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

 

The Big BUT System – plus good news about Tommy Robinson


muslim-no-kill-infidel-april-fool

 

What’s the Big BUT System? It’s the blocking of negative information about the reality of Islam with a BUT.

The above quote from Elsa Schieder is precisely the central path that Multicultural Leftists use to shut down any truth-telling about the dangers of Islam and its theopolitical ideology inherent in Islam’s Quran, Hadith and Sira!

 

All the topics Elsa write’s down below relate to how the evils of Islam have affected private citizens in Canada and the UK who are merely speaking obvious truths or Western citizens being displeased with Islamic terrorism.

 

JRH 10/5/16

Please Support NCCR

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

The Big BUT System – plus good news about Tommy Robinson

 

Sent by Elsa Schieder

Sent Oct 2, 2016 at 2:41 AM

Sent from World Truth Summit

 

I’m writing to you because I’d like to introduce you to the Big BUT System. Plus, I have information on 2 current Canadian cases showing the threats to freedom of speech. And there’s good news about Tommy Robinson.

What’s the Big BUT System? It’s the blocking of negative information about the reality of Islam with a BUT.

I started by writing The Quick and Easy Guide to Understanding Islamhttp://westindanger.com/ed/guide-to-understanding-islam.html

 

However, it soon became apparent that the majority of people respond to everything negative about Islam with a BUT.

– BUT there’s good and bad in all religions.

– BUT that’s hate speech.

– BUT that’s Islamophobia.

– BUT it’s all a matter of interpretation.

– BUT I know a nice Muslim.

In other words, negative information about Islam usually doesn’t sink in. It’s BUTted away.

 

The plan was to create a guide to answering the BUTs, one at a time.

 

I soon saw that something strange was going on. It was like the thorns around Sleeping Beauty’s castle. Those BUTs had a purpose: to keep people asleep to Islam. And like those thorns, there was something “magic” about the BUTs – it was as if a spell had been cast. Who had done that? How? And even more important, how to undo it?

So, now:

– the Big BUT System:

– the most likely reasons why it exists;

– what we can do;

– the BUTs, one at a time – where we repeatedly come to evidence that the Big BUT System isn’t natural, but manufactured;

– and finally, the next big questions:

– whodunit?

– how is the system kept in place?

– and how do we end it?

Here are the first reader responses:

This is amazing. I love it. It contains everything I’d need, I think, when communicating the truth about Islam, which is all I do!!! It really is brilliant. I’m sure no one else has done this.
Jan Ferguson, London, England

Quite an achievement. I think you found your niche. Instead of describing Islam you are giving people content to use when arguing. This is what matters.
Jean-Claude Lamontagne, Rouen, France

Very well done, no buts about it.🙂
 Bill Warner of Political Islam, Nashville, USA

The Big BUT System:
http://westindanger.com/ed/big-but-system.html

 

Until October 10, a special offer. 2 for 1.   .99
Along with the Big BUT System, you will get the Quick and Easy Guide to Understanding Islam.
bk-jkts-quick-easy-guide-islam-the-big-but-system

 

As we know, the allegation that something is “hate speech” is not used just to keep people from facing negative truths about Islam. “Hate speech” is a criminal offense in many countries. Here are 2 current Canadian cases. 

In the province of Ontario, Eric Brazau has been sentenced to 18 months in jail for insulting Islam – for what was planned as a piece of street theatre (performed in the subway). (Link online: http://elsasblog.com/161002-the-big-BUT-system.html)

Another incident resulted in Eric’s being charged, not just with hate crime, but incitement to genocide. Exactly what did he do?

The hate crime consists of the fact that, on the night he demonstrated against the Bataclan murders in Paris, he allegedly said “Muslims killed people in Paris”. It seems he should have said “ISIS killed people in Paris”, or “Misunderstanders of Islam killed people in Paris”, or “People with a warped interpretation of Islam killed people in Paris”… If he is convicted on all charges he faces up to 10 years in a penitentiary.

Eric has been charged with incitement to genocide. The Attorney General had to agree to this charge and it is the first time such a charge has been made in Canada. The Crown has stated that she wants to send Eric to the penitentiary, i.e. more than two years in jail. (Link online: http://elsasblog.com/161002-the-big-BUT-system.html)

Also in Canada, this time in the province of Quebec, Djemila Benhabib is on trial for accurately reporting information, in an interview, about an Islamic school – information from the school’s own website and a promotional pamphlet sent out by the school. The charge? Slander. (And yes, according to a reliable friend, if you hurt someone’s reputation by telling the truth, that falls under the definition of slander!)

Quebec: Muslims take author to court for revealing truth about Islamic school

Author Djemila Benhabib, on trial for slander for comments made about a Muslim private school, testified Wednesday that the religious instruction offered at the school has no place in Quebec.

 

Benhabib said alarm bells went off when she read the Qur’anic passages children attending the Muslim School of Montreal were made to memorize. The passages, which she called “an offence to human dignity,” spoke of the beautiful virgins awaiting male believers in the afterlife, while non-believers endured “scorching fire and scalding water.” . . .

The school is seeking $95,000 in damages. The president of the school’s board of directors testified earlier Benhabib’s interview had caused a decrease in enrollment and created a state of panic as teachers and students feared repercussions for being likened to terrorists. (Link online: http://elsasblog.com/161002-the-big-BUT-system.html)

And what’s been happening with Tommy Robinson? In June he had a charge against him for holding up a F**K ISIS banner at a football match. A couple of months later, he was ordered to leave a Cambridge pub where he, 2 friends, and their 7 children were watching a football match on TV.

 

tommy-robinson-about-isis-sign-family-booted-from-pub

 

And now, good news. On September 19, Tommy sent out a short jubilant tweet after his court appearance relating to his holding up a F**K ISIS banner: 

Judge “evidence is vague & cagey & not genuine” case dismissed (Link online: http://elsasblog.com/161002-the-big-BUT-system.html)

 

Here’s more detail:

The police had sought to argue that an English flag held up by PEGIDA UK leader Robinson with the words “Fuck ISIS” printed on it amounted to incitement of hatred against Muslims.

Attending Luton Magistrates Court today with her client, Mr. Robinson’s lawyer Alison Gurden argued that attempts to impose the order amounted to an attempt to breach his right to freedom of speech and assembly.

According to Mr. Robinson, the judge agreed, dismissing the police’s case against him as vague, cagey, and not genuine. (Link online: http://elsasblog.com/161002-the-big-BUT-system.html)

 

Huffington Post also carried the story. (Link online: http://elsasblog.com/161002-the-big-BUT-system.html)
As for the recent incident at a Cambridge pub, the police have now claimed that Tommy was not the only target:

Cambridgeshire Police deny targeting Mr. Robinson during the incident in Cambridge, claiming in a statement that 18 Luton football club supporters were asked to leave the city to prevent violent clashes between fans.

However, when asked by Breitbart London whether there was any proof that the other 17 existed, and which they were willing to release, they replied that there was not. (Link online: http://elsasblog.com/161002-the-big-BUT-system.html)

An appeal has been made, asking witnesses to the incident, plus the other 17 people allegedly charged, to come forward.

