Introducing the Tolerance of the Intolerable:


What Happens When Mixing Multiculturalism, Islam & Multiculturalism?

John R. Houk

© July 12, 2019

 

On July 10 I posted about Tommy Robinson being a “Rebel Against UK Multiculturalism” pleading for his support even after his unjust conviction criminalizing telling the truth about Muslim pedophilia rapists in the United Kingdom.

 

On July 11 I posted “The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism” being an agenda leading toward the end of National Sovereignty and Liberty in Western Culture but especially as we Americans have known in the U.S. of A.

 

Today’s post somewhat combines the themes of the last two posts about how elitist Multiculturalists are creating New Speak terminology to force a brainwashed population to tolerate what common sense would tell you is intolerable.

 

It’s time for an English vocabulary lesson. Noisy Room has picked up a Linda Goudsmit post at Pundicity introducing the word “Tolerism” describing Tommy Robinson’s political persecution by the UK judicial system ending Free Speech while submitting to Islamic dhimmitude in the name of culture destroying Multiculturalism.

 

Multiculturalism Destroying Cultures:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JRH 7/12/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

The Humanitarian Hoax Of Tommy Robinson’s Conviction: The Death Of Free Speech – Hoax 38

 

By Linda Goudsmit | Pundicity

July 11, 2019 11:29 AM

Noisy Room

 

Tommy Robinson surrounded by police

 

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

 

The conviction of journalist Tommy Robinson is a humanitarian hoax that has destroyed free speech in England and threatens free speech worldwide. What does this have to do with America?

 

Tommy Robinson is a British journalist who has been reporting on Muslim rape gangs throughout England that have been raping little English school girls with impunity for decades. The savagery of their acts, and that British authorities are covering up this massive atrocity against the innocent, is extremely destabilizing to British society. Civilized people reject the protection of perpetrators at the expense of victims.

 

For civilized people, Tommy Robinson is the heroic whistleblower who exposed the horror of Muslim rape gangs and their unspeakable acts of barbarity in England. British society experiences enormous confusion and cognitive dissonance because British authorities protect Muslim rape gangs and embolden them by prohibiting the reporting of their heinous acts of savagery. Why is this happening?

 

Let’s sort this out by examining the reasons in numerical order.

 

  1. Tolerism

 

Tolerism is defined by Howard Rotberg in his 2014 book, Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed, [Blog Editor: The GoodReads.com added by me. Book Review] as “excessive leniency to opinions of certain groups, and excessive intolerance to the opinions of other groups.” Rotberg explains that the breakdown of Western society is a direct result of Leftist tolerists who insist that tolerance is more valuable than justice.

 

The once free Britain has reduced itself to a dhimmi nation by tolerating its sharia-compliant Muslim population at the expense of its native Christian population. Make no mistake, there is an Islamic religious war being waged worldwide that seeks to eliminate competing religions and establish a global Islamic caliphate ruled by religious sharia law. Britain’s leaders are tolerists insisting that tolerating Muslim rape gangs in the name of cultural diversity is more important than justice for its victims. Tolerism is Britain’s fatally flawed political ideology providing victory to the Muslim Brotherhood, the multi-national organization that has declared Islamic religious war on the West.

 

Anyone who still questions the global intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood should read its 1991 An Explanatory Memorandum: From the Archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America the general strategic goals for the group in North America.

 

Populism rejects the twisted logic of political tolerism and embraces the common sense warning of Austrian/British 20th-century philosopher Sir Karl Popper:

 

“If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. . . . We should, therefore, claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

 

The British court’s decision values tolerance over justice. Why would they do that?

 

  1. Leftist/Islamist Alliance

 

In America, the Leftist/Islamist alliance is trying to destabilize and overthrow duly elected populist President Donald Trump. POTUS is the consummate whistleblower in America, exposing the staggering malfeasance of the Washington swamp and the Leftists, Islamists, and globalists who live there.

 

Leftists in America ignore, “Islamic tenets of misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, pedophilia, gang-raping non-Muslim little girls, female genital mutilation, and wife-beating as long as these sharia-compliant Muslims are anti-American anti-Trumpers. Any anti-American anti-Trump Islamist is welcomed into the Leftist tribe because they are all warriors in the Culture War against America. America-first President Donald Trump is the existential enemy of the Culture War and the target of the Leftist/Islamist alliance.”

 

In England, the Labor party is equivalent to the Leftist Democrat party in America, both prefer globalism to national sovereignty. In England, the Labor/Islamist alliance is trying to destabilize England and create chaos to subvert the will of the people and stop the implementation of BREXIT.

 

So, what do President Trump and Tommy Robinson have in common? Tommy Robinson is the whistleblower in England and the existential enemy of the leftist Labor party that prefers tolerism to justice. Why?

 

Tommy Robinson and President Trump are claiming, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

 

  1. Tolerism vs Justice

 

What is the goal of tolerism in England and America? Why do Leftists in America and Labor in England ignore the obvious violations of the laws and norms in their Judeo-Christian countries and surrender their culture to the savagery and barbarism of Islamic sharia norms?

 

Tolerism is a paradox because tolerists selectively decide what to tolerate. Whistleblowing and truth-telling about Muslim rape gangs is not tolerated – it is criminalized. So, a two-tier system of justice is established that prohibits anti-Muslim speech and protects anti-Christian and antisemitic speech. Why?

 

If you want to know the motive, look at the result. The effects of this egregious double standard is that anti-Christian burning of churches, and antisemitism including defacing synagogues is rampant and unpunished in England. If the British courts continue to protect sharia-compliant Muslim perpetrators and their criminal acts at the expense of native Britains, social chaos will result. Remember, seismic social change requires social chaos.

 

Tommy Robinson and President Trump, each in his own way, is exposing the truth of tolerism and its global anti-American, anti-British attacks on our sovereignty and shared Judeo-Christian norms. Their separate efforts continue to unravel the ongoing deceitful multi-national efforts fomenting the social chaos necessary to impose a globalized New World Order.

 

Sir Karl Popper warned us about tolerism. George Orwell warned us that, “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

 

  1. Freedom of Speech

 

Every tyrannical regime the world has ever known begins its reign of terror by eliminating freedom of speech. Lenin did it, Trotsky did it, Hitler did it, now Leftists in England and in America are doing it by disingenuously relabeling free speech as hate speech. There is no freedom without freedom of speech which is why speech is universally the first freedom eliminated by despots.

 

The same tolerist Culture War being waged against America by the Leftist/Islamist alliance is attacking England. Leftism and Islamism have a common cause to destroy the status quo even though their ultimate objectives will make them inevitable enemies. The Islamists are fighting for a global religious Islamic caliphate. The Leftists/Labor are fighting to destroy the national sovereignty and cultural identities of their respective countries in preparation for socialism in America, and a unified European State in England.

 

The irony, of course, is that members of the Leftist/Labor/Islamist alliance are all useful idiots for the globalist elite who finance and foment their lawlessness. The alliance members are just too arrogant to realize they are participating in their own destruction.

 

Seismic social change requires social chaos. The Leftist/Labor/Islamic alliances in the United States and England are providing the necessary social chaos for the globalists who fully intend to impose a New World Order – an internationalized world ruled by themselves under the corrupt auspices of the United Nations. There is no humanitarianism in the conviction of whistleblower Tommy Robinson. His conviction is part of the coordinated attack on free speech and a free and sovereign England imposed by the globalist elite using tolerism and the unholy Labor/Islamist alliance.

 

July 8, 2019, will be recorded as the day free speech died in Britain, the day Tommy Robinson was convicted for reporting the crime of Muslim rape gangs in England. The only law that Tommy Robinson broke was the Islamic supremacist sharia law forbidding criticism of Islam. Islamic sharia law does not consider the raping of little English school girls to be a crime – the prohibition is against criticizing and reporting it. England has reduced itself to a grotesque dhimmi nation willing to sacrifice its own little girls in a globalist power grab that requires social chaos.

 

The humanitarian hoax of tolerism that convicted Tommy Robinson must not be allowed to silence him permanently. Hopefully, populist President Donald Trump will grant Tommy Robinson humanitarian asylum in the United States where he can still expose the realities of an Islamicized England. Britain is, after all, the proverbial canary in the expansionist Islamist coal mine.

________________________

Introducing the Tolerance of the Intolerable:

What Happens When Mixing Multiculturalism, Islam & Multiculturalism?

 

John R. Houk

© July 12, 2019

____________________

The Humanitarian Hoax Of Tommy Robinson’s Conviction: The Death Of Free Speech – Hoax 38

 

© 2019 NoisyRoom.net

 

The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism


John R. Houk

© July 11, 2019

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Five Stages of Islamic Conquest

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

 

As a general rule:

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

JRH 7/11/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

 

By Judith Bergman

July 10, 2019 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

NOTES:

 

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

____________________

The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism

John R. Houk

© July 11, 2019

___________________

UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

 

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

 

 

Rebel Against UK Multiculturalism:


Donate to Tommy Robinson Legal Defense

John R. Houk

© July 10, 2019

 

Tommy Robinson is a crusader for British Culture against the Islamization of the UK. Since the UK is full in dedicated to multiculturalism, that places Robinson on the UK’s political persecution list.

 

Being a political target in the UK makes Robinson a criminal in the eyes of British law and a target for vilification by the British press which are more dedicated even more to Leftist multicultural cultural programming than the U.S. Mainstream Media.

 

Douglas Murray writing for the National Review provides an evenhanded fair history of Tommy Robinson from violent EDL days to present day  “citizen journalist” (dated 5/31/18): https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/tommy-robinson-grooming-gangs-britain-persecutes-journalist/

 

With that in mind, Tommy Robinson has actually been convicted for making Muslim pedophile grooming sex trafficking anxious. Here is a 3:38 minute video from Ezra Levant on this British injustice against Robinson (H/T The Tundra Tabloids):

 

VIDEO: Tommy Robinson GUILTY! Ezra Levant reacts

 

Posted by Rebel Media

Published on Jul 5, 2019

 

See ALL our reports about Tommy Robinson’s trial and SUPPORT The Rebel’s independent journalism: https://www.therebel.media/real-reporters-tommy-robinson-trial-london-uk-ezra-levant/

 

Ezra Levant of TheRebel.media reacts to Tommy Robinson being found guilty on contempt of court charges on July 5, 2019. MORE: https://www.therebel.media/tommy-robinson-news-guilty-verdict-contempt-uk-politics-ezra-levant

 

MORE TO READ

 

As an American protected by the First Amendment guaranteeing Free Speech and a Free Press, I find this British verdict against Tommy Robinson outrageous. In the UK all media is now denied to Robinson meaning public pleas for help if not censored now, it soon will be. The UK is slipping more and more into Big Brother totalitarianism. This is the kind of repression that caused thirteen British Colonies to declare independence in 1776.

 

Below is an email appeal for Tommy Robinson from Canadian Elsa Schieder which ultimately asks for support for at least Robinson’s legal defense bills with a link for this purpose. In case you are already inspired, here is that link: https://www.tr.news/freedom-for-tommy (The link is sponsored by TR [Tommy Robinson] News. You will first notice to donate in British Pounds Sterling, but there is a dropdown arrow-menu to switch that to U.S. Dollars, Euros, Canadian Dollars or Australian Dollars.)

 

JRH 7/10/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

We Have a Dream – from Martin Luther King Jr to Now

 

By Elsa Schieder

Sent July 9, 2019 9:48 AM

Sent via WorldTruthSummit.com

 

 

Martin Luther King, Jr. – August 20, 1963

 

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'”

 

We Too Have a Dream

 

That’s why I’m writing. Because so many of us join with Martin Luther King, Jr, in the dream of equal rights, of living in a land of freedom and justice. We say, as he did: It’s time for one law for all, and for the law applied equally to all.

 

I’m sure he never imagined the possibility of what is going on today.

 

Over and Over, Unequal Treatment

 

So many of us face both unequal treatment under the law, and laws claiming to be for justice, but mandating unequal treatment.

A travesty of justice – that is what Tommy Robinson has lived for years.

 

Tommy Robinson

 

And that is what can be expected in much of the West if the charges relate to something that may put Islam in a bad light, or if someone does something that is or can be seen as anti-Islamic. A man put a bacon sandwich at a mosque. His sentence: one year. The outcome: his death half-way through his prison term.

Here’s the most recent case of the utter injustice Tommy has experienced. On May 25, 2018, after checking carefully that he was not breaking any law, Tommy was accused of breaking a law he did not break, denied fair trial, and within 5 hours sentenced to 13 months for saying to a live video audience something that was on the BBC website, and jailed.

He chose to spend most of his imprisonment – almost 3 months, until the appeal – in solitary confinement, to increase his chance of staying alive. That was only the beginning.

 

In the appeal, the judge – a top UK judge – threw out the case, but left it open that the case could be reopened.

It was. On July 4 and 5th, 2019, there was another trial, this time at the Old Bailey, where most cases are for crimes like murder, rather than for reading from the BBC website. This time, the judge – another top judge – chose to convict. The conviction seems in large part due to Tommy’s having asked convicted rapists how they felt about their verdict. This showed, it was argued, insensitivity to their feelings.

Just yesterday, Tommy appealed to Trump for political asylum. He is to be sentenced within 2 days. The sentence could be for as long as 2 years. He is sure he will be murdered in prison.

The legal system, through the actions of the courts, has been – blatantly, visibly, outrageously – unjust, unfair, endangering Tommy. The greatest danger to Tommy has been through his being placed in prisons with a high proportion of Islamic violent offenders, including murderers. Why has he been sent to such prisons? No answer is required.

One reason the government can do as it does is that the mainstream media publishes untruths – like that Tommy pleaded guilty; like that Tommy had endangered the trial of rape gang members (though the case had ended, and the rapists had been convicted); like that Tommy is a racist Islamophobic hoodlum; and on.

A larger reason is that the legal system, the government, the mainstream media, the establishment religions, are all – as shown by massive evidence – massively corrupted, massively complicit. There is rot wherever one turns.

One way to help is to donate to Tommy’s legal defense fund. The cost to Tommy to date: over 100,000 pounds. Here is the link to donate: https://www.tr.news/freedom-for-tommy

 

Over 250,000 people were listening
on August 20, 1963, when Martin Luther King, Jr spoke.

How Many People Are Listening Now?

 

In 1963, the media reported Martin Luther King’s speech. It was easy to hear his message.

Now, the mainstream media tells blatant untruths.

“The truth shall set you free.”

We need everyone to hear the truth.


Over and Over, Laws that Discriminate

 

There is another massive injustice happening. Not only are laws unfairly applied, with any infringement used as an excuse for a massive punishment, but unjust laws, laws that discriminate, are increasing in number.

In the United States, there used to be Jim Crow laws, laws that discriminated against blacks – like, blacks go to the back of the bus. Now, there are new Jim Crow laws – like, Christian whites, don’t even try to get on the bus.

John Naughton (name changed to protect his identity) was falsely accused of sexual harassment. He went to prison. He now has a criminal record though he was innocent and though he had proof of his innocence, proof that the allegation was malicious in intent. Most likely the accuser was racially targeting him.

Why did he end up in jail? John is working class. He works full time, but his pay is not enough to cover legal costs. The choice he was given: plead guilty, or pay for legal costs, which will mean losing your home.

What could he do?

John is one of many.

 

What About Assistance with Legal Representation?

 

John lives in the UK, where legal assistance used to be available for people in his situation.

It isn’t any more.

The law is now overtly a Jim Crow law. It overtly discriminates.

Needed: one law for all.

Instead, now low income is irrelevant in terms of qualifying for government assistance for legal representation.

All that counts is membership in some designated groups.

John Naughton did not qualify. No one classified as white qualifies, unless that white person belongs to a non-Christian religion or is a refugee.

There is one law for non-whites, especially Islamic non-whites, another for whites, especially Christian whites.

Blatant discrimination. Blatant injustice.

From a Travesty of Justice to Joining Together

 

Everywhere one turns, blatant miscarriages of justice. Unequal treatment. Laws that discriminate.

All people against injustice must join together and act: keep informing ourselves, inform others, and join political parties that expose the rot and expose the truth – about Islam, about the consequences of mass incoming, about the taboo against non-politically correct thinking in the education system.


The War on Truth

 

Here are quotes attributed to Hitler’s minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels:

 

– If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.

– Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will.

– This is the secret of propaganda: Those who are to be persuaded by it should be completely immersed in the ideas of the propaganda, without ever noticing that they are being immersed in it.

– Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.

– It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.

 

Hitler and Goebbels – many powerful quotes that apply today.


Join Together – LINK, ACT

 

We can do the best we can on our own.

Donating is vital – time, effort, money.

Staying informed and reaching out to others – also vital.

More that is needed.

Plato: If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools. 

The situation is actually far more dangerous than living under the rule of fools. Currently, throughout much of the West, from all the evidence, we are living under the rule of, at best, dangerous cowards and reality-deniers – at worst, evil-doers out to destroy the West.

We need to be involved, as far as we can.

Where to turn?

There are parties typically denigrated as “populist” – as if the population were rotten.

In the UK, one truth-telling party is Anne Marie Waters’ For Britain: https://www.forbritain.uk

If Gerard Batten continues to lead, there is UKIP:
https://www.ukip.org

(If Batten is replaced as leader – as is almost certain, as he has just been barred from running by the party he co-founded – this party may well return to silence about anything negative relating to Islam).

How can you tell truth from untruths told over and over?


Again, Join Together!

Justice for All.
Save the West!

 

All the best to all who care and do what we can,

Elsa

July 9, 2019 – 2 days before Tommy’s sentencing

  1. Please share. You can forward, or this sendout is online at:
    http://westindanger.com/justice-for-all.html 

INTERVIEWS WITH TOMMY

From July 8, the interview where Tommy appeals for political asylum: https://youtu.be/Ux93kfCiJk4 [blog Editor: The link is to a 39 minute of Alex Jones interview with Tommy Robinson. It is worth to watch because Robinson’s passion. Interspersed throughout the interview are pay-the-bills advertisements. Of they are as annoying to you as I found them simply fast-forward.]


On June 26, 2019, just a few days before the trial, Tommy gave a detailed accounting
 of his encounters with the legal system, starting from the day of his arrest on May 25 2018:
http://elsasblog.com/190628-court-case-update.html

Truth Teller in an Anti-Truth World

 

On May 23 2018, 2 days before his arrest, things had never looked better: http://elsasblog.com/180603-tommy-robinson-interview.html

 

Tommy Robinson Interview, May 23, 2018

 

For lots more, come explore
http://elsasblog.com
and
http://TruthSummit.info 

July 9, 2019

_______________

Rebel Against UK Multiculturalism:

Donate to Tommy Robinson Legal Defense

 

John R. Houk

© July 10, 2019

_______________________

We Have a Dream – from Martin Luther King Jr to Now

 

World Truth Summit
2074 Concession #3, 
Hawkesbury East, 
Ontario, Canada

 

Next Step Church/State Separation Plague


John R. Houk

© July 3, 2019

Clearly California legislators either failed their civics classes or are viewing the First Amendment in a reverse Original Intent format:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  -First Amendment on ConstitutionCenter.org

 

Until activist Courts including SCOTUS began dismantling the Religious Liberty in the First Amendment in the mid-20th century, history CLEARLY illustrates the Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to mean the government must stay out of all things related to the Christian Church yet Christianity was to be a moral influence on government.

 

Although legal scholars might use an earlier starting point, the big date for SCOTUS revisionism is 1947: Everson v. Board of Education. The SCOTUS decision 5 affirms and 4 dissents. Hugo Black wrote the majority decision and Justices Jackson and Rutledge wrote dissenting opinions. The point being ONE VOTE revised the First Amendment original understanding that stood 160 years of government out of Church but Church being a moral influence on government:

 

Since this ruling in 1947, courts throughout America have looked to this opinion as a watershed from its historical interpretation from the days of America’s Founding Fathers. Justice Black and those supporting his opinion on the Court introduced a completely new element that was and is at variance with the historical interpretation of the First Amendment. Justice Black and his colleagues inserted new law into the Constitution that the Supreme Court justices for nearly 160 years had never seen. The historic position of the Supreme Court and lower courts was summarized by Supreme Court Associate Justice, David Brewer, and his majority opinion (Holy Trinity vs. United States, 1892) and subsequently enlarged upon in his book, The United States a Christian Nation. (The Truth about Separation of Church and State: Error of Justice Hugo Black; By Stephen Flick; Christian Heritage Fellowship

 

A good read on the issue is Justin Smith’s ‘The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”’. Another good read is “How the Supreme Court Twisted the First Amendment and Banned Religion in Public Schools” by Zachary Garris at Teach Diligently.

 

The Dems are perpetuating this assault on Religious Liberty via the Dem sponsored Equality Act (H.R. 5) in the House. The aim of the Equality Act is to force Americans (undoubtedly aimed Biblical-minded Christians) to further accept the godless LGBTQ lifestyle. If the Republican majority Senate passes its version of the Equality Act (S. 788) introduced on March 13, God have mercy on America.

 

What brought these thoughts to fruition though is State legislation in Leftist haven of California. My July 3 news alert from Prophecy News Watch (PNW) informs me a California State bill would force Christian Pastors/Preachers to zip their lips on preaching the Bible about the godless homosexual lifestyle.

 

The California Bill is ACR 99 and it “… would FORBID pastors from saying homosexual acts are sinful? A bill REQUIRING them to affirm same-sex relationships and gender identity? It has been proposed!” (The bold text is my emphasis of the quote in the PNW article.)

 

If read or hear the Left (these days that includes some Churches who have abandoned the Word of God) tell you, “The Bible does not condemn homosexuality”; those sources are blatantly lying and maybe even twisting the original meaning of Scripture with completely faulty revisionist scholarship. (Just like activist Judges and Justices to the U.S. Constitution.) HuffPo is a classic example of twisted-lying Left-Wing sourcing. If you are a Bible-believing Christian belonging to this Wikipedia list (as of today last updated 7/3/19) of Churches accepting LGBTQ in one fashion or another, YOU are in danger of placing yourself in rebellion to God (choosing the same path of Adam and Eve [godless Adam & Steve or Adriana & Eve]). Rebellion causes God-Separation, aka the Second Death (Genesis 3: 1-9; 1 John 2: 15-17 HCSB):

 

Genesis – The Temptation and the Fall

1Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You can’t eat from any tree in the garden’?”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit from the trees in the garden. But about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, ‘You must not eat it or touch it, or you will die.’”

“No! You will not die,” the serpent said to the woman. “In fact, God knows that when[a] you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God,[b]knowing good and evil.” Then the woman saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to look at, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

 

Sin’s Consequences

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze,[c] and they hid themselves from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. So the Lord God called out to the man and said to him, “Where are you?[Bold text Editor’s – Signifies God-Separation]

 

1 John 2

15 Do not love the world or the things that belong to[a] the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. 16 For everything that belongs to[b] the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride in one’s lifestyle—is not from the Father, but is from the world. 17 And the world with its lust is passing away, but the one who does God’s will remains forever. [Bold text Editor’s – Homosexuality is only one of many sins of the world separating one from God.]

 

JRH 7/3/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Why This New California Bill Is So Dangerous To The Church

 

Gay Church Flag

 

By MICHAEL BROWN/ASKDRBROWN.ORG

JULY 03, 2019

Prophecy News Watch

 

Last week, I put out a warning about a bill under consideration in California known as ACR 99. I explained “Why California Pastors Must Stand Up to Government Tyranny.”

 

I also tweeted about the bill. I asked: “What? A California bill that would FORBID pastors from saying homosexual acts are sinful? A bill REQUIRING them to affirm same-sex relationships and gender identity? It has been proposed!”

 

One of my Twitter followers, a younger Christian man, challenged my reading of the bill. He insisted that it did not infringe on Christian liberties. Is he right?

 

Let’s take a look at this bill more carefully. Once we do, you’ll understand why Christian legal organizations, along with pastors and ex-gay leaders in California, are so concerned.

 

The Bill is Bad

 

The final text of the bill states this: “This measure would call upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance, upon religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy, and upon the people of California and the institutions of California with great moral influence to model equitable treatment of all people of the state.”

 

Is this really so bad? Yes.

 

First, who gave the government the right to issue a call like this? Who gave the government the right to tell religious leaders that they cannot help people with unwanted same-sex attractions pursue change? (Broadly speaking, that’s what “conversion therapy” ultimately refers to. The term, of course, is used in a derogatory way.) If ever there was an overstepping of the separation of Church and State, this would be it.

 

Second, what, exactly, is meant by “equitable treatment of all people of the state”? Based on the findings which form the foundation of this bill, it would mean affirming transgender identity and transgender “rights,” even when those “rights” infringed on the rights of others.

 

And this is not just idle talk. The bill passed it its committee vote and is heading to the California Senate for a full vote. Let’s dig in a little deeper to see exactly what California pastors and religious leaders are facing.

 

The Presuppositions

 

ACR 99 is based on a number of presuppositions, all introduced with the word WHEREAS. Here’s the first: “The California State Legislature has found that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBTQ) is not a disease, disorder, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming.”

 

Based on this, it would be wrong to believe or teach that homosexual practice is sinful. Or that homosexual desires are disordered. Or that there is anything wrong with homosexual relationships. Or that a man who believes he is a woman has any type of deficiency. And this is just the first of the 9 “WHEREAS” clauses!

 

Another clause rejects any attempts to change a person’s LGBTQ identity. (This appears under the heading of “conversion therapy.”)

 

And another states that “the stigma associated with being LGBTQ often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBTQ and questioning individuals.”

 

In other words, if you preach and teach what the Bible says about LGBTQ issues and people, no matter how loving and compassionate you are, you are guilty of stigmatizing them, thereby causing them emotional and even physical harm.

 

The intent of this bill is perfectly clear.

 

The Government Telling Pastors What to Preach

 

That’s why Liberty Counsel issued a warning, stating, “CA RESOLUTION THREATENS PASTORS AND COUNSELORS.”

 

Specifically, the resolution “calls on religious leaders and others with ‘moral influence’ to affirm homosexuality and ‘transgenderism’ and to accept that Christian efforts to help people with unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion are ‘ineffective, unethical and harmful.’ As a resolution, ACR 99 does not have the force of law but will be persuasive for some policymakers. It will now go to the state Senate for a vote.”

 

That’s why the California Family Council, which is on the front lines of this legislative battle, wrote that “CA Legislators to Tell Pastors What to Preach from their Pulpits on LGBT Behavior & Identities.”

 

Life and Hope

 

And that’s why ex-gay leaders Ken Williams and Elizabeth Woning protested the bill. As Woning wrote, “For us, walking out our faith with biblical conviction means life and hope. Our faith has saved us from suicide and given us freedom to live with clear consciences. We too would like to be acknowledged and affirmed. … Instead, activists attack our efforts to care for like-minded friends by promoting dangerous counseling restrictions and stifling our free speech.”

 

In short, this bill would state that pastors and Christian counselors do not have the right to walk out their faith and live out their biblical convictions.

 

It would stop them from offering the fullness of the Gospel to people with unwanted same-sex attractions and gender identity confusion. And it would constitute, in no uncertain terms, a frontal assault on their — and our — religious liberties.

 

That’s why it must be resisted.

 

Originally published at AskDrBrown.org – reposted with permission.

_______________________

Next Step Church/State Separation Plague

John R. Houk

© July 3, 2019

___________________

Why This New California Bill Is So Dangerous To The Church

 

© 2019 Prophecy News Watch. All Rights Reserved.
Located in Coeur D Alene, Idaho – USA.
Call Toll Free: 1-877-561-4442
Email: Info@ProphecyNewsWatch.com

 

DONATE to PNW

 

Creeping Sharia-Steve Amundson-Muslim Intimidation


John R. Houk

© May 27, 2019

A week or so ago I discovered WordPress censored Creeping Sharia by removing the blog from their platform. Today I discovered via a Counter Jihad Coalition (CJC) email alert that  Creeping Sharia found a new home on Tumblr.

 

I pray those operating Creeping Sharia are still looking for a permanent home because my experience with Tumblr is they are more censorship oriented than WordPress. Time will tell.

 

The post at Creeping Sharia expounds that Steve Amundson (the founder of CJC) had set up an expose-Islam-info-booth at a mall. The booth was accosted by a couple of Muslim gals and a Muslim man left a backpack under the booth. I’ll let the cross post that will appear below give the details of what occurred, but the point of the post was the incident motivated the mall to rescind its approval for Amundson to have a booth citing security reasons. Amundson got the Thomas Moore Law Center (TMLC) involved in the mall censorship issue.

 

JRH 5/27/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

California: Law Center Thwarts Muslim Attempt To Silence Disturbing Truth About Islam

 

May 27, 2019 10:44 AM

Creeping Sharia

 

Amundson/CJC Booth at Mall

 

“I am very confident in saying that if TMLC had not stepped in on behalf of us we would still be fighting to gain back our First Amendment right of free speech.”

– Steve Amundson, founder of the Counter Jihad Coalition (CJC).

 

Chances are, if you speak boldly about the truth of Islam and Sharia Law you’re bound to run into resistance and conflict. Steve Amundson, the courageous and dedicated founder of the Counter Jihad Coalition (CJC) knows this all too well. He experienced a particularly disturbing incident recently that temporarily prevented him from setting up his booths and getting his message out.

 

The CJC exists to educate people on the truth about Islam. They do this by setting up tables at different venues, such as the shopping mall shown in the photo above, and pass out factual, truthful brochures. On a given day, they can give out as many as 1,000 brochures.

 

Although most people are grateful for the information on Islam, Amundson is always on high alert for potential backlash. This past July was no exception.

 

Amundson and his team, including a pastor, set up their booth at the Los Cerritos Center in Cerritos, California, on July 7th. At one point, two men began snapping pictures of the booth, then getting on their phone.

 

Soon after, two Muslim women approached the booth and began cursing and causing a scene. Mall security was nearby and began speaking with the women. In the meantime, a white haired Muslim man walked over to the CJC booth and slid a backpack he was carrying under the CJC table. He then began speaking with the pastor from CJC.

 

After a short conversation, the Muslim man walked away from the pastor.

 

When Amundson found out that the man was an irate Muslim complaining about CJC’s activities, he became concerned for their safety and called security.

 

According to Amundson:

 

“I told security he left a backpack underneath our booth. The Muslim refused to take the backpack. We started to take cover behind cement pillars and told security to either call the bomb squad or have the guy pick up the backpack. He finally agreed to very carefully pick it up and security escorted him away. Security will not say at least right now if he was arrested, if the bomb squad was called or what. Was this a dry run or the real thing?”

 

Amundson’s subsequent application to place his table at the Mall was denied, citing security reasons.

 

That’s when Amundson reached out to the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC).

 

Thomas More Law Center attorneys wrote a letter to the Mall concerning its denial of CJC’s constitutional rights to free speech.   A few weeks after the Mall acknowledged receipt of the letter, CJC was approved.

 

Amundson was so grateful to have his First Amendment rights restored, that he recently sent an email out to his large group of supporters and thanked TMLC directly, and kindly encouraged his friends to donate to us.

 

Your ongoing support of TMLC ensures we have the resources to provide immediate legal assistance, to individuals like Steve Amundson and the CJC team.  Thank you for your continued support of the Thomas More Law Center.

 

Source: thomasmore.org

________________________

Creeping Sharia-Steve Amundson-Muslim Intimidation

John R. Houk

© May 27, 2019

___________________

California: Law Center Thwarts Muslim Attempt To Silence Disturbing Truth About Islam

 

© 2014–2019 CREEPING SHARIA

 

Never Thought I’d See The Day


Have you been shadow banned, censored or deplatformed by a Social Media giant? Perhaps you’ve spent time in ye old notorious Facebook Jail? I know I have had these experiences. If you’ve been in the same plight, you’ll appreciate this Justin Smith post.

 

JRH 5/18/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Never Thought I’d See The Day

 

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 5/17/2019 2:21 PM

 

I stay on Facebook simply because it has inserted itself into all sectors of public life, somewhat insidiously I might add, and as such, it wields far too much power as a political tool to simply be abandoned, due to its tyrannical and arbitrary censorship of everything conservative, pro-American, pro-Liberty and pro-Life. If not for this fact, I could care less if I’m on FB or not, until someone in government brings them in line to where they must follow the same guidelines as regular businesses and at least honor our civil rights and the Bill of Rights.

 

Whether I’m speaking to them or not, or anyone else on Facebook in any particular fashion should not be any of their concern, since everyone is provided a “Block” function; that they go the extra step to act as Big Brother on their private site is still a violation of our First Amendment Rights.

 

 

If I’m in a place of business and the owner doesn’t like something I say, they cannot censor me. But, like Facebook they can ask me to leave or refuse me service. That’s what Facebook essentially does. My assertion is they wouldn’t know what I was saying or writing if they weren’t illegally spying on me through the algorithms and monitors; and if they run across my public post by accident, they can simply ignore it. They should leave any interaction between all parties participating in FB, and if anyone decides to block me over something I’ve posted, that’s all fair and square.

 

The way it is now, the Leftists utilizing FB use the block app and Facebook backs them up like a supporting regiment in what amounts to the wholesale censorship of all conservatives on Facebook, by shadow banning posts and locking people out of their accounts, just as Twitter and other Leftist sites are doing. They are trying to take complete control of all search engines and the internet, and they have almost succeeded; right now, even WordPress is deleting conservative blogs and banning their posts, and Google is already hiding or outright deleting archived conservative material from the internet, which in essence is being scrubbed of conservative supporting historical fact; and, propaganda and out right falsehoods are inserted as replacements.

 

[Corroborating thoughts of interest:

 

Report: Google Manually Manipulates Search Results to Exclude Conservative Sites; By Charlie Nash; Breitbart; 4/10/19

 

Bombshell: Google manually censors conservative websites from search results, “blacklists” ideological defectors; By Ethan Huff; Natural News; 4/18/19

 

President Trump Retweets Report on Facebook Censoring Conservatives, Including Laura Loomer, Paul Joseph Watson… But Will He Do Anything to Help? By Jim Hoft; The Gateway Pundit; 5/3/19

 

STUDY: GOOGLE FAVORS LIBERAL NEWS OUTLETS OVER CONSERVATIVE ONES; By Chris White; The Daily Caller; 5/13/19 3:56 PM

 

Trump administration wants users to report ‘political bias’ by social media platforms; By John Gage; Washington Examiner; 5/15/19 6:33 PM

 

Report Social Media Free Speech Censorship White House Link]

 

 

Taking control of the internet is the greatest danger, and the fact it is taking place before our eyes represents the best reason for Congress to split Google, Facebook and Amazon into smaller organizations under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, in order that competition gives the free flow of information a fighting chance. Otherwise, our internet will be controlled by big corporations pushing whatever agenda they wish upon the American public. And at some point, whatever they build may be seen as too important to remain in their hands and become the tool of a malicious government intent on using those propaganda programs to control us all.

 

However unfortunate, America cannot count on Congress to fix the problem at this moment in time, while Democrats control the House. They’re on the side of the censors. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., is railing that social media companies are not doing enough to “counter” what he calls “vitriolic hate messages,” aligning himself with the same tyranny we see all across Europe play out today through their hate speech illegitimate laws that allow for patriots opposed to Islam and Christians preaching the Gospel to be jailed for their stated beliefs and facts.

 

Instead, hopefully America will witness the courts step in and right this egregious development in our society. Last fall, a conservative nonprofit called Freedom Watch sued Facebook, Google, Twitter and Apple for suppressing “politically conservative content.” It’s plausible judges will rule that allowing social media platforms to censor political speech destroys the freedom of the public square.

 

And that’s just the tip of the ice-berg. Just wait until facial recognition and a complete cashless society become reality and they use social media information to determine who is or isn’t in good standing with the government. The very techniques FB is using now can be used by any tyranny minded government to keep someone out of work until they toe the party line. We see a similar program already unfolding in China through a social credit score that determines EVERYTHING for the individual …. even whether one gets into a university or not.

 

As a publicly traded stock, unless I missed the mark somehow, they are supposed to honor the Constitution and respect our civil and constitutional rights in the same manner all other companies with public holdings must adhere to the Bill of Rights and respect the public they serve.

 

I recently had a dear friend make me aware of the new ‘Tech Bias Story Sharing Tool’ that puts one on a White House type form, where a person can share their story of abuse and censorship at the hands of any or all the various tech giants. Anyone who has experience the OVERT and BLATANT and Often ARBITRARY CENSORSHIP utilized by Facebook, Twitter, Google and now even WordPress should use this tool to contact the White House and express Your own particular concerns.

 

Time will tell. The Senate and the House or the Courts either act or ‘We the People’ eventually will. To tell the truth, I’m actually surprised that nobody has attacked Facebook headquarters in Molina Park, California in some fashion, even if something as simple as paint bombs.

 

BIG BROTHER’S HERE. We need to make sure we kill him in the cradle so to speak, or we can kiss liberty in America Good-Bye. Too much of our liberty has already been destroyed through illegitimate legislation. We don’t need to allow anymore to be destroyed in THE PUBLIC SQUARE.

 

Well, I’ve rambled on too much already, but this is a touchy subject for me. I never thought I’d see the day where any American wasn’t allowed to freely speak his or her mind in this country, under any set of circumstances.

 

By Justin O. Smith

____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

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

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Is Automattic Succumbing to Multicultural Pressure?


John R. Houk

© May 16, 2019

 

Thanks to a Counter Jihad Coalition email update I have discovered WordPress.com (i.e. the one operated by Automattic) has deplatformed a couple of expose Islam blogs. The CJC update links to a Jihad Watch post writing about the deplatforming. The exposé blogs were Creeping Sharia and Muslim Statistics.

The Jihad Watch writer assumes the deplatforming was the result of the government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan complaining. At the very least pointing to Pakistan is a good guess. On my NCCR blog I have received the same Automattic notification.

 

My experience though was informing me my particular blog would no longer be available in Pakistan due to the legal system’s Blasphemy Law. BUT the Automattic notification also included info for how Pakistani readers could circumvent the Pakistan banning by finding a good VPN service that hides Internet surfing. Here is that NCCR post with the notification and advice.

 

So I am a bit surprised Automattic deplatformed Creeping Sharia and Muslim Statistics over Pakistan’s Free Speech robbing Blasphemy Laws. On the other hand, what in the world could those two expose Islam blogs have done to annoy the powers that be at Automattic?

 

JRH 5/16/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

WordPress.com deplatforms those critical of Islam

 

By MARC

MAY 15, 2019 10:45 AM

Jihad Watch

 

WordPress.com has deplatormed those critical of Islam. I am very disappointed having been a contributor to the WordPress code in the distant past, and I have assisted in responsible disclosure of security vulnerabilities to them on a voluntary basis in the recent past. I did see it coming though.

 

While it would not be possible to restrict use of the WordPress source code which is publicly available and built by volunteers, and distributed at wordpress.org, its [sic] is “open source”.  wordpress.com is very different.  It is a commercial enterprise which has some free options, the codebase being very similar, but proprietary; and includes the hosting aspect as part of the package.

 

Creeping Sharia Suspension Screen Capture

 

I am aware of 2 sites so far that have been taken down, with no warning Creeping Sharia and Muslim Statistics They were first brought to my attention in a tweet:

 

 

Looking at this tweet, it appears that this deplatforming action was due to a complaint from Pakistan regarding breaking Sharia law.

 

 

This is despite their terms of service in section 4 stating:

 

We do not have any control over those websites and are not responsible for their contents or their use.

 

You can always reach out to Automattic to express your disappointment politely on twitter at @automattic at their arbitrary deplatforming of anyone without providing clear reasoning, especially from a platform built mostly by volunteers.

 

I would suggest anyone using wordpress.com (not .org) or for that matter blogger, dump them immediately, and migrate to a non-managed host using the open source version at wordpress.com, I say non-managed host, as managed hosting services seem to be far more likely to be pressured by hate groups such as SPLC into removing services. Non-managed hosting services would include AWS, Linode and my favorite at the moment DigitalOcean (includes referral link).

 

You will also need to use your own domain name, as there is no mysite.wordpress.org as there is with the .com. there are many domain registrars to choose from, you can find a list here at a very useful site for wordpress users.

 

It’s fairly easy to manage your own WordPress blog, these sites all have extensive help documents, and surprisingly un-managed hosting services seem to have far less technical troubles than managed ones do. The WordPress open source community is vibrant.  It might be helpful not to interact using politically sensitive profile names. I mention this as someone I sent there to get help came back telling me they were unhelpful and ignored him. When I checked, I was not surprised.

 

You can import content from your wordpress.com and blogger.com sites into open source wordpress. While I can’t  get too involved in helping you out, if you have any issues, comment here, and I’ll point you in the right direction.

 

Golden rule when managing your own sites and blogs: keep it simple (20 plugins is not OK and use their default themes unless you have programming skills),  keep regular backups, and put them somewhere safe.

___________________

Is Automattic Succumbing Multicultural Pressure?

John R. Houk

© May 16, 2019

__________________

WordPress.com deplatforms those critical of Islam

 

Jihad Watch ® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries.

 

Content Copyright Jihad Watch