Geert Wilders: Free Speech & Western Civ. Champion


wilders-on-trump-trade-immigration

Edited by John R. Houk

Posted November 26, 2016

 

Illegal immigration and the acceptance of unvetted political refugees practicing an intolerant Islam that hates everything about American Liberty the U.S. Constitution makes the rule of law, is one of the factors Donald Trump was elected President of the United States.

 

Much of Trump’s campaigning was condemned by the American Left as bigoted racism. Fortunately, American voters by a majority of States (Thank God for the Electoral College giving parity to less populated States) saw through the un-American propaganda of the Left. Geert Wilders of the Netherlands has professed much of what Donald Trump campaigned for long before Trump and is getting prosecuted for hate speech.

 

Below are two Gatestone Institute articles about this unjust hate speech prosecution persecution of Geert Wilders. The first dated November 17 is by Mr. Wilders and the second is more about the Dutch prosecution by Robbie Travers dated November 24.

 

JRH 11/26/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Reaction of Geert Wilders to Penal Demand of Public Prosecutor

 

By Geert Wilders

November 17, 2016 at 10:30 am

Gatestone Institute

 

I just heard the penal sentence demanded by the Public Prosecutor: a penalty of 5,000 euros.

 

Speaking about one of the biggest problems of our country – the problem with Moroccans – is now punishable, according to the elite. And, hence, we are slowly but surely losing our freedom of speech. Even asking a question is no longer allowed. Even though millions of people agree. And Moroccans have suddenly become a race. So if you say something about Moroccans, you are now a racist. Nobody understands that. It is utter madness. Only meant to shut you and me up.

 

geert-wilders-prosecuted-for-speaking-truth

Millions of Dutch [& probably Europeans] agree with Wilders, yet opinion is a crime

 

While in other countries the people send the elite home, here they want to silence an opposition leader. The Netherlands is running the risk of becoming a dictatorship. It looks like Turkey. The differences between the Netherlands and Turkey are getting smaller. The opposition is silenced.

 

I was elected by nearly a million people. That number will be even higher on March 15th next year. And it is my duty to talk about the problems, even when the politically-correct elite led by Prime Minister Rutte prefers not to mention them. Because looking away and remaining silent is not an option.

 

I have to say it like it is.

 

What is the use of political cowards who no longer dare to speak the truth? Who are silent about the problems in our country? Who pander to the government? Who cowardly look the other way?

 
Nothing at all! Putting one’s head in the sand is cowardliness.

 

And if you must keep quiet about problems, because simply asking a question has become punishable, the problems will only grow bigger. Then, the Netherlands will become a dictatorship of fearful and cowardly politicians.

 

I will never accept that. I will continue to fight for a free and safe Netherlands. That is why Islamic terrorists have been trying to kill me for 12 years. Today, these terrorists rejoice. Wilders is going to be punished. The Public Prosecutor has made himself their ally today.

 

But I will not allow anyone to shut me up!

 
No terrorist will be able to silence me!

 
No prosecutor in a black gown or cowardly prime minister will get me on my knees!

 
I shall therefore not care about their penal demand at all. They can do whatever they want. It will only make me stronger. I will only get more motivated.

 

And you can support me with this. By continuing to fight with me for the preservation of freedom of expression. For the maintenance of a safe and free Netherlands. Our country.

 

Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV).

 

Follow Geert Wilders on Twitter

+++

Wilders’s Trial: “Unnecessarily Offensive”

 

By Robbie Travers

November 24, 2016 at 4:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • Geert Wilders is now on trial for having national security views that the prosecution have deemed unacceptable to air in public.

 

  • To suggest that Dutch citizens, whose safety Wilders was elected to protect — it is his job; it is why he was elected — should not publicly given his best advice, would to countermanding his official duty.

 

  • Is it racist to note these problems? Statistical data are usually not racist; they simply express the factual reality of a situation.

 

  • The freedom to speak and to question without fear of retribution is fundamentally what separates democratic governments from totalitarian ones. Sunshiny, politically correct views do not need protecting. The reason for free speech is to protect the less-than-enchanting views.

 

  • It is fundamental for the health of our society that Wilders and others be able to speak and be heard freely. To protect us and to protect the humanist values of freedom brought to us by Erasmus and the Enlightenment, it is crucial that the Dutch court grant Wilders a full acquittal.

 

As his trial continues in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, if found culpable, faces a fine for his comments, purportedly “racist“, on Moroccans.

 

The prosecution alleges that his comments unfairly “targeted a specific race, which is considered a crime.”

 

Never mind that Moroccans are not a race or even a religion; they are citizens of a country — apparently, making comments on trends that are prominent within minorities, or advice on how to keep a country secure, is now criminal. Statements might sometimes be unpleasant to hear, but to express these views should not be “criminal.”

 

Look at the comments of the lead prosecutor, Wouter Bos, who said, “Freedom of expression is not absolute, it is paired with obligations and responsibilities.” This is worrying. To suggest that an individual should have the obligation not to “uncessarily [sic] offend,” is to make every individual responsible for the thoughts of every other, theoretical individual who might be offended by one’s words — or even, as we see now all too often, just claim to be offended for malicious purposes.

 

Bos added that Wilders has “the responsibility not to set groups of people against each other.” Is this really what Wilders was trying to do? The opposite would seem to be true: Wilders was not calling for racial tension; in his view, he is seeking to alleviate it, his solution being less immigration from Morocco. So far, objectively, immigrants from Morocco seem to have had a significant effect on the increase in crime syndicates, drugs- and human-trafficking, and a notably lopsided change in the composition of the prison population in the Netherlands.

 

Is it racist to note these problems? Statistical data are usually not racist; they simply express the factual reality of a situation.

 

With this in mind, perhaps then the struggle Wilders faces could be better described as: Geert Wilders is now on trial for having national security views that the prosecution have deemed unacceptable to air in public.

 

dutch-mp-geert-wilders-censorhip

Dutch MP Geert Wilders is now on trial for having national security views that the prosecution have deemed unacceptable to air in public. (Source of Wilders photo: Flickr/Metropolico)

 

The latest development in this process is that the prosecution have demanded that Wilders be punished with a €5,000 fine, in order for him to atone for his alleged transgression against Moroccans.

 

To suggest that Dutch citizens, whose safety Wilders was elected to protect — it is his job; it is why he was elected — should not publicly be given his best advice, would to countermand his official duty. If, heaven forbid, there were to be adverse circumstances in the Netherlands, as seen all too often in France, Denmark, Germany and Belgium, and Wilders had failed to warn his countrymen, why could he not, conversely, risk being charged with reckless endangerment?

 

Saying that the Netherlands should have fewer Moroccans is apparently considered “unnecessarily offensive.”

 

Perhaps the problem for the long-term survival of Europe is that in modern politics, too many individuals are seeking to base legislation on protecting people from being offended, instead of basing legislation on what is best for the national and cultural security of a country. While no-one might wish others to be offended, sometimes offending others is necessary, even a duty.

 

When Wilders criticises Islam and its associated practices and legal codes, no doubt he offends many conservative Muslims. Does this mean his criticism should not have been expressed? (No.)

 

When Wilders criticises the European Union, he no doubt offends Eurocrats in Brussels. Does this mean his criticism should not have been expressed? (No.)

 

So when Wilders criticises immigration from Moroccan and suggests there should be less of it, he may well have offended Moroccans. Does this mean his criticism shouldn’t have been expressed? (No.)

 

Sometimes, causing offence and allowing individuals critically to engage with a viewpoint with which they disagree is a crucial part of our dialogue as a society. Individuals sometimes need to be presented with uncomfortable truths.

 

Whether one agrees with Wilders’s view or not, it should be comforting that an individual is allowed to question fundamental building blocks for the future health of our Western values and communal well-being.

 

The freedom to speak and to question without fear of retribution is, in fact, fundamentally what separates democratic governments from totalitarian ones.

 

If one wants individuals to be able to counter views they perceive to be “racist” or in some other way prejudiced, they first need to be able to hear them to counter them.

 

In condemning Wilders, we are not only robbing Wilders of his right to free expression, we are also robbing individuals of a right to listen to him.

 

In a democratic society, individuals should have the right to hear Wilders, and then, based on his arguments, to draw their own conclusions. Too many countries, based on originally well-intended laws that repress free speech, have already fallen into the trap of “the truth is no defense.”

 

Is the implication, then, that half-truths, distortions and lies are an acceptable defense? In closing the door to “truth” in Europe and Canada, our fragile Western democracies are opening the door to authoritarian governance. Farewell, democracy.

 

There are other reasons why all Dutch citizens or other individuals should be terrified of this.

 

For Wilders, as a Member of Parliament, the demand of the prosecutors in this case for a fine of €5,000 may not — on the surface — destroy his life. But this fine would not include the crushing court costs Wilders has had to incur, even if he is acquitted. What happens when ordinary members of the Dutch public are summoned before a court — possibly for even greater penalties and with greater court costs — for expressing views that prosecutors claim are “unnecessarily offensive”?

 

Wilders, as a private citizen with possibly a moderate income, has had to go up against the virtually unlimited exchequer of the entire Dutch government. People’s resources are not inexhaustible. This is the nightmare that great protectors of freedom such as Franz Kafka or George Orwell have written about.

 

What happens if Geert Wilders, who is a politician, is only among the first of those who might be prosecuted for speaking out? Other individuals who might also want “fewer Moroccans” may not be able to afford endless court costs and a fine of €5,000 — or whatever the judgement might be on December 9. Are we really asking the citizens of the Netherlands, and much the free world, as we have already seen too often — to go through life weighing whether expressing a view will come with a crippling economic cost?

 

Surely if there is a conviction this will be only the beginning. Will anyone ever feel free again to express opinions that might be found — by someone, anyone, who knows — “unnecessarily offensive”? Probably not.

 

What, by the way, does “necessarily offensive” consist of? Will lawyers become rich as person after person is hauled into court to decide, case by case, how necessary is “necessary”?

 

Is this really what the free world wants: societies that claim to protect the rights of the individual but then instead prosecute them? Sunshiny, politically correct views do not need protecting. The reason for freedom of speech is to protect the less-than-enchanting views. Without any contrarians, how would society have developed?

 

If this court rules against Wilders, will every politician thereafter who makes a statement that someone deems “unnecessarily offensive” be summoned before a court? At the other end of the political spectrum, three Dutch Labour Party politicians were noted to have insulted Moroccans far more corrosively than Wilders ever did — even likening them to dirt and excrement. Those Labour politicians were never prosecuted. Gee, could this be a double standard we are seeing? Wilders’s judges refused to dismiss his trial on the grounds that it was, as Wilders maintained, politically motivated; but what looks suspiciously like a selective prosecution seems to bear him out. Will the Dutch prosecutors, in fairness, proceed to try these even-more-insulting politicians from the political left?

 

Repeated trials and appeals only lead, as in a totalitarian government, to no-one being able to afford maintaining his freedom by due process.

 

That thought leads to the major politically incorrect elephant in this room:

 

Is it possible that there are people who are exploiting the West’s open but expensive legal process precisely to shut down freedom of speech and political views they find inconvenient for themselves? Is that the whole secret point behind the prosecution: to smother speech and smother thought?

 

European nations seem to be rapidly approaching a path of political censorship, to prevent views being expressed that their leaders deem unacceptable. The result? These views only grow in prominence. Across Europe, as Brexit, Wilders, Le Pen, and other “politically incorrect” tributaries that leaders are trying to restrict, are surging in popularity.

 

Ideas cannot be killed by stopping individuals from hearing them; people only seem to want to hear more about what they sense is being hidden from them.

 

You do not have to like Geert Wilders or even agree with him; it is, however, fundamental for the health of our civilization that he and others be able to speak and be heard freely.

 

To protect us and to protect the humanist values of freedom brought to us by Erasmus and the Enlightenment, it is crucial that the Dutch court grant Wilders a full acquittal.

 

Robbie Travers, a political commentator and consultant, is Executive Director of Agora, former media manager at the Human Security Centre, and a law student at the University of Edinburgh.

___________________

© 2016 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.

 

About Gatestone Institute

 

“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.”
— John Adams

 

Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:

 

  • Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;

 

  • Human Rights

 

  • A free and strong economy

 

  • A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world

 

  • Energy independence

 

  • Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.

l and international conferences, briefings and events for its members and others, with world leaders, journalists and experts — analyzing, strategizing, and READ THE REST

 

Ranchers Protest Land Grabbing, Santilli Reports Then Arrested


pete-santilli-arrested-1-26-16-for-live-video-feeds

John R. Houk

© September 10, 2016

 

I have some background perspective leading up to the good news that journalist Pete Santilli had all charges against him dismissed in relation to the Oregon Malheur Wildlife Reserve Standoff between ranchers and State/Federal authorities.

 

Toward the end of 2015 and the first couple months of 2016 the news media was all astir about some angry ranchers, self-termed a militia, protesting government land-grabbing around the Burns Oregon area. More specifically these angry ranchers occupied Oregon Malheur Wildlife Reserve which is public land that was nationalized by the Federal government.

 

What sparked a number of ranchers from many Western States to occupy a federal refuge in Oregon? A Burns area ranching family – the Hammonds – was dealing with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) who desired to purchase a swath of the Hammond family’s. After the Hammonds refused to sell the BLM and FWS utilized regulations and rules that have the force of law (even if not specifically legislated by Congress) to oppress/persecute the Hammonds to sell or for the Federal government to simply downright steal the land by force of law:

 

 

HISTORY: (aa) The Harney Basin (where the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.

 

 

(a) In 1964 the Hammonds’ purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.

 

(a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres, stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.

 

(a2) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told: “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”; 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.

 

(a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentionally diverted the water bypassing the vast meadow lands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed away and destroyed. The ranchers who once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede; now the once thriving privately owned Silvies plains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.

 

(a4) By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers who still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling facts about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced four times more ducks and geese than the refuge.  The study also showed the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.

 

(b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive toward the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*

 

(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights, and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily, the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with” federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony).  Dwight spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland. He was then hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.

 

(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.

 

(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds still intended to use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”.

 

(f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so READ ENTIRETY (Full Story About What’s Going on In Oregon – “Militia” Take Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge In Protest to Hammond Family Persecution…; By sundance; The Last Refuge – Conservative Tree House; 1/3/16)

 

The odd thing about the plight of the Hammonds is as a family they never committed to be supportive of all the ranchers that came to the Malheur Wildlife Reserve to occupy and protest the treatment of the Hammonds and the father and son incarceration twice for the same accused crime. The Oregon local ranchers and rural communities were not very supportive either. My guess is the locals did not want to rock the status quo they had become accustomed to from the BLM and FWS OR some of the Left Coast thinking had infected the locals who may have some sympathy for the Left Wing environmentalists (Eco-Marxism) who want to protect wetlands for their precious birds (Left Coast Thinking: HERE. AND Paiutes: HERE. AND Conservative Sympathetic yet Support Feds: HERE) over the property rights being abused against ranchers who have become upset enough over Federal Land Grabbing to actually arm themselves to go down swinging against the power of Big Brother.

 

Even without Oregon local support, I tended to have a lot of sympathy for their protest. I will never be a fan of a coercive government pressuring American citizens pertaining to their rights to property. In the case of Western rural landowners – ranching, farming or a combination – The federal government’s job should be limited to protecting constitutional Rights rather than usurping land by coercion or pressure via bureaucratic regulations. The vast amount of land under Federal control is an intrusion of States’ Rights (Tenth Amendment).

 

The Ammon Bundy protest was undoubtedly doomed to failure. The Left Stream Media and politicians made little effort to report on the reasons these ranchers embarked on a doomed protest. The lack of balanced coverage painted a picture of extremists doing Right Wing nut job antics. Worse these ranchers were prepared to the weapons the 2nd Amendment guarantees every American to own for self-protection and to rise up against a tyrannical government. After all, it was British tyranny that caused thirteen British Colonies to rebel. One of the British injustices was storming onto private citizens’ property and seize food and guns. HENCE the Second Amendment. The Founding Fathers had a mistrust of a government that might devolve into tyranny.

 

In the case of Ammon Bundy’s rancher militia, if shooting began, there was zero possibility the militia could match the fire power of well-resourced State and Federal police force. HENCE the death of LaVoy Finicum – witnesses claim murder and the FBI claims justified shooting because Finicum was armed. By the way, armed with what to die in a hail of bullets?

 

Shortly after the arrest of Ammon and Ryan Bundy the militia protest ended. As far as the Left Wing Media goes, that was the end of the story. Yet anyone considered in a leadership mode were all arrested. Those prosecutions are still ongoing. I haven’t noticed any media coverage. To read coverage on the trials you have to go alternative news sources of the Left and Right to see how Big Brother is persecuting these rancher protesters. Much of the Left that is following the trials are full of condemnation ready to pitch the perceived lawbreakers to the lions of the coliseum. The sympathetic Right are typically anti-Big Brother types such as Oath Keepers and III Percenters (Explanation: SHORTLONG). There are Establishment Conservatives that also have an unsympathetic view of the rancher militia in Oregon because they believe the Constitution does not support the Bundy/Militia view.

 

Then there are sympathetic types that faithfully covered the Bundy/Militia rancher standoff in blogs, radio and live streaming podcasts. The most prolific of these was Pete Santilli whose sympathies were rewarded by being present with an inside view reporting on the Malheur Wildlife Reserve Standoff. The problem for Santilli was that the Federal authorities did not appreciate him giving the public a favorable perspective of the ranchers’ complaints.

 

Santilli was arrested for his efforts. Prosecutors decided to throw the book at Santilli to the degree if convicted, he could have spent as long as thirty years in prison. For what? Allowing the public an inside view.

 

The good news for Santilli is that his lawyers managed to get the Judge to get the evidence the Prosecutors desired to use tossed. This led to the announcement that ALL CHARCHES against Pete Santilli were dismissed without prejudice. Below is The Washington Standard’s coverage of Pete Santilli’s victory over the Prosecution by Big Brother.

 

(I have some background links that I am providing after the WS story)

 

JRH 9/10/16 (Hat Tip Hannah Brown at Facebook Guardian Eagles 9/8/16)

Please Support NCCR

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

FEDS DROPS ALL CHARGES AGAINST PETE SANTILLI IN OREGON MALHEUR CASE

 

By Tim Brown 

September 7, 2016

The Washington Standard    

 

For one, I’m very happy to discover the news that the charges against alternative media reporter Pete Santilli in the Oregon Malheur Wildlife Reserve case have been dropped.

 

KOIN reports:

 

In a filing on Tuesday, US Attorney Billy J. Williams said prosecutors decided not to pursue charges against Santilli because of “this Court’s pretrial evidentiary rulings excluding evidence against” him.

 

The charges were dismissed without prejudice, which means it is as though the action had never been filed.

 

“It’s been our position since the beginning that Pete had innocent intentions here,” Santilli’s lawyer Tom Coan told KOIN 6 News. “He never encouraged anyone to go out and stay at the refuge.”

 

The Las Vegas Review and Journal adds:

 

The dismissal came at the request of federal prosecutors in Portland who acknowledged in court papers that they no longer had enough evidence to pursue their case against conservative radio talk show host Pete Santilli. Prosecutors cited rulings that barred them from presenting some of their evidence.

 

“Based upon this Court’s pretrial evidentiary rulings excluding evidence against Santilli (ECF No. 1171), the government has decided that the interests of justice do not support further pursuit of these charges against Santilli,” wrote US Attorney Billy J. Williams.

 

Awww, their evidence wasn’t admitted? Poor babies. Perhaps, they should try acknowledging who is actually committing the crimes on land that, according the Constitution, belongs to the people of the State of Oregon.

 

However, this does not mean that Santilli is completely off the hook just yet. He is being transported to Nevada where he is facing trumped up charges from the 2014 Bundy Ranch siege in Bunkerville, Nevada.

 

“He looks forward to focusing 100 percent of his time defending the charges here in Nevada,” Santilli attorney Chris Rasmussen said Tuesday.

 

Ammon Bundy’s former attorney Mike Arnold added that he believes the trial on what he refers to as “thought crimes” will be a long one.

 

“We don’t have thought crimes in America. You need, typically, overt acts to accompany speech in order to make it past First Amendment muster,” Arnold said. “In this case, the government is claiming that the possession of firearms on the property was such an overt act and the protesters are presumably going to say, ‘you know, we have a right to open carry.’”

 

Frankly, the entire federal case is a lot of unconstitutional trumped up charges not only against Santilli, but everyone involved. The feds attacked Santilli’s freedom of the press and many protesters freedom of speech in Nevada and in Oregon. Furthermore, they continue to coverup their unconstitutional claims to the land in western states and through the union.

+++

Background Links

 

Breaking: Oregon standoff FBI shooting cover-up exposed? Citizens Journal; 3/9/16

 

OREGON STANDOFF WAS A PREDICTABLE REACTION TO OPPRESSION; News With Views; 2/10/16

 

Breaking News: The Hidden Agenda in Oregon; American Policy Center; 2/11/16

 

Widow of slain federal wildlife refuge occupier plans to sue; TimesUnion.com; 8/38/16

 

Oregon shootout rooted in Clinton uranium trade? WND; 1/29/16 12:07 PM

 

Guerilla Media Network aka http://thepetesantillishow.com/

 

Tony Newbill on BLM Land Grab Conspiracy; SlantRight 2.0; 1/24/16

 

Persecuted or Prosecuted? SlantRight 2.0; 1/5/16

 

Are we being Nudged to Accept a Collective System???? SlantRight 2.0; 12/29/15

_____________

Ranchers Protest Land Grabbing, Santilli Reports Then Arrested

John R. Houk

© September 10, 2016

____________

FEDS DROPS ALL CHARGES AGAINST PETE SANTILLI IN OREGON MALHEUR CASE

 

COPYRIGHT © THE WASHINGTON STANDARD, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. OUR POSTS CONTAIN AFFILIATE LINKS AND WE EARN A SMALL COMMISSION FROM THOSE LINKS. THIS IS HOW WE HELP TO MAKE MONEY SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO BRING YOU AMAZING CONTENT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT.

 

Silencing the Dissent


Repressing Free Speech

Minorities are still being persecuted in Sunni Islam-dominated Pakistan. This is especially the case for Pakistan’s Christian minority. Adding to the repression is a process of silencing online social media.

 

JRH 8/10/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Silencing the Dissent

 

By Shamim Mahmoud

Sent 8/8/2016 5:32 PM

 

Pakistani minorities under the leadership of Federal Minister for Human Rights, Kamran Michael are planning to celebrate Minorities’ Day on August 11. The Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP) former government had declared August 11 as minorities’ day; however, some minority groups chose to observe August 11 as black day to register their protest over the abuse of minority rights. Following the footsteps of the PPP government the present PML-N government has also announced to dedicate August 11 as minorities day.

 

On August 11, 1947, the founder of the nation Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah had announced the freedom for the minorities living in new born Pakistan. But it is very unfortunate that after sixty-nine years, Pakistan is ranked sixth on the list of the countries where Christians are most persecuted, according to the World Watch List 2016.

 

The survey conducted by Open Doors, an organization working to help persecuted Christians and churches worldwide, highlights the top 50 countries where it is most difficult to live as Christians. The report found that Pakistan’s blasphemy laws continue to be abused to settle personal scores, particularly against minorities, including Christians. A Christian couple was thrown into the brick kiln where they worked and burned to death after being accused of blasphemy, orphaning their four children. Two churches in Lahore were bombed, killing 25 people and wounding dozens. An estimated 700 Christian girls and women are abducted every year and often then raped and forcibly married to Muslims,” the report added.

 

The list ranks North Korea as the most oppressive place in the world to live as a Christian. It adds that in 2015, the persecution grew most rapidly in Sub-Saharan Africa, while in the Middle East Islamic States and Pakistan violence increased the migration of the Christian population from the region. The index measures the degrees of freedom that Christians have to express their faith in six spheres- private, family, community, national and church life, while also measuring levels of violence.

 

The European Parliament Intergroup on Freedom of Religion or Belief and Religious Tolerance has released its annual report for 2015 and showed serious concerns over the minorities’ situation in Pakistan, especially the issues pertaining to the country’s blasphemy laws. Giving reference of the assassinated Punjab governor Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti for raising their voices against the blasphemy laws in Pakistan, especially in the Asia Bibi case. The report expressed that although the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a positive development has expressed its concerns about widespread misuse of blasphemy laws and issued a detailed judgment warning against false blasphemy accusations and stating that in Islam a false accusation can be as serious as blasphemy itself, but unfortunately, criticizing the reforms to blasphemy laws in public was still dangerous in any Pakistan society. The report further stated that terrorist groups like Taliban have continued to severely persecute religious minorities, especially the Christian community, considering it an agent of the West and in revenge of the western intervention such as US drone strikes in Pakistan areas. The report also gave the reference of blasts and firing in churches in Youhanabad and Iqbal Park on the eve of Easter celebrations.

 

Earlier hundreds of the Christians houses in Gojra and Joseph Colony, Lahore were set ablaze. And twin blasts in Peshawar Church killed at least 80 and hundred were injured.

 

Where is Quaid’s Pakistan?

 

The report further disclosed that due to religious persecution, around 11,000 Christians are seeking asylum in Thailand. A Hindu parliamentarian claimed that 5000 Hindus emigrate from Pakistan every year due to discriminatory treatment, forced conversions and fears of their safety. The report stated that in the months of April and May 2016, it was also reported that as many as 18 Christians’ girls were kidnapped and forcefully converted in the Punjab province alone.

 

Due to the religious persecution thousands of Christian families are looking for their future in Thailand. It is pertinent to mention that European countries do not encourage Pakistani Christian visitors. Even these countries adopt stricter policy when find the applicant from the same faith. Most recently “World Youth Day 2016” was held in Poland and reportedly there were more than six thousands of applicants but the Poland embassy rejected a maximum amount of visa applications on frivolous grounds and granted only 400 – 500 visas to Pakistani Christians. The weird part of the story is that journalists’ visa applications were denied without any cogent reasons.  The officials in EU countries on the condition of anonymity said the visa officers had orders from the “higher level” to reject the maximum number of visas from the Christians background. It means, poor Pakistani Christians face the same behavior from the either side.

 

Cyber Crime Bill 2015

 

The Cyber Crime Bill 2015, tabled by the Minister of State for IT aims at regulating the online conduct of individuals/organizations. The Bill passed by the Senate now awaits final approval by the NA [National Assembly] before the president enacts it into law. The controversial Bill has been criticized by the IT industry and civil society for curbing human rights and giving enormous power to law enforcement agencies. It certainly intended to leash in the power of social media, given its increasingly transformational role in shaping public opinion and holding rulers accountable. No doubt, it aims silencing the dissent.

 

Be Blessed,

Shamim Mahmood

Diplomatic Correspondent

Islamabad

email. shamimpakistan@gmail.com

FB: https://www.facebook.com/Eushaw

 

SUPPORT Shamim’s Christian advocacy in Pakistan. First contact Shamim in case he has found an easy way to donate. I like to use Western Union sending money with this LINK to the destination of Islamabad.

Shamim Masih 4

Blogger and Human Rights Activist
http://oiwerk.blogspot.com/

+92-300-642-4560

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All text enclosed by brackets as well as source links are by the Editor.

 

© Shamim Mahmood

 

About Shamim excerpted from a past email:

 

Greetings to you! Let me introduce myself first, though many of you are witness to my professional work. I am the only Christian journalist in this arena with diverse work experience with different media outlets like Independent News Pakistan (INP), as columnist with “Daily Times” for two years, two years with one of the leading Urdu daily, “Khabrain” & Channel 5, Daily Mail and now with Pakistan Today. I have been working as lead Reporter for “British Pakistani Christian Association” since 2010. As stringer I have worked with BBC world service. Being a Christian journalist, I have been writing on minority rights and working as a social reformer/peace maker as well.

 

European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech


Voltaire on Free Speech & Rulers

Intro to ‘European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech

Edited by John R. Houk

May 3, 2016

 

I just finished an anti-Multiculturalist post inspired by the Gatestone Institute that focused on the EU hammering Counterjihad journalist Ingrid Carlqvist (of Sweden) and a bit of fund raising – “Multiculturalism Destroying Europe’s Culture”. As I was doing my daily Internet surfing I discovered another Gatestone Institute article by Soeren Kern exposing the fact that the big dogs of Social Media are in complete agreement with the European Union on squelching Free Speech exposing the dark side of Islam which is currently showing up Muslim refugees and immigrants.

 

The Social Media giants spoken of in the article:

 

 

 

 

  • Microsoft: Bill Gates and Paul Allen are the original names connected to Microsoft, but then Steve Ballmer became the shot caller for the computer giant amassing billions of dollars in fortune (as in over $20 billion with a “B”). Apparently Satya Nadella the big dog now. Microsoft influence in Social Media is its fingerprint on PCs and the Internet. Here’s a decent synopsis of their influence:

 

… Microsoft are almost expected to have an enviable social media presence. They have led the way to the future, so social media is an important aspect of their strategy as a trailblazing company that creates and innovates. They have created web browsers, operating systems, office applications and web services almost dominating the internet and giving people the ability to be immersed into a technological world. (How Microsoft Uses Social Media [CASE STUDY]; By CASEY FLEISCHMANN; LinkHumans.com)

 

Interestingly the owners of YouTube which is Google, are not talked about by Soeren Kern. Google was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin while they were Ph.D. students at Stanford University:

 

After the company’s IPO in 2004, founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page and CEO Eric Schmidt requested that their base salary be cut to $1. Subsequent offers by the company to increase their salaries were turned down, primarily because their main compensation continues to come from owning stock in Google. (Google; Wikipedia; page was last modified on 31 May 2016, at 22:47.)

 

Apparently “Google” is now an amalgam multiple corporations with a publically held corporation at the top being Alphabet:

 

Silicon Valley – and Wall Street – have a new king. Alphabet, the company formerly known as Google, looks set to become the world’s largest publicly traded company …

 

 

Commercially, when we say Alphabet, we really mean Google. The old company still represents the vast majority of Alphabet’s revenues, and almost all of its major businesses (including search, maps, YouTube, advertising and Android) still sit under Google and its new chief executive, Sundar Pichai. The rest of Alphabet may represent the bets on the industries of the future but for today, it’s Google that pays the bills. (How Alphabet became the biggest company in the world; By Alex Hern; The Guardian; 2/2/16 03.08 EST)

 

Wikipedia on Alphabet Inc.:

 

Alphabet Inc. (commonly known as Alphabet, and frequently informally referred to as Google) is an American multinational conglomerate created in 2015 as the parent company of Google and several other companies previously owned by Google.[5][6][7][8][9] The company is based in Mountain View, California and headed by Google’s co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, with Page serving as CEO and Brin as President.[10] The reorganization of Google into Alphabet was completed on October 2, 2015.[11] Alphabet’s portfolio encompasses several industries, including technology, life sciences, investment capital, and research. Some of its subsidiaries include GoogleCalicoGVGoogle CapitalX, and Google Fiber. Some of the subsidiaries of Alphabet have altered their names since leaving Google—Google Ventures becoming GV, Google Life Sciences becoming Verily and Google X becoming just X. Following the restructuring Page became CEO of Alphabet while Sundar Pichai took his position as CEO of Google.[5][6] Shares of Google’s stock have been converted into Alphabet stock, which trade under Google’s former ticker symbols of “GOOG” and “GOOGL”.

 

The establishment of Alphabet was prompted by a desire to make the core Google Internet services business “cleaner and more accountable” while allowing greater autonomy to group companies that operate in businesses other than Internet services.[6][12] (Alphabet Inc.; Wikipedia; page was last modified on 1 June 2016, at 13:41.)

 

In the 21st century, money is power. People this is a lot of power pushing Multicultural ideology to the detriment of Western culture in Europe and America.

 

JRH 6/3/16

Please Support NCCR

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

European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech

 

By Soeren Kern

June 3, 2016 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the European Union’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the EU itself.

 

  • Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU’s code of online conduct — which requires “offensive” material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours — as “Orwellian.”

 

  • “By deciding that ‘xenophobic’ comment in reaction to the crisis is also ‘racist,’ Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people… into ‘racist’ views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as ‘racist.'” — Douglas Murray.

 

  • In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and no explanation.

 

The European Union (EU), in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, has unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe.

 

Proponents of the initiative argue that in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, a crackdown on “hate speech” is necessary to counter jihadist propaganda online.

 

Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the EU’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the European Union itself.

 

Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU’s code of online conduct — which requires “offensive” material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours, and replaced with “counter-narratives” — as “Orwellian.”

 

The “code of conduct” was announced on May 31 in a statement by the European Commission, the unelected administrative arm of the European Union. A summary of the initiative follows:

 

“By signing this code of conduct, the IT companies commit to continuing their efforts to tackle illegal hate speech online. This will include the continued development of internal procedures and staff training to guarantee that they review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.

 

“The IT companies will also endeavor to strengthen their ongoing partnerships with civil society organisations who will help flag content that promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct. The IT companies and the European Commission also aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives [emphasis added], new ideas and initiatives, and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking.”

 

Excerpts of the “code of conduct” include:

 

“The IT Companies share the European Commission’s and EU Member States’ commitment to tackle illegal hate speech online. Illegal hate speech, as defined by the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law and national laws transposing it, means all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin….

 

“The IT Companies support the European Commission and EU Member States in the effort to respond to the challenge of ensuring that online platforms do not offer opportunities for illegal online hate speech to spread virally. The spread of illegal hate speech online not only negatively affects the groups or individuals that it targets, it also negatively impacts those who speak out for freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination in our open societies and has a chilling effect on the democratic discourse on online platforms.

 

“While the effective application of provisions criminalizing hate speech is dependent on a robust system of enforcement of criminal law sanctions against the individual perpetrators of hate speech, this work must be complemented with actions geared at ensuring that illegal hate speech online is expeditiously acted upon by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame. To be considered valid in this respect, a notification should not be insufficiently precise or inadequately substantiated.

 

“The IT Companies, taking the lead on countering the spread of illegal hate speech online, have agreed with the European Commission on a code of conduct setting the following public commitments:

 

  • “The IT Companies to have in place clear and effective processes to review notifications regarding illegal hate speech on their services so they can remove or disable access to such content. The IT companies to have in place Rules or Community Guidelines clarifying that they prohibit the promotion of incitement to violence and hateful conduct.

 

  • “The IT Companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.

 

  • “The IT Companies and the European Commission, recognising the value of independent counter speech against hateful rhetoric and prejudice, aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives, new ideas and initiatives and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking.”

 

The agreement also requires Internet companies to establish a network of “trusted reporters” in all 28 EU member states to flag online content that “promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct.”

 

The EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, Vĕra Jourová, has defended the initiative:

 

“The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech. Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalize young people and racists use to spread violence and hatred. This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected. I welcome the commitment of worldwide IT companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.”

 

Others disagree. The National Secular Society (NSS) of the UK warned that the EU’s plans “rest on a vague definition of ‘hate speech’ and risk threatening online discussions which criticize religion.” It added:

 

“The agreement comes amid repeated accusations from ex-Muslims that social media organizations are censoring them online. The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain has now begun collecting examples from its followers of Facebook censoring ‘atheist, secular and ex-Muslim content’ after false ‘mass reporting’ by ‘cyber Jihadists.’ They have asked their supporters to report details and evidence of any instances of pages and groups being ‘banned [or] suspended from Facebook for criticizing Islam and Islamism.'”

 

NSS communications officer Benjamin Jones said:

 

“Far from tackling online ‘cyber jihad,’ the agreement risks having the exact opposite effect and entrapping any critical discussion of religion under vague ‘hate speech’ rules. Poorly-trained Facebook or Twitter staff, perhaps with their own ideological bias, could easily see heated criticism of Islam and think it is ‘hate speech,’ particularly if pages or users are targeted and mass reported by Islamists.”

 

In an interview with Breitbart London, the CEO of Index on Censorship, Jodie Ginsburg, said:

 

“Hate speech laws are already too broad and ambiguous in much of Europe. This agreement fails to properly define what ‘illegal hate speech’ is and does not provide sufficient safeguards for freedom of expression.

 

“It devolves power once again to unelected corporations to determine what amounts to hate speech and police it — a move that is guaranteed to stifle free speech in the mistaken belief this will make us all safer. It won’t. It will simply drive unpalatable ideas and opinions underground where they are harder to police — or to challenge.

 

“There have been precedents of content removal for unpopular or offensive viewpoints and this agreement risks amplifying the phenomenon of deleting controversial — yet legal — content via misuse or abuse of the notification processes.”

 

A coalition of free speech organizations, European Digital Rights and Access Now, announced their decision not to take part in future discussions with the European Commission, saying that “we do not have confidence in the ill-considered ‘code of conduct’ that was agreed.” A statement warned:

 

“In short, the ‘code of conduct’ downgrades the law to a second-class status, behind the ‘leading role’ of private companies that are being asked to arbitrarily implement their terms of service. This process, established outside an accountable democratic framework, exploits unclear liability rules for online companies. It also creates serious risks for freedom of expression, as legal — but controversial — content may well be deleted as a result of this voluntary and unaccountable take-down mechanism.

 

“This means that this ‘agreement’ between only a handful of companies and the European Commission is likely in breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (under which restrictions on fundamental rights should be provided for by law), and will, in practical terms, overturn case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the defense of legal speech.”

 

Janice Atkinson, an independent MEP for the South East England region, summed it up this way: “It’s Orwellian. Anyone who has read 1984 sees its very re-enactment live.”

 

Even before signing on to the EU’s code of conduct, social media sites have been cracking down on free speech, often at the behest of foreign governments.

 

In September 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was overheard on a live microphone confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on what he was doing to prevent criticism of her open-door immigration policies.

 

In January 2016, Facebook launched an “Online Civil Courage Initiative” aimed at Facebook users in Germany and geared toward “fighting hate speech and extremism on the Internet.”

 

Writing for Gatestone Institute, British commentator Douglas Murray noted that Facebook’s assault on “racist” speech “appears to include anything critical of the EU’s current catastrophic immigration policy.” He wrote:

 

“By deciding that ‘xenophobic’ comment in reaction to the crisis is also ‘racist,’ Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people (who, it must be stressed, are opposed to Chancellor Merkel’s policies) into ‘racist’ views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as ‘racist.’ This is a policy that will do its part in pushing Europe into a disastrous future.

 

Facebook has also set its sights on Gatestone Institute affiliated writers. In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and no explanation. Abu Toameh wrote:

 

“It’s still a matter of censorship. They decide what’s acceptable. Now we have to be careful about what we post and what we share. Does this mean we can’t criticize Arab governments anymore?”

 

In June 2016, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone’s Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called “Sweden’s Migrant Rape Epidemic.” In an editorial, Gatestone wrote:

 

“After enormous grassroots pressure from Gatestone’s readers, the Swedish media started reporting on Facebook’s heavy-handed censorship. It backfired, and Facebook went into damage-control mode. They put Ingrid’s account back up — without any explanation or apology. Ironically, their censorship only gave Ingrid’s video more attention.

 

“Facebook and the EU have backed down — for now. But they’re deadly serious about stopping ideas they don’t like. They’ll be back.”

 

Facebook Censorship & Ingrid Carlqvist

This week, the EU, in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe. The next day, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone’s Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called “Sweden’s Migrant Rape Epidemic.”

 

 

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos/Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. His first book, Global Fire, will be out in 2016.

 

_______________________________

© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. 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: If GI asks me to remove this post I will comply. If you wish to share anything other than a link you had better GI permission.

 

Looking at Nilsson Comment to Army Vet Threatened by Muslims


John R. Houk

© April 10, 2016

 

Robert Nilsson posted this as a comment to “Muslims Threaten an Army Vet in Minnesota”:

 

Did you see this?
https://youtu.be/ra45nX9JmW4

 

VIDEO: ‘Sharia Patrols’ Harassing Citizens in London, Belgium, Sweden

 

 

Posted by LthlWepon

Published on Mar 21, 2015

 

And this was my thoughts on this video:

 

The Sharia being forced upon British citizens MUST NOT be allowed to take root in America. If those Sharia patrols emerge on American soil, then those forcing Sharia need to be arrested for breaking the Free Speech and Religious Freedom portions of the First Amendment. OTHERWISE American vigilantism will arise again in America to beat down this multicultural lunacy.

 

I don’t know about you, this irritated me enough to make it a standalone post.

 

JRH 4/10/16

Please Support NCCR

 

A Plea for Efficient Facebook Alternative


John R. Houk

© January 11, 2015

I have begun searching for viable alternatives to Facebook. The social giant Facebook has been blocking my Counterjihad expose Islam posts. The lamest reason is that I post is that I post too often. If that is the Facebook logic, then why do they allow people to join so many groups that share the same interests?

The only answer is CENSORSHIP.

Now let’s be realistic though. Facebook is a multibillion privately only corporation. They have the property right to limit what their owner/owners or Board finds objectionable to their ideology.

That being said, I think Facebook should be honest about the ideology they specifically reject. Why do they hide behind subterfuge in blocking or banning their members? It is my opinion that some other enterprising person, persons or more would realize there is a market to tap into which would lead toward someone developing a serious competitive social platform for Conservatives and Counterjihad writers, bloggers and individuals can post their concerns and exposés that Facebook has an ideological problem with.

In the last two days I have been prevented twice by Facebook from continuing Counterjihad blog posts. Each time the only response has been when the block penalty ends. Assuming the resumption times were in the Pacific Time Zone I was blocked yesterday until 6:14 PM. And today until 11:50 AM. In the Central Time zone I live in this means 8:14 PM and today at 1:50 PM.

I going to post this blog entry to see how many I can do to my groups until Facebook blocks me again.

Here are the two appeal messages I sent to Facebook via their links for that near useless protest:

Sent to Facebook Appeal

1/10/16

If I’m being blocked for ideological reasons, I’d sure like no know the reason. I am very critical of the Left and of the Quranic beliefs of Islam; however I use zero profanity and I never call for violent action against the Left or Muslims. Which is quite unlike both the Left and Muslims who don’t appreciate Conservative-American views exposing what those ideologies believe. If there nothing wrong with their ideology, I am more than willing to dialogue with the one who disagrees with me UNLESS that Leftist or Muslim Apologist dialogues back with profanity or physical threats.

I would like to know if Facebook has a problem with exposing what Conservatives believe to be are heinous beliefs. In which I will leave the Facebook groups and find another forum which is more agreeable to free speech conducive to the American Way.

++++

Sent to Facebook Appeal

1/11/16 12:05pm

Dear God in Heaven let me know which group is complaining so I can leave it. I understand if there is a privacy issue with an individual, but surely you can let me know the group that is annoyed with me. I belong to groups that should be very accommodating with my thoughts. Ergo I was a little taken aback that there are complaints from group members. Also if Facebook is having a problem with me posting to all the groups I belong then why am I allowed to be a member of multiple groups? I’m just saying, the standard is a bit arbitrary, don’t you think?

And so I went on a search for a social platform I could live with that has some of the same applications as Facebook. To date I have not been successful. What I have ran into are some articles complaining or exposing Facebook. One such online web news service is one I have never heard of so I am a bit uncertain of their ideology. Nonetheless it does well to expose Facebook and that at least works for me now.

Mad World News exposes Facebook censorship against Counterjihadists. Go Mad World! I pray some capable person or Free Speech advocate can build and offer a social platform designed specifically for Free Speech with a Conservative and Counterjihad perspective in mind.

JRH 1/11/16

Please Support NCCR

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

If You Post This Anti-Islam Meme, You Might Kiss Your Facebook Profile Goodbye

By Robert Rich

January 10, 2016

Mad World News

With Facebook infringing upon our First Amendment rights more and more every day, it seems the social media giant has most recently hit a new low. As a Facebook page with almost 1 million fans has come to find out, if you post a certain Islam themed meme on Facebook, you could end up kissing your profile goodbye.

There’s an irrefutable line where the right to free speech stops and illegality ensues, but Facebook is redefining so-called acceptable speech. Proving just that, the owners of Mad World News were a bit surprised when logging into their account recently, only to receive a ban notice for the meme below, which “violated” the social media giant’s “community standards.”

Now, for most of us here, the picture might result in us clicking the like button before we continue scrolling through our feed, but for at least one person, they were offended by it. Apparently, they were so ticked off that they didn’t just keep scrolling or hide the post, they took the time to report the meme to Facebook.

In turn, it resulted in a 7-day ban for one of the Mad World News page administrators.

The post depicts the back of a man’s truck with a tailgate that reads, “Muslims go home and take Obama with you!!” Now, granted, the text implies that Muslims leave the country, but all it says is “go home.” Go home – that’s all it says. Furthermore, it’s a picture of a truck, not really a “meme” at all. However, Facebook has taken it upon themselves to censor a page simply because they didn’t like what it had to say.

We are under attack as Americans by people who seek to alter the face of our nation in a way that would make our Founding Fathers roll in their graves. The sad part is, they don’t even understand the implications of what they’re putting into place. Maybe they won’t realize it today or tomorrow, but one day, after the precedent in which they set forth snowballs into something else, then they’ll see – but by then it’ll be too late.

Now, for those unaware, Facebook will usually give you a short ban (1-3 days) for a first offense, and then a longer one (7-30 days) before they completely remove your page for good. There are some reasonable things that would constitute such action, such as posts conveying violent threats or pictures of someone naked, but Facebook is now aligning themselves politically.

As it turns out, despite the vast majority of Americans who are rightfully worried about Islam and the effect it is currently having on the world right now, Facebook is on the other side of things. Acting as human meat shields for the religion that is causing so much death and destruction, let alone their consistently abysmal treatment of women, the social media platform is seeking to shut down any naysayers who speak out against Muslims.

Over 57,000 subscribers, a 4.7 million post reach, and a platform for assisting those persecuted by Islamic tyranny — gone.

Sadly, this isn’t the first time that such an instance has occurred. Mad World News’ own, Dom the Conservative, has had her page shut down for good. With the page seeking to expose the truth about Islam with factual information, Facebook, being the irrational apologists that they are, naturally didn’t like what she had to say, so they shut her up.

Forget about the fact that she had tens of thousands of followers and that Americans have the right to free speech, Facebook is now censoring those rights in order to advance a political stance, hoping to push it on there many users.

This isn’t a debate – We the People have the right to say what we want (so long as if falls within the confines of the law) without persecution. As I said before, we are under attack, and if anything, this sick and increasingly frequent occurrence proves just that.

Our nation is headed for dark times. The only question is, will we sit idly by and watch as it happens or will we speak out together and do something to ensure the effort is squashed as it should be? Enough is enough, it’s time to get back to the roots this country was founded on.

_______________________

A Plea for Efficient Facebook Alternative

John R. Houk

© January 11, 2015

______________________

If You Post This Anti-Islam Meme, You Might Kiss Your Facebook Profile Goodbye

About Robert Rich (2178 Articles)

Robert Rich is a husband, father, and political writer that seeks to defend Conservative ideals and protect the rights of all Americans in the face of an oppressive government. As a hardcore Conservative, he strives to keep in tact what made America so great to begin with and is an avid supporter of gun rights. After all, it is the Second that protects the rest. Feel free to use the link below to “like” him on Facebook.

About Mad World News

Mad World News is firmly devoted to bringing you the truth and the stories that the mainstream media ignores. Together we can restore our constitutional republic to what the founding fathers envisioned and fight back against the liberal media.

Yurki Comment to ‘CDA Urged SC to Make Poor Christian Homeless’


In a comment left by Yurki on my NCCR blog, he displays the statistics that shows that Islam is no Religion of Peace.

JRH 12/26/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Yurki Comment to ‘CDA Urged SC to Make Poor Christian Homeless

By yurki1000

December 24, 2015 at 12:34 PM

These quotes are gathered from a wide variety of sources and are arranged so that you can easily copy and paste into articles and dialogues on the internet. The references are at the end of each quote. Islam is dangerous.

FREE SPEECH AND ISLAM

· America

o America, 58% of Muslims say criticism of Islam or Muhammad not protected under free speech, “Wenzel Strategies (2012): 58% of Muslim-Americans believe criticism of Islam or Muhammad is not protected free speech under the First Amendment. 45% believe mockers of Islam should face criminal charges (38% said they should not). 12% of Muslim-Americans believe blaspheming Islam should be punishable by death. 43% of Muslim-Americans believe people of other faiths have no right to evangelize Muslims. 32% of Muslims in America believe that Sharia should be the supreme law of the land.” (http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2012/10/31/sixty-percent-of-us-muslims-reject-freedom-of-expression; http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/10/poll-nearly-half-of-us-muslims-believe.html)

· Britain,

o 62% of British Muslims deny free speech, “NOP Research: 62% of British Muslims do not believe in the protection of free speech; Only 3% adopt a “consistently pro-freedom of speech line” (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06;
http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY)

ISIS AND MUSLIMS

· Al Jazeera poll, 81% of respondents approved of ISIS “In a recent survey conducted by AlJazeera.net, the website for the Al Jazeera Arabic television channel, respondents overwhelmingly support the Islamic State terrorist group, with 81% voting “YES” on whether they approved of ISIS’s conquests in the region. The poll, which asked in Arabic, “Do you support the organizing victories of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)?” has generated over 38,000 responses thus far, with only 19% of respondents voting “NO” to supporting ISIS.” (https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/poll-81-of-muslims-around-the-world-support-islamic-state-al-jazeera-arabic-poll/)

· Pew poll: 63 mil to 287 mil ISIS supporters in just 11 countries. A new poll by the Pew Research Center reveals significant levels of support for ISIS within the Muslim world. In 11 representative nation-states, up to 14 percent of the population has a favorable opinion of ISIS, and upwards of 62 percent “don’t know” whether or not they have a favorable opinion of the Islamist group.” (https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/pew-poll-63-mil-to-287-million-isis-supporters-in-just-11-countries/)

· 81% of Al Jazerra Poll support ISIS, “al-Jazeera Poll (2015): 81% of respondents support the Islamic State (ISIS).”
(http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/25/shock-poll-81-of-al-jazeera-arabic-poll-respondents-support-isis/)

· Saudi Arabia, 92% of Saudis say ISIS conforms to Islamic Law, “Informal poll of Saudis in August 2014 shows 92% agree that Islamic State (ISIS) “conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic law.” (https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/92-of-saudis-believes-that-isis-conforms-to-the-values-of-islam-and-islamic-law-survey/)

· America, 38% of American Muslims says ISIS beliefs are correct, “The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 38% of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct. (43% disagree).” (http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/150612-CSP-Polling-Company-Nationwide-Online-Survey-of-Muslims-Topline-Poll-Data.pdf)

· Britain, about 1/2 of Muslims support ISIS, ICM (Mirror) Poll 2015: 1.5 Million British Muslims support the Islamic State, about half the total population.” (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/muslim-leader-isis-supporting-brits-disenfranchised-6018357)

RAPE

· Denmark, “Crime rates broken down by nationality in Denmark show that individuals from Muslim countries make up eight of the top nine places on the list. In addition, 2012 figures show that Somalis were sentenced for crimes, including innumerable sexual assaults, almost ten times more often than those with Danish citizenship. Indeed, more than half of all convicted rapists in Denmark have an immigrant background, according to official statistics, despite the fact that immigrants and their descendants account for less than 10 per cent of the population. “Iraqis, Iranians, Turks and Somalis are dramatically overrepresented among convicted rapists in Denmark,” reports BT.dk.” (http://www.infowars.com/feminists-mute-on-muslim-rape-epidemic-sweeping-europe/)

· Norway, “Something else that Muslim immigration appears to have brought to Norway is what some here call “a rape epidemic.” Recent police statistics showed that in the capital city of Oslo, 100 percent of assault rapes between strangers were committed by immigrant, non-Western males. And nine out of 10 of their victims were native Norwegian women…And Spitznogle [Kristin Spitznogle is a therapist who has counseled some of the rape victims] has been attacked in the Norwegian media for saying what many will not: that the assault rape problem is primarily Muslim men raping non-Muslim women. And any woman who does not dress modestly and wear the Muslim headscarf could be considered by some Muslim men to be “fair game.” (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/august/culture-crisis-norway-tackles-muslim-immigration-/?mobile=false)

· Sweden, Sweden now has the second highest number of rapes in the world, after South Africa, which at 53.2 per 100,000 is six times higher than the United States. Statistics now suggest that 1 out of every 4 Swedish women will be raped…Sweden has imported huge numbers of Muslim immigrants with catastrophic effect…Sweden’s population grew from 9 million to 9.5 million in the years 2004-2012, mainly due to immigration from “countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia”. 16 percent of all newborns have mothers born in non-Western countries. Employment rate among immigrants: 54 percent….Muslims represented in as many as 77 percent of the rape cases and a major increase in rape cases paralleling a major increase in Muslim immigration, the wages of Muslim immigration are proving to be a sexual assault epidemic by a misogynistic ideology…In Stockholm this summer there was an average of 5 rapes a day. Stockholm has gone from a Swedish city to a city that is one-third immigrant and is between a fifth and a quarter Muslim.” (http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/175434/1-4-swedish-women-will-be-raped-sexual-assaults-daniel-greenfield)

· United Kingdom, “In 2012, it emerged that over a thousand mostly white young girls in the northern England town of Rotherham were systematically groomed, trafficked, beaten and sexually abused by rape gangs consisting of mainly Pakistani Muslim men. A report released earlier this month confirmed that the local Labour government council and the police covered up this horror because they were afraid of being characterized as racist or politically incorrect.” (http://www.infowars.com/feminists-mute-on-muslim-rape-epidemic-sweeping-europe/)

SHARIA

· United States

o 51% of U.S. Muslims want choice of Sharia, “51% “More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.” (https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/)

o 1/5th of Muslims in U.S. approve of violence in order to institute sharia, “Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.” (https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/)

o 300,000 U.S. Muslims want to impose Sharia worldwide, “…300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that shariah is “The Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad.”” (https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/)

o 19% of U.S. Muslims say violence is justified to impose sharia, “The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 19% of Muslim-Americans say that violence is justified in order to make Sharia the law in the United States (66% disagree).” (http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/150612-CSP-Polling-Company-Nationwide-Online-Survey-of-Muslims-Topline-Poll-Data.pdf)

· Britain

o “GfK NOP: 28% of British Muslims want Britain to be an Islamic state.”  (http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf)

o Center for Social Cohesion: 40% of British Muslim students want … READ THE REST (Islamic Statistics on violence, rape, terror, sharia, isis, and welfare; By Matt Slick; CARM)

 

The United Nations (UNRWA) is again under fire over its curriculum in Palestinian schools where children are taught to hate Israel and Jews and are fed false information about the history of the region.

You are about to be taken into the Palestinian classrooms where, along with educational subjects, children are brainwashed with unbelievable hatred against Jews.

Can you imagine a young girl who dreams only of defeating the Jewish people?

UNRWA has shown its true, anti-Israel colors time and again. This is a corrupt organization that stopped from carrying out its anti-Israel incitement activities.

After seeing this video, you will understand why Palestinian teenagers are sacrificing their lives trying to murder Jewish civilians in Israel. (WATCH: UN Schools Brainwash Arab Children to Hate Jews; United with Israel; 12/22/15)

VIDEO: 12/20: Controversy about Palestinian school curriculum

 

Posted by i24news EN

Dec 21, 2015

The News Today with Ayman Sikseck – 12/20/2015

_____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

The Editor added more of the “Islamic Statistics on violence, rape, terror, sharia, isis, and welfare” Yurki quote for greater clarification of the wicked truth of Islam.