Here is Tommy’s response to the Cambridge incident, in an interview with Jamie Glazov:

 

YOU WILL NOT TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM
http://jamieglazov.com/2016/08/30/tommy-robinson-moment-you-will-not-take-away-my-freedom/

 

In the interview Tommy stresses how vital it is that now he has excellent legal representation, made possible by his many generous supporters.

And once again he thanks the many people who have made donations.

The video ends with another thank you – from Jamie Glazov to Valerie Price of ACT for Canada, for funding the interview.

I want to end with something else. A quote from Shimon Perez, a prime minister of Israel, from a tribute to him:

 

The Jews’ greatest contribution to history is dissatisfaction! We’re a nation born to be discontented. Whatever exists we believe can be changed for the better. –Shimon Peres (1923-2016)

One part of the quote resonates with me: Whatever exists we believe can be changed for the better.

But are we (Jewish or not) born to be discontented?

For me, the belief that we can change something for the better often comes from something other than discontent – just from the sense that something can be improved, and from an idea about how things might be improved (like by putting yogurt on pancakes – a delicious addition to already delicious pancakes). It’s just fun to improve something.

I do see the quest to improve things as a fundamental Western quest.

This quest (whether or not linked with discontent) is utterly contrary to Islamic doctrine, which holds that no improvement is possible, that Islamics are to follow Islamic doctrine from the time of the death of Mohammed, and adhere, for example, to what is known as his last will and testament, Surah 9, which calls upon Islamics to kill the infidels (meaning everyone who is not an Islamic) wherever we are found.

Give me ceaseless discontent and the urge to change things for the better any day!

Even better, give me just the conviction that we can change things for the better.

That means, among many other things, to make visible and undo the Big BUT System, so that Islam becomes utterly visible. In this case, I agree that a basis of the urge to improve things is linked with discontent. Many of us feel discontent (or even more negative feelings) when faced with some of the truths about Islam.

And now, as always, all the best to all who care and dare,

Elsa

October 2, 2016
PS. Why are some links only available online?
http://elsasblog.com/161002-the-big-BUT-system.html
Because emails with many different links are less likely to get into your inbox.

PPS. For lots more, come to:
http://ElsasEmporium.com
and
http://ElsasBlog.com
_____________________

ELSA, TRUTH SLEUTH: MY JOURNEY INTO ISLAM

 

It could be about, how I came to find the wonder of Islam.

 

The words that come into my mind: The Heart of Darkness, the title of a novel by Joseph Conrad.

 

What I mean is that I found so many things I did not expect, so many things I could not admire. I would have loved to find a religion of peace. I did not. I feel as if I slowly stepped into a cave, slowly found lights, and had to recoil from what I found.

 

In one corner, the corpses of 600-900 dead Jews, murdered by Mohammed. The story isn’t one I found in early versions of his story that I came across. But it’s right there, hinted at in the Qu’ran, and spelled out in detail in the Sira and Hadiths (very revered Islamic religious texts). The story is right there.

 

But I didn’t find the story until late in my exploration, when I already had a good idea of what kinds of things I’d be coming across.

 

The early explorations were much more tentative.

 

After all, I was told Islam was a religion of peace. But something did not make sense.

 

It was a bit like being a detective – Nancy Drew, say – young and innocent and very Western. Why was there this feeling of danger when I was READ THE REST

 

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.

 

My Problem with Islam


Unholy Quran handbook of hate

John R. Houk

© February 18, 2016

 

I have often been called bigoted against Islam. In many ways this is an accurate accusation, but not for the typical reasons associated with bigotry. The primary reason I disparage Islam is because its revered writings such as the Quran, Hadith and Sira target Christianity with stealth vitriol. Islam dualistically calls Jews and Christians as People of the Book as if that is a heritage to be respected. Then the truth emerges that Jews and Christians are only allowed to live if those adherents agree to submit to the supremacy of Islam followed by theopolitical condemnations of Jews and Christians. I cannot do justice to the Jew-hatred in the Quran, Hadith and Sira because I am a Christian.

 

However I am quite aware that Islam directly calls the central articles of faith in Christianity as fake or cruelly made up to defy the original will of God (Muslims call Allah), hence ultimately Christians must be dealt with as infidel (or Kafir or Kufr or Kuffar – however you find the disparaging appellation written by Muslims).

 

Some of those central Biblical articles of faith is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God as much as He is the son of Mary (more Biblically as the son of Man). This denies the entire premise of God the Father emptying himself of divine prerogatives to be born as a sinless man in order to Redeem all of humanity from the spiritual Fallen nature bequeathed to the descendants of Adam and Eve. Thus Jesus the Anointed One (Christ/Messiah) is the very incarnation of the ONE God. That perfect man would and did offer Himself as a sinless sacrifice under the sentence of an unjustified crime.

 

This comes to the other pathetic denial of Islam. Islamic revered writings also claim Jesus never died on the Cross but rather died of natural causes. ERGO according to Islam Jesus never arose from the dead a fully alive person after a Crucifixion.

 

The next Islamic denial was also quite controversial in the early days of the followers of Christ; viz. the Holy Trinity under the concept that Jesus as the incarnation of the Father in union with the Holy Spirit are three individual persons that exist as ONE God. In the early days of Christian faith Christian theologians struggled with the logic of the Three in ONE nature of God.

 

Was Jesus fully and man and fully God simultaneously? Was Jesus both fully man and fully God but two separate beings? Did the Holy Spirit proceed from Jesus or the Father or both? Whatever the theological differences on God’s nature you should notice all the theologians believed the existence of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. TODAY the huge majority of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants follow the Three equal persons are in ONE God theology. Islam says only Allah exists and faith has no place for three in ONE.

 

I suspect there are more issues at variance between Christianity and Islam however what I have just share is good enough for me to believe Islam is an antichrist religion that exists as a Satanic challenge to the ONE true God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And that the Quran’s rescripting of the Holy Bible is a load of antichrist Satanic gibberish.

 

With that in mind I’d like to share an article that I first read on my Prophecy Update email that actually links to an article by John McTernan on the Rapture Ready website.

 

JRH 2/18/16

Please Support NCCR

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

The Koran vs. the Bible

 

By John McTernan

Date: Listed as “NEW” thus 2/2016

Rapture Ready


The Koran directly attacks Christianity.

 

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psalm 12:6

 

“For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven” (Psalm 119:89).

 

There is a move in the United States and the entire Western world to block anything from being said negatively against Islam. Exposing Islam and its doctrines that are contrary to Western culture is called Hate Speech. In both Europe and Canada , Christians have been heavily fined and threatened with jail for speaking negatively about Islam.

 

Telling the truth accurately means nothing, as it is classified as hate speech. There are forces working in the United States to also promote that speaking against Islam is hate speech. Islam is being packaged and sold to the West as a peaceful religion.

 

Based on this concept of speaking out about Islam being hate speech, an examination of the Koran shows this book itself is hate speech, specifically, against Christianity. The Bible was written 500 years before Muhammad and therefore has nothing to say about Islam. In fact, the Bible only directly condemns pagan worship. It has nothing directly to say about Hinduism or the other ancient Eastern religions. By doctrine and teachings, the Bible disagrees with the eastern religions, but it does not condemn them.

 

The Koran directly attacks the major doctrines of Christianity. The Christian faith has several key beliefs. The teaching that is unique to the Christian faith is that there is one God who eternally manifests Himself in three persons: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is known as the Godhead or the Blessed Trinity.

 

The second critical doctrine is that Jesus of Nazareth is the only begotten Son of God; therefore He is unique from everyone else. His Father was not human, but the holy God of Israel. The third key doctrine is that the Lord Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for man’s sin and then rose from the dead. There are other important doctrines, but these three really comprise the very heart of the Christian faith.

 

With this foundation, let us examine the Koran to see what it states about the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. A chapter in the Koran is referred to as Sura, so when reviewing the Koran the word Sura with numbers after it gives the location of the verse. I use the Koran online for research. This is found at: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/index.html

The Blessed Holy Trinity:

 

The Koran clearly states that Christians lie when claiming God is in the form of a Trinity. These are strong words; however this is exactly what the Koran states. The Koran claims that the Lord Jesus is only an apostle and for Christians to desist from teaching the blessed Trinity. In this same Sura, the Koran denies the Lord Jesus is the Son of God.

 

In one Sura the Koran attacks the very heart of Christianity by denying the blessed Trinity and that the Lord Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. It calls Christians liars and demands that the preaching of the Trinity and Jesus being the Son of God stop. The Koran identifies Christians sometimes as “followers of the book,” but when they proclaim Christian doctrine, the Koran then calls them liars. Muhammad writes that it is acceptable to believe the Bible, but not Christian doctrine!

 

The Sura shows this:

 

Sura 4.171 O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.

 

The Lord Jesus Is the Only Begotten Son of God

 

One of the central doctrines of Islam, as clearly presented in the Koran, is that God does not have a son. An exhaustive search of the Koran shows that in at least 11 Suras, the Koran states that God does not have a Son. This is clearly aimed at Christianity because no other faith claims that God has a literal Son. The Koran even states in Sura 9:30 that those that believe Allah has a son should be destroyed by Allah! The Koran is very clear that it was written to attack this Christian doctrine.

 

The following are the Suras claiming that God does not have a Son:

 

Sura 4.171 Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.

 

Sura 6.101 Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created everything, and He is the Knower of all things.

 

Sura 9.30 And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths;they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

 

Sura 10.68 They say: Allah has taken a son (to Himself)! Glory be to Him: He is the Self-sufficient: His is what is in the heavens and what is in the earth; you have no authority for this; do you say against Allah what you do not know?

 

Sura 17.111 And say: (All) praise is due to Allah, Who has not taken a son and Who has not a partner in the kingdom, and Who has not a helper to save Him from disgrace; and proclaim His greatness magnifying (Him).

 

Sura 18.4 And warn those who say: Allah has taken a son.

 

Sura 19.35 It beseems not Allah that He should take to Himself a son, glory to be Him; when He has decreed a matter He only says to it “Be,’ and it is.

 

Sura 19.88 And they say: The Beneficent God has taken (to Himself) a son. (91) That they ascribe a son to the Beneficent God. (92) And it is not worthy of the Beneficent God that He should take (to Himself) a son.

 

Sura 21.26 And they say: The Beneficent God has taken to Himself a son. Glory be to Him. Nay! they are honored servants.

 

Sura 23.91 Never did Allah take to Himself a son, and never was there with him any (other) god– in that case would each god have certainly taken away what he created, and some of them would certainly have overpowered others; glory be to Allah above what they describe!

 

Sura 25.2 He, Whose is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and Who did not take to Himself a son, and Who has no associate in the kingdom, and Who created everything, then ordained for it a measure.

 

The Lord Jesus Died on the Cross

 

The Koran literally says the Lord Jesus did not die on the cross. It claims that He appeared to have died on the cross, but He was not killed nor was He crucified. Allah just took Jesus to heaven. The Koran directly attacks the vicarious death of Jesus of Nazareth on the cross, and thus rejects His redemption of man from sin. The Koran goes on to state that on the day of resurrection Jesus Christ will be a witness against Christians.

 

The Suras from the Koran prove this fact:

 

Sura 4.157 And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa [Jesus] son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

 

158 Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

159 And there is not one of the followers of the Book but most certainly believes in this before his death, and on the day of resurrection he (Jesus) shall be a witness against them.

 

According to Islam the worst sin a person can commit is shirk. This sin is also called association. This means associating Allah with a man. The very heart of Christianity that the Lord is the Son of God is the worst sin in Islam! According to the Koran, Allah forbids heaven to anyone who commits this sin and their abode is hell without any help.

 

The Koran and Islam by their very nature are anti-Christian, and therefore in our modern world’s way of thinking, it is hate speech. There can never be reconciliation between Islam and Christianity because the very heart of Islam is anti-Christian.

 

The Sura that shows this:

 

Sura 5.72 Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust.

 

The teachings of the Koran are in stark contrast to the Bible. The Koran states that God does not have a son. The Bible states that all life is in the Lord Jesus as the only begotten Son of God. With the Bible, if you have the Son, you have eternal life: if you do not have the Son, then you do not have eternal life.

 

A person that does not believe this makes God a liar. The Koran written 500 years after these verses denies the Son, and therefore makes the God of the Bible a liar. The Bible is written in the positive stating God has a Son. The Koran is written in the negative attacking this fundamental doctrine of Christianity.

 

When Muhammad wrote the Koran, he knew exactly what he was doing. He was creating a new religion which rivaled Christianity. He wanted to make sure there was no connection between the God of Islam and the holy God of Israel. The warning of the Bible is same today as it was at the time of Muhammad:

 

1 John 5:9-13: If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

 

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

 

The Bible ends with a warning to those who tamper with it and remove scriptures. The warning is that God will remove that person’s name from the Book of Life which means removal from eternity in heaven with God. Muhammad wrote the Koran as a replacement to the Bible. In the Koran, he removed the Bible’s core beliefs; therefore, Muhammad’s name and those that follow him are removed from heaven. To God, it is extremely serious to tamper with the Bible.

 

Revelation 22:19 “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

 

In summary, the God of Islam has no relationship to the God of the Bible. In fact, the God of Islam is at war with the Bible as the Koran calls anyone believing in the blessed Trinity a liar. The very origin of the Koran was to refute the authority of the Bible and reject the holy God of Israel. The Koran and Islam, at its very foundation, is hatred of Christianity, and therefore have no place in America. The Koran, as given by Muhammad, is hate speech and should be exposed as such.

 

Note: America was the only nation in all of history that was founded on the blessed holy Trinity. There were three documents which created the United States of America . Most people are very familiar with the first and third documents: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

 

It was the second document that ended the Revolutionary War and granted America[n] nationhood. The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 formally ended the Revolution and granted the United States independence from Great Britain. This document can be found at:

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/paris.html In a real sense, the United States formally became a nation on September 3, 1783.

 

When the United States became a nation, it was done “In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.” The preamble to this Treaty states that it is based upon the “Holy and undivided Trinity.” The concept of the holy Trinity is unique to Christianity. This statement means the United States was founded on the Christian faith. The Preamble is very short:

 

In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.”

 

The Treaty then ends just like the Constitution with a statement it is being signed in the “Year of our Lord.” The witnesses representing the United States were John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and D. Hartley:

 

“… In witness whereof we the undersigned, their ministers plenipotentiary, have in their name and in virtue of our full powers, signed with our hands the present definitive treaty and caused the seals of our arms to be affixed thereto. Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.”

_____________________

My Problem with Islam

John R. Houk

© February 18, 2016

____________________

The Koran vs. the Bible

 

Edited by John R. Houk

Any text enclosed by brackets by are by the Editor.
Rapture Ready FAQ Page

 

If it Quacks like a Radical Muslim


On August 17 I cross posted Raymond Ibrahim’s explorative essay entitled, “How Nazism Explains ‘Moderate’ and ‘Radical’ Islam”. Ibrahim drew a comparative analogy between Hitler’s Nazism and Mohammed’s Islam to understand present day so-called Moderate Muslims and Radical violent Muslims. The essay though relatively short was quite enlightening and should be re-read every once in a while to under the paradigm that modern Muslims face.

I stashed away two comments on this analogy of Nazism and Islam and their adherents. The first comment is from a Facebook Group and the second comment is from a Google Plus individual. I concurred with both comments and that is why I am sharing them. The Google Plus comment I liked so well that I as an Editor added some source links.

JRH 9/8/15

Please Support NCCR

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

If it Quacks like a Radical Muslim

(Editor’s title)

Edited by John R. Houk

Posted September 8, 2015

Apostates and Infidels

Closed Group

August 17, 2015 3:51pm

The logic applied is on the surface a fair enough approach, but flawed. The flaw resides in the ideology and cultural grip of Islam on its adherents. Unlike Nazi Germany, which was essentially an outgrowth of the harshness of Versailles Treaty, using anti-Semitism as a lightning rod, Islam is a totalitarian system going back centuries. Thus, there is an inherited allegiance, not by biology but by socialization…Islam promotes honor in a manner that is at odds with Greco-Roman cognition, and it is this ability to reason that allowed Wallenberg, for example, the ability to negotiate for Jewish lives. Islam does not provide this level or even likelihood of negotiation. While nice individuals exist within in Islam, ultimately the Quran and cultural pressure will carry the day. Remember folks – Islam produced no Beethoven…the West did.

++++++++++++++++++++

Ray Lanfear G+

August 17, 2015

Are you aware what they pray for 5 times per day? Be aware, get the new book by Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Her AHA bio), former Muslim that speaks the truth about Islam and Quran. All lives do matter, not just black lives.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

 

Political correctness on Islam is the issue of our time for all candidates. We all should be tired of the Islamic advance in America and the PC given to Islam. Enough is enough forget about PC. A clear and present danger. It is long overdue to forget about political correctness and watch out for all Mosques, and the Imams that preach the hate and violence toward America with their Quran and Sharia law. And now Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has called upon 10,000 blacks to kill [2 minute clip of Farrakhan in own words] all whites, and got a standing ovation at his church. He cites Islam and the Quran for justification to kill whites. Why was he not arrested for his hate and [his] call to violence, which would come under a terrorist is beyond me?

The “Trojan Horse” is here and in your neighborhood. It’s time to investigate all Mosques before further homeland attacks occur on our military, far too many Imams preach hate and violence toward America. How many more attacks will it take until America gets the message? 4 Marines and one sailor are dead, as a direct result of the Mosques, Islam and the Quran. What more is there to know? [I] Have studied Islam and the Quran for several years now and have been inside Mosques and spoken to their Imams. Let there be no mistake about it. Islam, from its beginning, has been a religion of the sword.

The concept of Holy War (Jihad) mandated by Allah, requires all of Islam to completely subdue the earth through military and violent conquest. The Quran says it all. When will America wake up? One sad sick religion. They place a premium on death versus life. They will never grasp the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on earth. Women are treated as a sub class under Islam with no rights at all. They will never adapt to our customs and culture but rather want to force Islam and Sharia upon the World. And if they can take a Jew, Christian or infidel to their death along with them, they view it as an honor.

Like it or not, politically correct or not, we are at War with Islam. And until America recognizes that fact, more tragic deaths will result. Sharia law will continue to expand. . Mosques are hiding places for terrorists and we have 3400 plus in America. Read the truth here about Islam and the Quran and Sharia. Get a copy of “Heretic” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim that speaks from experience. Violence is inherit in Islam. It is not a religion of peace. When they are praying 5 times per day they are praying for death to Jews, Christians and infidels and most people are clueless. The threat is real folks. Read the book now and get the real truth. Also google “theprojectmuslimbrotherhood” and see their plan to destroy America from within.

_________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All Links by the Editor. Any text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

The House should Investigate and Subpoena Obama Administration to the Hilt


BHO calls scandals - Americans Call Crimes

John R. Houk

© June 15, 2014

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM JUDICIAL DIRECTION

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

The Origins of the Phrase

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

JRH 6/15/14

Please Support NCCR

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

New Benghazi Scandal Revelations

 

From: Office of CCC PAC

Sent: 6/14/2014 3:35 PM

 

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

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

 

US Spy Agencies Here Benghazi Plans - Obama Lied

 

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

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

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

 

VIDEO: TV Ad: Hold Obama Accountable for Benghazi Scandal

 

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

To make a contribution online – JUST CLICK HERE.

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

 

Susan Rice- Benghazi Not Preplanned Attack

 

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

 

USA Today- BHO says Benghazi Not Terrorism

 

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

 

Hillary- What Diff Does It Make

 

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

 

Jay Carney- Benghazi Happened Long ago

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

You can also make a contribution online here:

 

Conservative Campaign Committee
ATTN:  Benghazi Ad Campaign

P.O. Box 1585

Sacramento, CA 95812

_______________________________

The House should Investigate and Subpoena Obama Administration to the Hilt

John R. Houk

© June 15, 2014

_____________________________

New Benghazi Scandal Revelations

 

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

21st Century Problem of Islam in the West


Burka or Lady Liberty

John R. Houk

© May 22, 2014

 

Counterjihad writers and pundits connected to Europe have been trying to get Europeans to wake-up for about a decade about the dangers that Islamic culture threatening Western culture as it has evolved leaning upon voters having the ability to influence politics.

 

Western culture began a slant toward a democratic-socialist paradigm emphasizing diverse multiculturalism in the days after WWII. Honestly the diverse multicultural paradigm probably made great sense to the post WWII Europe. After all, Adolf Hitler tried to impose a singular culture of a German Master race on a Europe that was quite multilingual. What better way to head of potential dominating European leader to yet once again make an effort to conquer all Europe than to promote multicultural acceptance among Europeans. I have no doubts that the evolving European Union is a part of a process to bind all Europeans regardless of their linguistic backgrounds to collectively join each other as a united political people by democratic consensus. For such a consensus to take root a common thread must take root among the multiple lingual groups of Europe. It appears to me that consensus solidified via a paradigm Europeans could agree upon. The collective paradigm that has won over European voters over the years was an egalitarian Socialist-Egalitarianism in which people became connected to generous governments that would take care of a European’s social needs such as medicine, employment, welfare, and so on. The thing about this paradigm is that someone had to pay for it.

 

America’s willingness to build Europe back after WWII as a geopolitical strategy to gain a partner to combat the Soviet-Communist agenda of a Marxist Empire ruled from Moscow. The American commitment to take on the initial bankrolling of strategic military alliances for European defense freed money up to be invested into the Socialist-Egalitarian top-down general welfare of European citizens. Then the European governments taxed their citizens to the hilt. Europeans did not care, that is how much the democratic socialist paradigm is still attractive to European voters.

 

Unfortunately for Europe there was a horrible side-affect to embracing multicultural diversity as a social egalitarian paradigm. Non-European immigrants began to flow into Europe even as many European governments have united under a limited confederated union that is the European Union. That union of nations has brought about economic advantages even in developing a single monetary unit that is known as Euros. For many European nations the Euro became the singular currency replacing traditional national currencies. The horrible side-affect was the flow of Islamic people from Africa and the Middle East that were and are intolerant of the European culture. Multicultural diversity acceptance enabled Muslims to hold on to many of their Islamic concepts which are diametrically opposed to concepts of Religious Freedom outside of Islam and opposed to concepts of Free Speech that promotes another religion or ideology that are deemed insulting to Islam.

 

Under the imperative of cultural acceptance to find a common ground was and is a non-starter among religious Muslims. Islamic writings considered holy do not say nice things about non-Muslims. That means secular-minded Europeans (most Europeans have abandoned the practice of their Christian religious heritage) will insult Muslims with lifestyles that are blatantly immoral in Islam. Americans are still Christian enough there are immoral practices that should be frowned upon; e.g. adultery, rape, theft, murder, fornication (sex without marriage) and more. The multicultural paradigm has infected American culture enough that immoral acts such as adultery, fornication, pornography, homosexual lifestyles and so on are not considered heinous anymore. In Islam these kinds of immoral practices are worthy of death.

 

Socialist-minded European elites decided to look the other way to the intolerance of Islam probably believing they were doing Muslim immigrants a multicultural favor by enabling a better economic life and freedom from dictatorships prevalent among Africa and the Middle East. Most Muslims in Europe have eschewed any form of assimilation into their host nations. Here we are in the 21st century and immigrants are still flowing into Europe coupled now with earlier Muslim immigrants producing second and third generation religious Muslims that adhere to the intolerant nature of Islam.

 

Only now some Europeans are waking up that Islam and European culture are not compatible. The real risk in the minds of European elites is that pre-WWII Europeans began to blame a culture they deemed foreign to their Euro-Christian heritage. As a horrible economic depression began to hit Europe (like it did in America), those minority of Europeans began to look for a scapegoat to their ill fortunes being experienced during European depression. Incidentally the parts of Europe most affected to by depression were the losers of WWI who were punished to the hilt with war reparations. The principle nation of that punishment was Germany. Germans became desperate economically. People like Adolf Hitler became popular among Germans because the Jew-hatred spouted by Nazis seemed to offer an explanation to many for the economic pain people were feeling. Hitler’s antisemitism really infected Germany but it also had an effect on Europeans and Americans. If you got to look for a scapegoat the Jews always fit the bill historically in Europe and by extension even to the relatively new American republic. You might be surprised to know that one of change-makers in American lifestyle in Henry Ford was a huge antisemite and at least showed an early affection for Nazism at least until it became apparent Hitler’s bottom line would affect the Ford Motor Company’s bottom line.

 

European elites are facing a similar dilemma with Muslims in Europe. As Europeans begin to wake-up about Islamic intolerance Europeans are beginning to get fed up with Muslims are establishing Muslim-Only zones in many major European cities and are committing criminal acts often associated with Islamic intolerance.

 

The dilemma for European elites is that they are covering-up Muslim crimes hoping that anti-Muslim retribution will not emerge in a violent way that Jews experienced in Pre-WWII Europe. The problem that European elites should regard is Jewish citizens in the various European nations before WWI were pretty much assimilated into European culture. European Jews were more secular than they were observant. That is not the case for Muslims in Europe today. The intolerance of Islamic theo-political religion has led to a refusal of assimilation by the majority of Muslims. For pre-WWII European Jews assimilation was the norm and strict religious observance was a small minority. AND the observant religious Jews had absolutely NO desire to force non-Jews to convert to Judaism in pre-WWII or even now for that matter. The imperative of Islam according to their holy writings and religious commentators has been to offer the non-Muslim peaceful conversion, absolute submission to Islamic Supremacy or face death for insulting Islam.

 

TODAY one can see that is a problem in Europe. If American Dem Party Leftists continue to promote European concepts of multicultural diversity, the same problem will be here among us. Muslim conclaves are already emerging in the USA in which Christians utilizing their Constitutional right of Religious Freedom and Free Speech to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ are experiencing violence or even jail (Dearborn, MI).

 

Hopefully American voters will wake-up to the Islamic incompatibility to America’s Constitution and take a stand against giving Muslims special rights forcing Americans to give up their First Amendment. The problem Americans already face is the Religious Freedom is such a passionate issue in America that most take the stand that, “We disagree with Islam but those folks have the Constitutional right to freely practice their faith.”

 

Currently America is not facing a multicultural problem as in Europe. America’s future problem with Islam will be the dilemma between Religious Freedom being constitutionally sacrosanct and observant Islam being systemically anti-U.S. Constitution. How do we address that dilemma?

 

[Below is the inspiration for these thoughts that are from a Gatestone Institute essay written by Soeren Kern. Kern’s title is a bit provocative: ‘Gang Raping, “I Love Al-Qaeda” and Who Is Advancing Islam?’ The “Gang Raping” and “I love Al-Qaeda” are actually examples of widespread violence in Europe that is directly related to Islam.]

 

JRH 5/22/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Gang Raping, “I Love Al-Qaeda” and Who Is Advancing Islam?
A Month of Islam in Europe: April 2014

 

By Soeren Kern

May 22, 2014 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

The American Embassy in Prague is financing a new project aimed at promoting Islam in public elementary and secondary schools across the Czech Republic.

 

The new law removes the requirement that there must be a special reason to sue for defamation or insult. Swedish thought police will be able to prosecute anyone who expresses an opinion about Muslim immigration and much else if that opinion is deemed to be defamation or slander. The Swedish government is also spending 60 million krona ($9 million) to boost voter turnout in Muslim neighborhoods.

 

“The influx of immigrants is reaching biblical proportions. Italy is fighting a losing battle.” — Admiral Giuseppe De Giorgi, Head of the Italian Navy

 

In Austria, police say they believe that two teenage girls who vanished from their homes in the capital of Vienna on April 10 may be in Turkey, and that whoever helped them get there is using them as pin-up girls to boost recruitment efforts for the “holy war” in Syria.

 

Friends of Samra Kesinovic, 16, and Sabina Selimovic, 15, said the girls had become radicalized after attending a local mosque run by a Salafist preacher, Ebu Tejma, and learning about the duty of every Muslim to participate in jihad. The girls were expelled from school after inscribing “I Love Al-Qaeda” on tables and walls.

 

But the girls’ parents—originally Bosnian refugees who settled in Austria after the ethnic conflicts of the 1990s—say that messages and photographs posted on social media networks which claim that the girls are on the front line and fighting with their new husbands are fake.

 

In a possible break in the case, Austrian police say they traced a phone call Samra made to her sister in late April to a landline based in Turkey. The search for the girls continues.

 

At least 100 Austrian citizens or residents have participated in the fighting in Syria, according to Austrian media. Approximately 40 of them are currently on the front lines, 44 have already returned to Austria and 19 have been killed in action.

 

Also in April, the most senior leader of the Muslim Brotherhood living in exile in Britain, Ibrahim Munir, denied claims that the group was moving its international headquarters from London to the Austrian city of Graz. The Daily Mail, a British newspaper, reported on April 12 that the Muslim Brotherhood was preparing to move its headquarters to Austria in an “apparent attempt to avoid an inquiry into its activities set up by the Prime Minister.”

 

The group was expelled from Egypt after a counter-revolution there in July 2013, and recently opened a new headquarters above a kebab shop in London. On April 1, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced an investigation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in Britain.

 

A full summary of Islam in Britain during the month of April can be found here.

 

In the Czech Republic, police on April 25 raided the headquarters of Prague’s Islamic Foundation in the center of the capital and a mosque on the outskirts of the city. Police arrested 20 people, including the Czech translator and publisher of a book about Islamic theology that security officials said promotes hate speech and incites hatred toward Jews.

 

The book—”The Fundamentals of Tawheed” [Islamic monotheism] by Bilal Philips, a Jamaican-born, Qatar-based Muslim extremist who has been banned from entering Britain and Germany—was being used, police said, to spread Salafist ideology in the Czech Republic.

 

Also in April, it emerged that the American embassy in Prague is financing a new project aimed at promoting Islam in public elementary and secondary schools across the Czech Republic.

 

In Denmark, police in Copenhagen on April 25 said the man they believe tried to assassinate the Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard in February 2013 was arrested in Istanbul’s Atatürk airport as he tried to enter Turkey on a false passport. The man, identified only by the initials B.H., is awaiting extradition—a process that could take three months—in a high-security prison in the city’s Maltepe district.

 

Danish police say the suspect is a 26-year-old Danish citizen of Lebanese—possibly Palestinian—origin. At the time of his arrest, he was in possession of a fake passport. He left Denmark on the same day of the assassination attempt, police said, and has been traveling between Syria, Lebanon and Turkey ever since.

 

In Finland, the Parliament’s Constitutional Law Committee on April 4 ruled that the long-standing tradition of singing a summer hymn known as the “Suvivirsi” at end-of-school ceremonies can continue. In March, Deputy Chancellor of Justice Mikko Puumalainen had called on the Board of Education to look into the matter because the song has Christian overtones and could be offensive to the country’s growing Muslim community.

 

“It’s curious that the minority can so strongly influence the activities of the majority,” said Education Chancellor Pekka Iivonen. “Laws concerning religious freedom work both ways: in addition to having the right not practice religion, we also have the right to practice religion in Finland, where the majority of people belong to the Lutheran church.”

 

In France, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve on April 23 presented a new anti-radicalization plan aimed at preventing French citizens or residents from waging jihad in Syria and other Muslim conflict zones. The strategy includes more than 20 measures aimed not only at preventing French citizens from joining the war in Syria, but also at combatting the radicalization of young French Muslims during the earliest stages of indoctrination.

 

On April 22, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told RTL Radio that nearly 500 French citizens or residents are believed to have joined the fighting in Syria. “This is a very big subject,” Fabius said. “Now more and more young people are going [to Syria] … Our plan is to tackle this upstream [at the source] and all the way downstream. We will identify young people caught on this tragic path. We will monitor this online, and then we must stop them from crossing the Syrian border, and monitor their return and reintegration.”

 

Some believe the plan is a political ploy by French President François Hollande aimed at blunting the rising popularity of the anti-immigration National Front party, which captured a record number of city council seats and mayorships in local elections in March.

 

National Front party leader Marine Le Pen told RTL Radio that the government’s plan to fight French jihadists is cosmetic. “It does not attack the root of the problem—the speech in some mosques that are genuine calls to jihad,” she said. “Nor does the plan attack recruiters and funding from foreign countries known to support terrorist fundamentalism, such as Qatar.”

 

Le Pen also said it might be necessary to create a new law on mercenaries that would 1) prohibit those who have French nationality from engaging in fighting abroad; and 2) revoke French nationality from individuals convicted of participating in this type of fighting.

 

A confidential intelligence document leaked to the French newspaper Le Figaro says a form of Muslim ghettoization is gaining ground within the French school system. The report says that Muslim students are effectively establishing an Islamic parallel society completely cut off from non-Muslim students.

 

The 15-page document, dated November 28, 2013, includes 70 examples—headscarves in school playgrounds, halal meals in cafeterias, chronic absenteeism during Muslim religious festivals, clandestine prayers in gyms or hallways—of the Islamizing trend in schools throughout France.

 

The document says that Muslims are engaged in a “war of attrition” aimed at “destabilizing the teaching staff.” It adds that Muslim fundamentalists are circumventing the law that bans religious symbols in schools, and that self-proclaimed “young guardians of orthodoxy” in many schools are exerting pressure on Muslim girls.

 

“During the Muslim holidays, especially during the Eid-el-Kebir [Eid el-Adha], classes are abandoned by students,” with absenteeism bordering 90% in certain parts of Nîmes and Toulouse. A high school principal in a northern district of Marseille said that some of his pupils pray with such zeal that their foreheads bear bruises.

 

In Évry, a commune in the southern suburbs of Paris, police arrested four Muslim boys (three Turkish brothers between the ages of 13 and 15, and one 17-year-old from Morocco) for gang raping an 18-year-old woman as she left the main train station. During police questioning, the minors said they attacked the woman simply because she was French and “the French are all sons of whores.”

 

The boys were jailed for rape and—unusually in France—reverse racism. Three of the minors have previously been jailed for rape and robbery, but only six months ago they were released early as part of a government plan to go easy on minors.

 

One French commentator asks: “Where did their hatred come from? The hatred that drove them to engage in unspeakable acts on a young girl, barely older than themselves, who symbolized their host country? What will I report? Unemployment? Poverty? Inequality?”

 

In Paris, the 31st congress of the Union of Islamic Organizations in France (UOIF) was turned into a platform for Muslim anti-Semitism when keynote speaker Hani Ramadan—a prominent Muslim leader from Geneva—blamed Jews and Zionism for a litany of maladies in France, Iraq, Rwanda, Syria and Central Africa. “All the evil in the world originates from the Jews who have only one thing in mind, realizing the dream of Greater Israel,” the French daily Le Figaro quoted him as saying.

 

Ramadan said the media and politics are controlled by Zionists. “In the United States, no one can be elected president without having to kowtow to AIPAC,” he said. “It is the same in France, where no one can be elected without the approval of the CRIF [an umbrella group of French Jewish organizations], which in fact leads in the shadows. Against these international schemes of the Zionist power there is only one rampart: Islam.”

 

Hani Ramadan is the director of the Islamic Center of Geneva and is a brother of Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss professor banned from entering the United States. The UOIF congress, held from April 18-21 this year, is one of France’s largest and most prominent Islamic events.

 

In Germany, the interior ministry on April 8 said it had outlawed the charity “Waisenkinderprojekt Libanon” [Orphan Project Lebanon] for allegedly raising millions of euros for Hezbollah. The group, based in the city of Essen, collected €3.3 million ($4.6 million) in donations between 2007 and 2013 for the Lebanese Shahid [Martyrs] Foundation, an “integral” part of Hezbollah. The interior ministry said the funds were used to recruit fighters “to combat Israel, also with terrorist measures” and to compensate the families of suicide bombers.

 

Also in April, it was reported that the 39-year-old German rapper Deso Dogg (born Denis Cuspert), operating under the alias “Abu Talha Al-Almani” [Abu Talha the German], was killed on April 20 as a result of infighting among jihadi groups battling in Syria.

 

Deso Dogg—the son of a Ghanaian father and German mother, and raised by an American stepfather—abandoned his rapping career and converted to hardline Salafism in 2010 after nearly being killed in a car crash. Soon after his conversion, he began recording nasheeds [traditional Islamic devotional music] in German, praising Osama Bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Deso Dogg’s nasheeds inspired Arid Uka, an Albanian-German Islamist, who killed two U.S. airmen and seriously wounded two others at the Frankfurt airport in March 2011.

 

After Deso Dogg became a cult figure for Salafists in Europe, German counter-terrorism authorities, concerned about his potential to serve as a recruitment tool for radical Islamic groups, began monitoring his activities.

 

Despite being monitored, Deso Dogg crossed into Syria undetected in 2013, and gave his oath of allegiance to the jihadist group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant [ISIS] in early 2014. According to many media sources, he was reportedly killed by a rival al-Nusra suicide bomber in eastern Syria. Reports of his death, however, have not been independently confirmed, and ISIS fighters interviewed by the German newspaper Die Welt have denied he is dead.

 

A new survey published on April 29 shows that only half of the German population believes that Islam is a part of German culture and society. The Integration Barometer 2014, produced by the Expert Council of German Foundations on Integration and Migration, found that 44% of those with an immigrant background and 53% without a migration background rejected the statement: “Islam is part of Germany.” About half of the respondents, both with and without a migration background, nevertheless advocated religious instruction in schools. About two-thirds believe Islamic theology should be offered at universities.

 

The situation is different when it comes to making exceptions for individual Muslims, such as exemptions from sports or swimming lessons because of religious sensitivities. A clear majority, 76% of those without a migration background, viewed such special privileges in a negative light. In addition, 63% of those without a migration background rejected the right of Muslim teachers to wear headscarves in class. “The majority of respondents obviously believe that equality and religious neutrality are more important than the granting of special treatment on religious grounds,” the study concludes.

 

On April 22, the Bavarian Administrative Court in Munich ruled that an 18-year-old Muslim student does not have the constitutional right to wear a face-covering niqab in class at her state-run vocational college. The court said that her school had done nothing illegal in asking her to remove the veil, and that this prohibition did not infringe on her freedom of religious worship.

 

The court also said that the veil acted as a barrier for non-verbal communication. “Open communication during teaching is based not only on the spoken word, but also on non-verbal elements such as facial expressions, gestures and other body language,” the court said.

 

Meanwhile, a German-Turkish candidate for city council elections in the town of Neuss near Düsseldorf provoked the ire of many Germans when he added the Islamic crescent-moon to the logo of his party, the center-right Christian Democratic Union. The Islamized logo appeared on promotional campaign products such as pens, stickers and 4,000 bags.

 

Irritated CDU officials ordered Yasar Calik, 37, to cease and desist. He responded by accusing them of intolerance. Calik said many Turks are skeptical of the CDU and that he wants Muslims to know they can vote for the party, which some have dubbed the “Islamic Democratic Union.”

 

In Greece, controversial plans to build a taxpayer-funded mega-mosque in Athens have been delayed once again after a group of concerned citizens filed an appeal to block the €950,000 ($1.3 million) project. The government had agreed in November 2013 to build a mosque at the site of a former naval base in Votanikos, near central Athens.

 

Aris Spiliotopoulos, a candidate for the mayor of Athens for the center-right New Democracy party, called for a referendum on the construction of the mosque. In an April 16 interview with Skai TV, Spiliotopoulos, a former education and tourism minister, criticized plans to build a Muslim place of worship in the heart of Athens, saying that the capital does not need “another pole for illegal immigration” or “third-world tents under the sacred rock of the Acropolis.” Votanikos is located 3km from the Acropolis. Spiliotopoulos said: “I don’t want the mosque next to the Parthenon.”

 

The Friendship, Equality and Peace Party, purportedly representing Greek Muslims in region of Thrace, described Spiliotopoulos’ referendum proposals as an “insult to the hundreds of thousands of Muslims living in Athens, the only capital in the European Union without a mosque.” The group added:

 

“The construction of a mosque has been delayed for strange reasons for many years, which has opened a deep wound in terms of freedom of religion. Now, proposing a referendum for a place of worship has created great disappointment. We expect politicians to leave such a mentality, to avoid putting our country Greece in a difficult position within the international arena.”

 

Meanwhile, Muslim vandals are being blamed for a spate of attacks against Greek Orthodox churches on the island of Crete. Anti-Christian slogans written in Arabic were discovered on the walls of at least three churches.

 

In Italy, Home Secretary Angelino Alfano on April 4 warned that his country is facing a catastrophic wave of immigration from the Muslim world. “According to our information between 300,000 and 600,000 people are on the other side of the Mediterranean on the North African coastline, waiting to cross sooner or later,” he said at a conference on immigration in Palermo, Sicily.

 

In the first three months of 2014, more than 11,000 immigrants have landed in Italy, a seven-fold increase on 2013, with the high season for crossings about to begin as the weather improves. “The landings are non-stop and the emergency is increasingly glaring,” Alfano said.

 

On April 4, an official statement from the Italian Ministry of Health declared “the activation of appropriate measures of surveillance at all international access points to Italy” due to fears that at least 40 immigrants from Africa were infected with the Ebola virus.

 

The head of the Italian Navy, Admiral Giuseppe De Giorgi, said the influx of migrants is reaching “biblical proportions” and that “Italy is fighting a losing battle.”

 

Justice Minister Andrea Orlando on April 1 signed an agreement with his Moroccan counterpart to have Moroccan convicts sent back home. The move is aimed at tackling chronic overcrowding in Italian prisons. The agreement will affect Moroccans who have been convicted in Italy and sentenced to one or more years in prison, according to a statement released by the Justice Ministry. The new plan will allow convicts to serve out the rest of their sentences in Morocco while receiving “social reintegration” there, where “they have social and family ties.” There are some 4,000 Moroccan prisoners in Italian prisons.

 

In the Netherlands, Interior Minister Ronald Plasterk and Rob Bertholee, the head of the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD, on April 23 presented the AIVD annual report for 2013. The report says that more than 100 Dutch citizens or residents travelled to Syria in 2013 with the intention of taking part in jihadist activities there.

 

The vast majority of Dutch jihadists joined one of two groups: the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) or Jabhat al-Nusra (JaN). A relatively small proportion of jihadists (just over 20) returned home during the course of the year. The AIVD believes that at least ten men from the Netherlands were killed in Syria in 2013, including two Dutch jihadists who took their own lives in suicide attacks.

 

The report warns:

 

“The participation of foreign jihadists in the conflict in Syria has contributed to its escalation. Their experiences there, and the contacts they establish with international networks, mean that they may well pose a threat to national security if and when they return home. For the jihadist groups active in Syria, the presence of European fighters represents an excellent opportunity to recruit individuals familiar with our region to commit acts of terrorism here. In addition, returnees could exploit their status as veterans to radicalize others in the Netherlands.

 

“As well as potentially posing a direct threat, returnees from Syria might also have a radicalizing and mobilizing effect upon fellow Muslims. In the Netherlands, they could act as the catalyst pushing some young people already attracted by a radical strand of Islam into militant activism. That could strengthen local radical groups and spread their message to a wider audience.”

 

Meanwhile, police said they had arrested a 35-year-old Dutch-Turkish national named Aydin Coban in the case of a Canadian teenager who was blackmailed after exposing herself in front of a webcam. The 15-year-old girl, Amanda Todd, later committed suicide after detailing her harassment on a YouTube video watched by millions around the world. Dutch prosecutors said the man is suspected of blackmailing girls in Britain, the Netherlands and the United States. Canadian police said they would seek extradition.

 

The number of people requesting asylum in the Netherlands rose by more than 4,000 in 2013 to 17,190, the immigration service said on April 14. Somalia topped the list with just over 3,000 requests, followed by Syria (2,670) and Iraq (1,090).

 

In Norway, the education ministry approved a controversial plan to launch the country’s first Muslim-only primary school in Oslo. The school will be run by the Association of Muslim Mothers, which wants to teach its pupils Arabic and Islamic values as well as the standard subjects on the curriculum. A standard course on Religion, Philosophy and Ethics would be replaced by Islam, Religion and Philosophy.

 

The school aims to have 200 students, and is expected to look for premises in the east side of Oslo, home to many immigrants. Both Norway’s opposition Labour Party and the anti-immigrant Progress Party, which is part of the government coalition, have voiced opposition to the plan.

 

On April 28, envoys from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries accused the Norwegian government of doing too little to protect its Muslim minority, and called for all criticism of Islam to be made illegal. The accusations against Norway were made in Geneva during a session of the United Nations Universal Periodic Review, which occurs every four years. Norwegian Foreign Minister Børge Brende told Norway’s NTB newswire: “It is a paradox that countries which do not support fundamental human rights have influence on the council, but that is the United Nations.”

 

In Spain, a large Muslim umbrella group called the Union of Islamic Communities in Spain [UCIDE] sent letters to education officials in all of the country’s 17 regions asking for precise data on the number of students in primary and secondary public schools who have applied for Islamic religious training.

 

UCIDE is lobbying the Spanish government to expand the teaching of Islam in the public school system, and is said to be compiling the data to back up its claim that there are not enough Islam teachers to keep up with the growing demand.

 

On April 30, police in Almería, a port city in southern Spain, arrested a French-Algerian jihadist who was returning to Europe from combat in Syria. Abdelmalek Tanem, 25, was a member of the al-Qaeda-linked group, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant [ISIS], from October 2013 to January 2014, according to a statement issued by the Spanish Interior Ministry.

 

“During this period, Tanem is believed to have carried out the work of ‘combatant’ and as a ‘facilitator’ on the Turkish-Syrian border in order to make it possible for other European citizens to be integrated into this jihadist group,” the statement says. Tanem is the second returning jihadist who has been arrested by Spanish police; the first was Mohamed Sadik Abdeluahid in Ceuta, in January.

 

On April 29, the Spanish government announced that it would allocate €2.1 million ($2.9 million) to try to stem illegal border crossings in Ceuta and Melilla, two Spanish exclaves in North Africa. More than 1,000 African migrants attempted to reach Spain in April during nearly daily attempts to storm and scale the six-meter (20-foot) triple-layer fence separating Melilla from Morocco.

 

In Sweden, the parliament on April 10 approved a new law that will make it easier for public prosecutors to take criminal action against Swedes who criticize immigrants or government officials online. The new law removes the requirement that there must be a special reason to prosecute for defamation or insult. Critics say the new law, which takes effect on January 1, 2015, is an assault on the exercise of free speech: Swedish thought police will be able to prosecute anyone who expresses an opinion about Muslim immigration and much else if that opinion is deemed to be defamation or slander.

 

The measure has been pushed by Swedish parliamentarian Andreas Norlén, who in an unchallenged debate on the issue in parliament, said: “I do not think it takes very many prosecutions before a signal is transmitted in the community that the Internet is not a lawless country: the sheriff is back in town.”

 

The Swedish government is also spending 60 million krona ($9 million) to boost voter turnout in Muslim neighborhoods—such as the Rinkeby district in Stockholm, the Rosengård district in Malmö, and the Rymdtorget and Bergsjön districts in Gothenburg—ahead of European elections in May.

 

Separately, the government was forced to drop a controversial plan to lower the tax rates in Muslim neighborhoods after the European Commission said that allowing immigrants to pay lower taxes than Swedes would violate EU rules on state aid.

 

According to the latest data from Eurostat, Sweden is the EU country that receives the most asylum seekers from developing countries relative to their population. Most of the asylum seekers in 2013 were from Afghanistan, Kosovo, Pakistan and Syria.

 

At the same time, more than 50,000 native Swedes fled the country in 2013, according to new data from Statistics Sweden (SCB). This is the highest figure since the peak years of emigration to North America in the 1880s. By contrast, immigration from the developing world to Sweden reached its highest level ever in 2013, with nearly 115,800 immigrants, according to the SCB.

 

On April 5, it emerged that a Swedish national of Somali origin was arrested in Kenya on suspicion of trying to recruit young men for the Islamic terrorist group, Al-Shabaab. Some 30 Swedish nationals have traveled to Somalia to join Islamic militant groups, according to the Swedish intelligence agency Säpo.

 

In Switzerland, the University of Fribourg will host the country’s first training center for imams. The center will provide courses for imams on Swiss culture and society, courses for social workers and health professionals on accommodating the Muslim community and, ultimately, a training program for new imams. The objective is to produce locally-trained imams to join the ranks of the country’s 150 imams, all of whom were schooled abroad.

 

The original idea for the project came from a national research program called “Religious Groups, State and Society,” which found that most of the imams and teachers of Islam did not speak Swiss national languages and did not know Swiss society, culture and laws.

________________________________

21st Century Problem of Islam in the West

John R. Houk

© May 22, 2014

__________________________

Gang Raping, “I Love Al-Qaeda” and Who Is Advancing Islam?

 

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.

 

Copyright © 2014 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved.