious and targeted attacks on freedom are carried out by one ideologically bonded group of people – radical Islamists, jihadists.  Last night was no exception, as the White House has merely referred to the jihadist attack on free speech in Texas as “an act of violence.”

 

In short, President Obama refuses to name the enemy.  And the consequences build every day.

 

The contrast could not be more stark.

 

The jihadists are crystal clear about their enemy.  Tens of thousands of radical Islamists have flocked to join ISIS and other terrorist groups – including attempts by at least one of the militants who carried out last night’s attack.  At the same time, America’s response to jihad, under President Obama’s (lack of) leadership, has weakened the cause of freedom.

 

This must end.  America must demand accountability from our leaders.  We the people must demand that our next President (and there are a lot of people vying for the job right now) is willing to name our enemy and committed to defeating them wherever they train, plot, and carry out jihad.

 

America must never back down.  We must never surrender our First Amendment freedoms.  The local authorities in Texas showed the resolve that we must all exhibit.

 

Free speech, even speech you and I might disagree with, must be protected.  But now it’s time for America’s leaders to speak out – to name the enemy – and engage the jihadists on the battlefields they are creating.  The only way to stop the threat of terror is to overwhelmingly defeat the jihadists who inspire it.

 

This article is crossposted on Red State.

 

++++

Radical Islam In Conflict With Free Speech

 

By Edward White

May 7, 2015

ACLJ

 

A terrorist attack took place in Garland, Texas, this week in response to a free speech conference that took issue with the Islamic prohibition against creating images of the Prophet Muhammad. The event awarded a financial prize to the person who drew the best cartoon of Muhammad.

 

The terrorist attack (ISIS has taken credit for it) points out the stark difference between the American view of speech that offends some people and the radical Muslim’s view of such speech. We allow it; they don’t.

 

Americans have broad free speech rights. Our rights, however, are not unlimited. For example, we cannot falsely shout fire in a crowded theater to cause a panic. (This statement is often wrongly uttered by failing to include the word falsely; of course, we can shout fire in a crowded theater that is on fire.)

 

The main idea behind our free speech rights is to allow an array of speech that is robust. Our free speech rights allow us the room to decide whether to say something (or hold a free speech conference) that is provocative. Our freedom allows for satire and debate, which allows ideas to be explored, and, possibly, allows for minds to be changed.

 

Deciding to engage in such speech at a particular time and place comes down to prudence and effectiveness. Such restrictions are not imposed by the First Amendment, just by a person’s sensibilities. Whether we like it or not, our First Amendment allows a group the freedom to hold a conference that may be considered blasphemous.

 

In contrast, sharia (the moral code and religious law of Islam) does not allow the same freedoms as does our First Amendment. It is restrictive. It allows little, if any, room for self-expression, satire, or dissent from orthodoxy. The consequences for holding a free speech conference, such as the one in Garland, under sharia are severe. The punishments for blasphemy include imprisonment, flogging, and death.

 

The terrorist attack over cartoons about Muhammad illustrates the extreme views of the radical Muslim. No one likes to see his religion blasphemed, but the proper response to blasphemy is debate, boycott, prayer, or protest—not killing those with whom you disagree to silence the speech you do not like.

 

+++++++++++

Mr. President, Name the Enemy

The ACLJ Petition

 

Here’s what the Obama Administration believes:

 

The Taliban aren’t terrorists.

 

ISIS—the Islamic State—isn’t Islamic.

 

America isn’t at war with radical Muslims, merely with “extremists.”

 

It’s hard to believe, but the Obama Administration is afraid to name our enemies.

 

This makes no sense.

 

The Muslim world knows the Taliban are terrorists. The Muslim world knows ISIS is Islamic.

 

It’s time for the truth. It’s time to level with the American people. At the ACLJ, we speak the truth. We name the enemy. Why can’t the President?

 

Mr. President, Name the Enemy

 

President Obama,

 

By refusing to name the enemy, you’re choosing weakness over strength. By refusing to name the enemy, you’re hiding the true threat from the American people. Speak the truth and name the enemy. Americans deserve the truth.

 

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE END OF THE ACLJ PETION & SIGN

 

_______________________

Mr. President, Name the Enemy

John R. Houk

© May 9, 2015

_____________________

Jihad Struck Texas But Will the Obama Administration Continue to Bury Its Head in the Sand

 

Radical Islam In Conflict With Free Speech

 

Mr. President, Name the Enemy

 

American Center for Law and Justice | Washington D.C. | Copyright © 2015, ACLJ

 

About the American Center for Law and Justice

 

Founded in 1990 with the mandate to protect religious and constitutional freedoms, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) engages legal, legislative, and cultural issues by implementing an effective strategy of advocacy, education, and litigation that includes representing clients before the Supreme Court of the United States and international tribunals around the globe.

 

As ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow continued to build his legal and legislative team, the ACLJ experienced tremendous success in litigating cases at all levels of the judiciary – from the federal district court level to the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

Over the last two decades, Sekulow has appeared before the Supreme Court of the United States on numerous occasions, successfully arguing precedent-setting cases before the high Court: Protecting the READ THE REST

 

MAKE A TAX-DEDUCTIBLE CONTRIBUTION TO ACLJ

First Amendment Assaulted by Sharia in Garland TX


Elton Simpson - Garland Muslim shooter

Elton Simpson – A Muslim Shooter at Garland TX

John R. Houk
© May 4, 2015
 
After the end of a Muhammad Cartoon Contest in Garland Texas a couple of Muslims (one of which has been identified as Elton Simpson) from Phoenix Arizona drove up to the Curtis CulwellCar of 2 Muslim shooters Garland TX - Twitter 5-4-15 Center and began shooting. The two anti-Free Speech Muslims wounded security officer Bruce Joiner prior to meeting their demise by police. The attendees of the contest that still remained were escorted to a secure location within the Curtis Culwell Center where someone broke out a U.S. flag followed by everyone singing God Bless America, Star Spangled Banner and praying for the wounded.
 

 
 
Published by BreitbartTexas
Uploaded on May 3, 2015
[Blog Editor: I’m not sure how long video will be available because as if this posting it was marked as “unlisted” with a “think twice before sharing” marked request.]
 
Lost in all the drama of the shooting was the fact there was an actual winner to the cartoon contest actually entitled the Muhammad Art Exhibit. That winner was art blogger Bosch Fawstin.
 
Bosch Fawstin, Geert Wilders, Pam Geller- Mo toon Contest - 5-3-15
 
Bosch Fawstin, Geert Wilders, Pam Geller- Mo toon Contest – 5-3-15
 

 
 
Published on Published on Oct 13, 2014
 
Michael Loftus interviews ex-Muslim cartoonist Bosch Fawstin on The Infidel, Pigman, Islam and the comic book industry.
 
Tom Trento of The United West live-streamed the Muhammad Art Exhibit of which is posted in its three hour entirety on Youtube. In the first couple minutes Trento interviews winner Fawstin on May 3.
 

 
 
Published by theunitedwest
Published on May 3, 2015
 
The first annual Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest will be held on Sunday, May 3, at the Curtis Culwell Center, 5-7 pm, CENTRAL TIME, in the Dallas suburb of Garland, Texas. It will be hosted by human rights and free-speech activist Pamela Geller and her organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI).

The exhibit will feature images of Islam’s prophet in both historical and contemporary settings, showcasing the top 200 artistic renditions that were submitted for consideration. The winner will be announced at the event, and a $10,000 prize will be awarded.

The keynote speaker will be Geert Wilders, a member of The Netherlands Parliament. Wilders led the fight for de-Islamization in his country, which has faced many of the same problems with Muslim assimilation as have other European countries, including the advent of controversial “no-go zones” inaccessible to non-Muslims, including public officials.

 
The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) page promoting the Muhammad Art Exhibit can be read HERE.
 
Fawstin Mo toon won in Garland TX 5-3-15
 
Fawstin Mo toon won in Garland TX 5-3-15
 
Below is the educational moment I originally intended on posting Sunday evening. When I caught the news about the Muslim (and probable ISIS – See Also HERE) attack in Garland I held up to acquire some facts on the – who, what and where – of that incident. Ted of Shoebat.com on Saturday May 2 posted a Raymond Taouk article explaining the nature of Islam. Considering a lot of Leftist MSM and of course Muslim apologists are complaining Pamela Geller brought the violence on themselves for – GASP! – offending Muslims, the education moment about Islam is even more relevant today. The article is a bit lengthy so I suggest you bookmark this page or the Shoebat.com page and digest the info in time frames that fit your schedule.
 
JRH 5/4/15

Please Support NCCR

*****************************
What Every Christian Needs To Know About Islam
 
Posted By Ted
May 2, 2015
 
Islam and the Islamic Notion of Revelation
 
By: Raymond Taouk
Today we are living in a time in which we are living in a time in which we are beginning to witness the revival of Islam.
 
This is something that Hiliare Belloc the great English Historian of the 20th Century had prophetically states in his work “the great Heresies”. In this book written in the late 1930’s he states that Millions of modern people of the white civilization—that is, the civilization of Europe and America—have forgotten all about Islam. They have never come in contact with it. They take for granted that it is decaying, and that, anyway, it is just a foreign religion which will not concern them. It is, as a fact, the most formidable and persistent enemy which our civilization has had, and may at any moment become as large a menace in the future as it has been in the past. The suggestion that Islam may re-arise sounds fantastic but this is only because men are always powerfully affected by the immediate past: one might say that they are blinded by it.
 
Hilare Belloc 
Hilare Belloc
 
A Brief History Of Islam
 
The fact that most of the Mohammedans are mainly located in the far east is because the people known as today’s  “Arabs”, from whom Islamic religion spread,  were descendants of Ishmael, the son of Abraham who was born of the slave woman agar to whom God said he would multiply her seed. This is why the Ishmael is recognized as a prophet in the Islamic Religion (he is placed after Abraham but before Isaac).
 
These sons of Agar dwelt on the Arabian Peninsula and were roughly divided between a nomadic and a more or less urban oasis culture.
 
The Tribal-society aspect of pre-Islamic Arabia explains many of the things that can be found in Islam today. For example, it was perfectly in line with Arab morality to mount raids on other tribes in order to obtain wealth, wives, and slaves, and so the tribes were constantly at war with one another. These desert tribes lived by the code “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. Vengeance was extracted whenever anything was done to hurt any member of the tribe. Forcing people into slavery or kidnapping women, hold them in a harem, and raping them at will was considered just and proper.
 
The harsh Arab climate produced a harsh tribal society in which violence was the norm. And violence is still an attribute of Islamic societies.
 
The Arab population was Polytheistic in orientation. The male and female spirits existed in trees; stones, rivers and mountains, and so they were they worshiped a various number of different “gods”. Sacred magic stones were believed to protect the tribes. The Quraysh tribe had adopted a black stone as their tribal magic stone and had set it up at the Kabah. This magical black was kissed when people came on their pilgrimage to worship at the Kabah. It was no doubt an asteroid/meteorite that had fallen out of the sky and thus was viewed as being divine in some way.
 
Arabian idols
Arabian idols
 
The Quraysh tribe,  (Muhammad’s tribe) which was one of the more larger and  more important tribes saw to it that there was an idol for every religion at the pagan temple called the Kabah (a another version of the Roman Parthenon – the temple dedicated to all the Gods. The word Kabah is Arabic for “cube” and refers to the square stone temple in Mecca where the idols were worshipped. The Ka’bah was a cube shaped construction which was about 50 feet high with side 40 feet wide enclosing an empty, windowless room with marble walls.
 
This temple contained a virtual smorgasbord of deities with something for everyone. At least 360 gods were represented at the Kabah and a new one could be added if some stranger came into town and wanted to worship his own “god” in addition to the ones that were already represented. – This Kabah will later play a major role in Islam because it is by means of this Kabah that Mohammed will claim to prove the apostolic character of his religion by simply saying that Abraham and Ishmeal had built the Kabah even though there is no historical proof that Abraham or Ishmeal were ever in Mecca.
 
The Beginning Of Islam
 
The founder of Islam is Muhammad (AD 570 – 632). Muhammad’s father died before he was born, and his mother died while he was still young. He was sent to live with his rich grandparents, who later sent him to live with a wealthy uncle, who in turn passed him on to a poor uncle who raised him as well as he could.
 
The Quarish tribe, to which Mohammed belonged, had established itself in the south of Hijas (Hedjaz), near Mecca, which was, the principal religious and commercial center of Arabia at the time of Mohammed. They had become the masters and the acknowledged guardians of the sacred Kaaba, within the town of Mecca — then visited in annual pilgrimage by the heathen Arabs with their offerings and tributes — and had thereby gained such preeminence that it was comparatively easy for Mohammed to inaugurate his religious reform and his political campaign, which ended with the conquest of all Arabia and the fusion of the numerous Arab tribes into one nation, with one religion, one code, and one sanctuary.
 
Mo riding Buraq
 
[Blog Editor: Mo riding Buraq]
 
According to the biographers and early Muslim traditions, Mohammed’s mother died when he was a little boy and so he was raised by his uncle Abu Talib who brought him up a pagan and introduced him in the trade business but As a whole very little is known about his early life mainly because he was simply a normal Arab boy who enjoyed talking with those who traveled in the caravans. He loved to explore the desert and particularly the caves. According to the early Muslim traditions, the young pagan Muhammad experienced different visions in some of the caves he went to.
 
He got married at the age of 25 to a wealthy women named Cadijah who’s camel trade he looked after, she was some 15 years older him, but it was through this marriage that he became much more acquainted with Christianity since his wife’s uncle (Zayd) was a Nestorian Christian who upbraided him for worshiping idols and instructed him in the faith. In fact Father Nicholas of Cusa, a well-known Catholic Theologian and Philosopher of the 15th Century, quotes another Arab, in his work “A scrutiny of the Koran” who states that Mohammed Himself had been influence by Sergius a Nestorian monk, which seems probable since most of the surrounding region and towns next to were Mohammed had lived had more or less accepted Christianity in one form or other.
 
Nevertheless at the age of 40 Muhammad (610) Mohammed began to experience have visions again. This time he claimed that Allah had called him to be a prophet (nabi) and an apostle (Rasul).
 
Muhammad at first shared his call only with the family and friends in secret. Indeed, his first converts were some members of his own family. But soon his message became public, and he became subject to ridicule and hostility by the population at large and even by members of his own family.
 
Satanic Verses
 
In order to appease his pagan family members and the members of the Quraysh tribe, he decided that the best thing he could do was to admit that it was perfectly proper to pray to and worship the three daughters of Allah: Al-Lat, Al-ussa and Manat! This led to the famous “satanic verses” in which Muhammad in a moment of weakness and supposedly under the inspiration of Satan succumbed to the temptation to appease the pagan mobs in Mecca (Sura 53:19).
 
Muhammad eventually fled to medina, in AD 622. This event is called hejira by the Muslims and marks the beginning of the Muslim era and calendar. In other words the year 622, is the year 1 in the Islamic Calendar.
 
While at Medina, Muhammad planned and organized the spread of his new religion. The only powerful method he could use was that of violence in the name of Allah – the jihad. This jihad was so successful, despite so many oppositions, that at Muhammad’s death in AD 632 half of the Arabic world had become Muslim, and by AD 750 the Muslims had conquered the Persian and large parts of the Byzantine empire.
 
From reading the Koran one would not suppose that an enormous number of Arabs were Christians. Though the people of the Hijas were predominately pagan, many of the surrounding tribes had accepted Christianity. There were some members of the Quraysh tribe that had accepted Christianity but they were generally few. However all along the Mediterranean Christianity was already fully established.   In fact it is reported that that when Muhammad entered Mecca in triumph in the year 630, paintings of Jesus and the virgin Mary, among others, were still visible on the inner walls of the Ka’ba.
 
Coming Islamic Invasion Of Europe
 

 
 
Posted by TradCatKnight
Published on Nov 22, 2013
 
The Meaning Of Islam
 
The very word is an Arabic word, which originally referred to an attribute of manliness and described someone who was heroic and brave in battle. However most expounders of the word will generally affirm that it means “submission” as the Moslems today understand it to mean. Most Moslem apologist will even go as far as saying the originality of this name is a sign of the divine origin of Islam and a clear indication that all must because Moslems since it is obvious to any believer that we must be in “submission to God”.
 
Face of Protesting Muslims
Face of Protesting Muslims
 
Divisions In Islam:
 
Despite the military success of the Muslims, Islam has divided into various sects of which the two largest are the Sunni and the Shiah.  The Term “Sunni” is derived from the word “Sunnah” which means “Tradition”. The Shias have their own Sunnah, not identical to that of the Sunnis. The Sunni uphold the legitimacy of the succession of the first three caliphs, (Abu Bakr, Omar, and Uthman, while the Shiah defend the Divine right of Ali as against the successions of these caliphs whom they call “usurpers”, and whose names, tombs, and memorials they insult and detest).  The Sunni make up the larger about 85 % while the Shiah make up about 10%.The major difference is that Sunni is more like a Church founded on the consensus of the community, while the Shite hold to an authoritarian form of Government where the imams have the right of say that which cannot be contradicted by the community since they are seen as having a sort of impeccability/infallibility.
 
That is a brief historical overview, however Before I get into the Islamic notion of revelation I want to mention something about the other sources of Islamic authority  and the Islamic beliefs so that you can understand what place the Koran holds in Islam and what it teaches the Moslems.
 
The Theology Of The Koran
 
It is a monotheistic – A strict belief in one God, who they call “Allah”. “Allah” has 99 names. For the Moslem Our Lord  Jesus Christ is merely a prophet, one of the many prophets with Mohammed being the last and the greatest of the Prophets and so the Moslems do not pray to or worship Mohammed, -not in the strict sense any way. They pray to Allah – They believe that with Mohammed the canon or revelation from God was finally closed. Their will be no more – It’s true that some Moslems deny this point but a general rule those are the tenants of the great body of Moslems. The theology of the Koran is quite simple and that’s what makes it most suitable for your any Godless pagan to embrace. – The Joe 6 pack religion.
 
For the Moslems Islam supersedes Christianity and Judaism in the way Christianity Superseded Judaism so according to them it is incumbent on all Christians to become Muslims and So we Should all convert and become Muslims.
 
Similarities and Differences:
 
Moslems do believe in heaven and Hell, good and bad angels. They believe in the Devil – the Shaitan -or iblis- who was condemned to hell because he refused to worship Adam – this same idea is found in the Talmud. They do believe in Adam and Eve, but they deny Original sin since for them the sin of Adam did not lose anything for the rest of men but only for Adam alone.
 
The pagan element that Mohammedans have maintained about angels is a believer in the spirits they call jinn, these spirits are said to have originated in fire and function as mediators between angels and humans. They claim that there are good and bad Jinn and that Mohammed had converted some of them to Islam.
 
While the Muslims do believe in Heaven and Hell, their notion of Hell is similar to ours, but their notion of heaven is clearly pagan although not totally since, they claim that Heaven has 7 levels. The seventh Level is the highest – somewhat equivalent to our heaven. There you are in the presence of Allah.
 
However the average Moslem is more familiar with the other levels of heaven which are presented in a materialistic and sensual way since these places a man’s sexual desires are fulfilled to the limited – a place which St. Alphonsus says is only fit for beasts!
 
In fact if you really want to understand why some Mohammedan would strap some bombs on himself and gladly let them explode at the cost of his life, it is precisely because he is promised heaven in return for killing the infidel. And so he goes to his death looking forward to an eternity of bliss in a land where there will be milk and honey and all wine and you can drink along with the most beautiful girls called “Houris” to fulfill their every desire!
 
Although the Koran does lay down most of what I have said so far about the Islamic beliefs, yet all most all the other things Moslems believe are derived from three other sources besides the Koran:
 
Other Sources:
 
1.   The Hadith, a record of words and deeds of Muhammad by his relatives and friends;
 
2.   The Sunnah, or acts of Muhammad;
 
III. The Ijma, consensus of the Muslim community or of its leading scholars.
 
The reason that Mohammedans have other authorities other than the Koran is that from the very beginning it was clearly understood that the Qur’án could not give all the rules for all the situations encountered by a Muslims in daily life.
 
Even during Muhammad’s lifetime a supplement to his message proved to be necessary;  his deeds and words were written down so as to be an example for future Moslems on how to conduct their lives. These stories about Mohammed were passed down orally until the 9th century before they were systematically collected and written down into what is known as the Hadith.  The Hadith Together with the Sira, constitute the Sunnah – that is the traditions of the Prophet.
 
While no absolute canon of the Hadith has ever been established, nevertheless certain compilers are recognized as more trustworthy – those compiled by al-Bukhari (d. 256 A.H., 870 A.D.), are regarded as most sahih – most true. The Hadith itself from a historical point of view as far as its reliability is a collection of hearsay statements which is not really worth the paper it’s written on, it is not only doubtful but like the Koran it is also latent with contradictions (Islam by Alfred Guilaume, pg. 106) but  even then while I might undermine the Hadith because of the fact it is historically unreliable for reasons I don’t have the time to get into but what you have to at least understand as that in practice it almost plays a far greater role than the Koran does for the average Muslim since without the Hadith, the Koran the Koran doesn’t stand as a Pillar of direction for Moslems on how to function in their daily life as Muslims and being Arabs unless a law is set down they will kill one another over even the smallest things.
 
The beliefs that are laid down for the Moslem to believe are 6 major beliefs:
 
The Beliefs of Islam
 
The 6 Major beliefs of Islam, according to the Quran and Muslim tradition:
 
I. Belief in Allah
 
Belief in the prophets
 
III. Belief in the day of Judgment (therefore belief in heaven and hell);
 
Belief in the revealed books;
 
Belief in the angels;
 
Belief in fate or providence – Calvinistic idea of Predestination.
 
Every Muslim must believe and profess these beliefs. If any Muslim renounces Islam or becomes an apostate, he will be liable to the greatest punishment, death and hell. Another Islamic belief is that is that it is absolute necessity for all male Children to be circumcised, while some Islamic sects prescribe it also for women. Divorce and Polygamy are allowed, Pork along with alcohol are forbidden as “harram” – evil.
 
The obligations of Islam
 
Muslims also hold to the teaching of “faith and good works” and totally reject the protestant notion “justification by faith alone”. Upon every Muslim there are incumbent various obligations which they are bound to observe. They are the following:
 
Belief in the oneness of Allah and his prophet Muhammad;
 
Offering of daily prayers;
 
III. Almsgiving; – They do believe in good works and reject the idea of “faith alone”
 
Observing the fast of Ramadan (30 days); – Ramada follows a lunar Calendar. During the month of Ramada Muslims cannot eat or drink during day time hours – not even their own saliva!
 
Performing hajj to the Kabah in Mecca once in a lifetime, if possible.
 
The Islamic Notion Of Revelation:
 
The Islamic bible equivalent is the Koran. The word Koran comes from the Arabic to recite or read since it was originally given to Mohammed as a recitation which he in turn recited to others who wrote it down. This revelation was intended to recited by all who accepted its message, that is why most devout Moslems now great portions of the Koran from memory.   The Koran is roughly equivalent in length to the New Testament and divided into 114 sections, known as suras. The book’s are organizing principle according to size.
 
While the Koran hold a similar prominence in Islam as the bible does in Christianity, yet strangely enough their notion of revelation is totally different. As you know, the Catholic teaching on revelation of the Sacred Text of the Bible is that various human authors wrote the various books or letter that they wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost while nevertheless maintaining their liberty and their various styles, temperaments and different degrees of human knowledge. For the Moslems on the other hand the Quran was supposed to be send down from heaven directly by God by the intermediary of one Man,  the Prophet Mohammed who while he disclaimed having any power to perform miracles, claimed that the divine revelations enshrined in the Quran were themselves miraculous signs of his apostle ship.   In the Koran Mohammed expressly states regarding the Koran that “God Himself and His holy Spirit composed this most true book.”- Surah 16:101,
 
For the Moslem because the Quran is supposed to have come down  “unfettered” by human intervention, is thus the truest and clearest statement of Allah’s word, and therefore supersedes all previous revelations, even annulling those revelations, as they have supposedly been corrupted by the limitations of their human authors.
 
The Quran itself though is seen as merely a transcript of an uncreated and eternal tablet or book that had preexisted in heaven in which is written all that has happened and that will happen. It is supposed to have been revealed to Mohammed by the intermediary of the spirit of God.
 
The physical Qur’án, that they have in written text for them, is only the visible copy of that eternal and uncreated Quran. The Uncreated and eternal Quran is called the Mother of the Book. The role of Mohammed was to speak the truths of this Uncreated Koran, so that it could take on earthly form, and thus carry Allah’s eternal message to the world. And so not seen as a book in the ordinary sense, nor is it comparable to the Bible, either the Old or New Testaments. It is for the Moslems (sic) an expression of Divine Will. If you want to compare it with anything in Christianity, you must compare it with Christ Himself. Christ was an expression of the Divine among men, the revelation of the Divine Will. That is what the Quran is for the Moslems. If you want a comparison for the role of Muhammad, the better one in that particular respect would be Blessed Virgin Mary. Muhammad was the vehicle of the Divine, as she was the vehicle of the word of God… (Charris Waddy, The Muslim Mind [New York: Longman, 1976], p.14)
 
For this reason as funny as it might sound, Islam has had and continues to have its own Arians, etc. who debating and persecuting each other over the nature of the Quran as being created or uncreated. Some say it’s created while others deny it! After years of blood shed on the issue it is commonly held that the Koran is uncreated.
 
Nevertheless what is interesting about the Mohammedan claim of an uncreated Quran – even though we find it erroneous – the idea of a heavenly tablet was not a new idea invented by Mohammed the concept is as old as religion itself.  This idea was familiar to the ancient heathens (of Mesopotamia), not to mention the fact that Talmudic Judaism, in its traditional literature has crowned the Torah as pre-existent.
 
In Christianity pre-existence is ascribed to the word of God, the logos but of course it has a different significance since the Moslems don’t worship the Koran as God!
 
Nevertheless during Mohammed’s lifetime the verses that he recited and claimed to be revealed to him were written on palm-leaves, stones, the shoulder-blades of animals, and any other material that came to hand, because Mohammed could have his revelations at any time and so they often made use of what was handy.
 
While historically there were a number of different version of the Koran which contradicted each other, the Moslems wisely deceived to destroy them and decide on only maintaining one version because the Moslems feared that scriptural exegesis would pursue the course with them like it had taken among Jews and Christians who at that the time accused one another of corrupting and falsifying the text, it would have meant the end for this newly founded religion. The edition which they put out is till this day the authoritative text. Even though there are various versions of this text only the original Arabic version of the Koran is God’s inspired word since English versions cannot give you the true meaning of the Koran.
 
The earliest copy of the Koran can be dated at around 790 AD which is about 160 years after the death of Mohammed but there are some earlier fragments which date about 100 years after the death of Mohammed. But it’s only logical that the bones, stones, palm leaves, tree bark, etc.., which contained some of the material on which the Koran was supposed to have been written that these materials perished. Since these materials by their very nature corrupt. In fact that is what even happened to the divinely inspired of Gospels and Epistles the New Testament. The earliest copy of the Koran can be dated at around 790 AD which is about 160 years after the death of Mohammed but there are some earlier fragments which date about 100 years after the death of Mohammed. Yet while it’s true that most Islamic Scholars will dishonestly affirm that they still have the original version, yet it not only could they not produce such a text but humanly speaking it’s not possible since those materials by nature decay.
 
Prophets
 
Moslems no not only have a different notion of Revelation but also of prophet hood. But this teaching of Islam was clearly only a latter development since if you read the Koran the notion of prophet hood resembles the Christian understanding. They firstly make a distinction between one who is a Nabi — that is one who deliver simple admonitions and warnings, and One who is specially chosen to proclaim a special revelation, the rasûl– An Apostle.
 
Moslems claim that not only are all the prophets/Apostles – Rasul of Allah, are inspired by God to reveal his will to the world,  but that these rasul/prophets especially Mohammed (the seal/culmination of the prophets) were all without sin and infallible.
 
Conclusion
 
It’s undeniably important to understand what Moslems do and don’t believe since Islam today is a reality that we have to deal with. The Moslems today dwell not in some distant land across the sea but in the same countries in which we also live and so it’s important to have at least some understanding of one of the world’s largest religions especially one which most westerners are more than likely to join since it appeals to the senses and isn’t too difficult to follow and that would suit the lifestyle of most materialist godless people today.
 
On this note, I would like to leave you with the thoughts of Belloc on Islam who in response to the vital question “May not Islam arise again?” He responds, “In a sense the question is already answered because Islam has never departed. It still commands the fixed loyalty and unquestioning adhesion of all the millions between the Atlantic and further afield throughout scattered communities of further Asia. But I ask the question in the sense “Will not perhaps the temporal power of Islam return and with it the menace of an armed Mohammedan world which will shake off the domination of Europeans still nominally Christian and reappear again as the prime enemy of our civilization?” The future always comes as a surprise but political wisdom consists in attempting at least some partial judgment of what that surprise may be. And for my part I cannot but believe that a main unexpected thing of the future is the return of Islam.”
 
It seems we are beginning to see that revival!
______________________________
First Amendment Assaulted by Sharia in Garland TX
John R. Houk
© May 4, 2015
_______________________________
What Every Christian Needs To Know About Islam
 
Edited by John R. Houk
A spellcheck was utilized undoubtedly changing the wording of original repost from “Ted”.
 
© Copyright 2015 Walid Shoebat. All Rights Reserved.

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 110 other followers

%d bloggers like this: