Banning Alex Jones?


Justified Only If…

 

John R. Houk

© August 8, 2018

 

Alex Jones is literally being censored on every digital media format I can think of.

 

I have to be clear. I am not a supporter or big fan of Mr. Jones. Many of his Conspiracy Theories propagated from his soapbox are just plain outlandish and crazy.

 

The massive digital censorship Jones is accused of is hate-speech. Frankly, as outlandish and offensive Jones can be I am not surprised the hate-speech accusations are levelled against him.

 

I do have a couple of problems with the censorship.

 

ONE: The same media platforms censoring Jones allow Muslims to spew Jew-Hatred and promote physical harm to Jews and other non-Muslims. However, when a non-Muslim points out Islamic tenets and Muslim history demonstrate violent hatred for all things non-Muslim specifying Jews, Christians and polytheists. Militant homosexuals overtly express hatred toward Biblical Values Christians yet will censor Biblical Values Christians for supporting the Bible’s labelling the homosexual practice a sin against God’s Word. In essence this is censorship hypocrisy.

 

TWO: The same media platforms rarely if ever censor Left-Wing calls for violence against Conservatives yet they will censor Conservatives refuting a violent Leftist agenda. For example Maxine Walters advocating Leftists to disrupt reputed Conservative meetings and Conservatives living their private lives at open-to-the-public venues. Astonishingly to date, Conservative individuals have refused to respond with self-defense violence for Leftist provocation. I’m a disabled dude and I don’t know if I would exhibit such self-restraint to respond with action if someone shouting directly in front of my face.

 

I hate defending Alex Jones because I am convinced he has used actual hate-speech; however look at some of phrases the digital media platforms label as hate-speech worthy of censorship via banning:

 

The resident Jew, Leftist Jews, Jewish Mafia (Alex Jones Accused Of Anti-Semitism, Sexual Harassment; By Aiden Pink; Forward.com; 3/1/18)

 

The same article on Forward.com also illustrates actual forms of hate-speech via sexual harassment which is unacceptable but demonstrated on Alex Jones programs.

 

I don’t know what Alex Jones other than the vague accusation of the kind of speech the digital platforms call hatred or inciting violence:

 

“… the stated reason for the ban on his content is not defamation but “hate speech” against Muslims, transgender people, and other groups.” (Booting Alex Jones from social media wasn’t wrong, but it could be dangerous; By Cathy Young; USA Today; 8/8/18 9:03 a.m. ET)

 

If the hate-speech was critical of a belief system corresponding to Islam or the LGBTQ agenda, then said hate-speech violation is an absurd accusation. If Jones said something dimwitted such as maybe, “hunt down the camel jockeys and give them a tasted of their own medicine” or “rope the fudge-packer and drag the shem down the road”. Those kinds of phrases are indeed inciting violence and is a good reason for censuring and/or banning.

 

Here is the Joseph Farah email (which is also a bit of a fundraiser) that inspired my thoughts.

 

JRH 8/8/18

Please Support NCCR

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

First, they came for Alex Jones …

The pretense and subtlety are over, ‘Digital Cartel’ now overtly attacking ‘offensive’ voices

 

By Joseph Farah

Sent 8/8/2018 4:01 AM

Sent from WND

 

I’ve been warning everyone who would listen about the greatest threat to freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion in America today.

It’s not government.

Instead, the overt attack on America’s First Amendment comes from the corporate behemoth internet gatekeepers who are in ideological lockstep with each other – from Google to YouTube to Facebook to Twitter to Apple to Amazon.

This week, YouTube and Facebook followed Apple’s lead in banishing Alex Jones, the iconic, high-energy voice that rails against globalism and the Deep State daily on radio, podcasts and his own Infowars TV show. He was an easy target and a predictable one – a controversial figure, without doubt, and a high-profile one with a sizable following.

Not everyone wants to defend Alex Jones – certainly not everything he says.

Yet, the First Amendment wasn’t crafted by America’s founding geniuses to protect tepid, non-controversial speech. It was crafted to protect just this kind of fiery dialogue – the kind that offends some people, some sensibilities. Alex Jones is a good choice to start the censorship juggernaut rolling if you think like the Southern Poverty Law Center. And one thing Apple, Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon all have in common is their love of, reverence for, and partnerships with this extremist band of smear merchants who never met anyone right of center that they didn’t label a “hater,” a “fascist,” a “Nazi” or a “racist” – including, of course, the current president of the United States.

So, first the Digital Cartel came for Alex Jones.

Who will be next? I don’t know, but I don’t plan to find myself in the position in which Martin Niemöller found himself in Nazi Germany. He’s most famous for this prescient quotation: “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

I’m going to defend Alex Jones’ right to say what he wants – even if I sometimes, or even often, find myself in disagreement with him. And I’m going to condemn this cabal of bloated mega-corporations imposing their ideology on America’s most vital public square – the digital media.

Maybe you say, “Well, Farah, don’t these corporations have the absolute right to approve and disapprove of the viewpoints they carry – just like you do?” The answer may be surprising: No, they don’t. None of these conglomerates are publishers, content producers, part of the “press.” They are more akin to “utilities” – like the telephone companies of old, or the electricity producers who have a public obligation to be fair and neutral in offering the services they provide to all, without regard to race, religion and ideology. They don’t have to like Alex Jones. They don’t have to listen to Alex Jones. But if they are going to hold these privileged positions of making lots of money by distributing all manner of content, data and information to the public, they dare not think of themselves as ideological gatekeepers against “offensive” political speech. And they better not designate the disgraced partisan hacks of the SPLC as their content cops, which is precisely what they have done – all of them!

I know I sound like a broken record on this theme, but I’m going to keep pounding on it until the public catches on to the threat these trillion-dollar monopolies pose to America’s precious institutions of free speech, the free press and freedom of religion. We need congressional hearings. We need action in Washington. We need President Trump to recognize who the biggest purveyors of fake news really are. It’s not just CNN and the Huffington Post. It’s their distribution arms – Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Apple and Amazon – the Digital Cartel.

It’s time to throw down the gauntlet, draw a marker in the sand, file class-action lawsuits, summon our leaders to action.

Are we going to let this cabal render the First Amendment null and void?

I’ve been telling you how they have attacked WND relentlessly and ruthlessly through its politically and religiously discriminatory algorithms. I’ve told you how they have been coming after the independent media, especially since the 2016 election that so disappointed all of them.

Do you really want to talk about supposed Russian interference in our free society when this powerful monolithic cartel is setting the rules of debate for Americans out in plain sight – openly censoring voices they don’t like while systematically elevating those they do like? What a sick joke!

As for me, I will defend the voices of dissent, and even controversy, as long as I have a soapbox upon which to stand. I know they are coming after me and the world’s first independent online news company, which I founded 21 years ago. Once again, I ask you to stand with me, or else find yourself living in a country you won’t long recognize. No privacy. No freedom.

Please support us, or risk finding yourself living in a very different and scary version of America soon.

Help us to raise a much-needed additional $100,000 through August – our biggest crisis period yet, as we battle for survival against the cartel. We’re already nearly 20 percent of the way there, thanks to many of you. You may not be able to give $1,000 or even $100. But everyone who understands the stakes can contribute $10 or even $3.

 

You can also support WND’s groundbreaking new book, “The Gospel in Every Book of the Old Testament,” with your tax-deductible contributions in any amount to the fabulous missions organization, Gospel for All Nations, which has adopted the project to help spread the truth of the Good News around the world. This book, coming out in hardcover in September, is an important part of WND’s recovery, rebirth and revitalization plan for later this year. Your help with book-printing and marketing expenses will help immensely to weather this storm – not to mention help us distribute this compelling and redemptive “breakthrough Bible book.”

___________________

Banning Alex Jones?

John R. Houk

© August 8, 2018

__________________

First, they came for Alex Jones …

 

WND | 2020 Pennsylvania Ave NW, #351 | Washington, DC 20006

Copyright 1997-2018 WND.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

The La Reconquista?


Intro to J.O. Smith’s ‘The La Reconquista?’

Intro by John R. Houk, Editor

© June 28, 2018

 

About a week ago I posted the title, “Isn’t the Key Word ‘ILLEGAL’ in Illegal Immigration?” That is the stark truth that No-Borders Democrats would have you believe is irrelevant. If crossing the border without U.S. permission is illegal, then it is a CRIME. If illegal criminal adopts bring their children or another’s children uninvited across the U.S. border illegally, those children may not be criminal by virtue of being too young to be accountable. HOWEVER, those children need to be detained until their idiot parents are deported or granted some kind of refugee status.

 

And speaking of deportation, the legal system determining deportation or refugee status needs to be streamed to days instead of months or years.

 

Justin Smith writes about how illegal immigration will change the nature of American heritage (which the Dems continuously advocate). As the Hispanic people become on pare to the heritage Americans still honoring the off-shooting from the Mother Culture of the British Monarchy, the Hispanic Culture that influenced the Latin Americas will come into a Multicultural confrontation.

 

I guess confrontation is no big deal to the idiocy of diversity-thinking Dems. The opposite of diversity is E PLURIBUS UNUMOut of many, ONE.

 

JRH 6/28/18

Please Support NCCR

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

The La Reconquista?

Rid America of Illegal Aliens 

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 6/27/2018 11:39 PM

 

Illegal immigration is immoral, and President Trump, like any good, decent and patriotic American, has rightfully stated that anyone attempting to cross the border illegally should be marched straight back across the border, once it is determined they have crossed illegally, bypassing port of entry stations where they could have registered for either asylum or legal immigration status. He should have also added that these people are not conservatives or just like regular Americans, and as such, before we see one more American dead by the hands of an illegal alien, we must do all within our power to ensure that the border is secured and all illegal aliens deported, along with any children verified to be their own, in order to save our Republic from an ultimate destruction.

 

President Trump stated on Wednesday, June 20th, 2018, “If you’re really, really pathetically weak, the country is going to be overrun with millions of people”, which makes it double troubling that he would follow this on the same day with an executive order that caves to the leftist false narrative surrounding illegal alien families and allows them to stay together, which adds more costs to the U.S. tax-payer. Now America must find or build new facilities capable of meeting this new demand.

 

People ask many conservatives “Don’t You care about the children?” Yes! Most, if not all do. We care enough to allow them to be detained together long enough to see them deported. It is not child abuse to send them back to Mexico or wherever they originated, with their parents, who had every chance to first apply for legal immigration.

 

We should ask the Democrats, “What about the children of low-income American workers who experience lower wages due to illegal aliens working for cash and off the books?” And, what about the children of legal immigrants who have been waiting patiently in line for years, for their opportunity to come to America? What about other migrants attempting to escape violence, who have properly asked for asylum but are seemingly punished for following the rules, like Chaldean and Assyrian Christians?

 

Most truly conservative Americans could care less that these people are largely Hispanic coming across the southern border. What concerns conservatives most is the real differences in ideologies, between them and these illegal aliens. And they are right to  be concerned. Anybody who believes in the U.S. Constitution and the Founding principles had better be getting plenty damned worried and acting to stop these invaders.

At no point in U.S. history has the majority, or even a significant portion, of our Hispanic population voted Republican in any national election, with the trend becoming increasingly Democrat. In 1960, the Hispanic population in America was approximately six million and it has now reached about 60 million; and it is projected to reach 110 by 2048 on its current trajectory. This puts the Hispanic population on track to being one of the most influential in future elections.

A Cato survey from 2017 reveals seventy-two percent of Hispanics agreed with the phrase “hate speech is an act of violence,” and sixty-two percent agree that “people who don’t respect others don’t deserve the right to free speech.” The majority of Hispanics have no real understanding of the concept of “free speech”. How will that change the face of America once Hispanics become a majority in America? They also believe that gun control in society is more important than protecting the right of everyone to keep and bear arms. And only nineteen percent favored a smaller government with fewer services over a big government option.

While the Heritage Foundation and writers like Israel Ortega contend that Hispanics, for the most part, hold values consistent with conservative principles, nothing could be further from the truth, and the GOP, in this sense, is misguided in ever believing that this demographic will be anything more than a boon for gun control, the welfare state and more big government bills, projects and spending. Americans should also consider that within just a few short decades our first two amendments could be in real danger of being repealed by a demographic that largely aligns itself with the illiberal, anti-Constitution and anti-American segments of our country.

Later in the day of June 20th, President Trump appeared at a rally in Duluth, Minnesota, where he told the crowd: “Democrats don’t care about the impact of uncontrolled migration on your communities. Democrats put illegal immigrants before they put American citizens.”

 

Where is the outrage over Ms. Laura Wilkerson’s son, Josh, being brutally tortured to death and set afire by an illegal alien MS-13 gang member? Where is the outrage over Christy Sue Pina, daughter of Juan and a U.S. citizen, being kidnapped, strangled, stabbed and raped and left dead in an artichoke field, by an illegal alien? And the list is long and grows more horrific as the numerous stories were told to the President at the White House on June 22nd.

 

The President noted during his June 22nd meeting with these ‘Angel Families’, that “in Texas alone within the last seven years, more than a quarter million criminal aliens have been arrested and charged with over 600,000 criminal offenses”. He added, “I always hear that, ‘Oh, no, the population is safer than the people that live in the country’. … It’s not true.”

 

Our leaders must regain the strength and the political will to uphold the rule of law, the same strength that Andrew Jackson had to run the Spanish out of Florida and Sam Houston had in winning the day for Texas against Santa Anna’s army, if our nation is going to succeed in halting it’s decline, into nothing more than the “polyglot boardinghouse” for the world that Theodore Roosevelt warned against. They must not force this generation to bear witness to our great American Southwest being reconquered through a deliberate policy of the Mexican regime, that seeks to aid the La Reconquista movement and the detachment of our lands ethnically, linguistically and culturally. A firm and vigorously enforced plan to rid America of illegal aliens and secure our borders must soon be pursued, since tens of millions more potential illegal aliens are poised at the Southern border ready to end the legacy of Jackson and Houston and a host of American patriots, an American legacy, our Republic.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All sourced links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

 

Intro to ‘Reaction of Geert Wilders to His Conviction’


wilders-make-netherlands-great-again

Edited by John R. Houk

Posted on December 11, 2016

 

Geert Wilders was convicted of Hate Speech on December 9. This is the Hate Speech Wilders was convicted for according to Reuters:

 

The charges against Wilders stem from a 2014 campaign rally, when he led a group of supporters to chant they wanted “Fewer! Fewer! Fewer!” Moroccans in the Netherlands. A smiling Wilders concluded: “we’re going to take care of that.”

 

WHAT?! In America, this would be considered reprehensible to prosecute ANYONE for publicly taking a stand to limit a counter-culture religious affiliation.

 

Why would Wilders and other Netherlands first Dutch be so concerned to limit further Moroccan immigrants to enter their nation? Check out these numbers from 2014:

 

At the forefront is the extremely high percentage of involvement of many Dutch Moroccans in criminal activities.

 

65% of all Moroccan male youths between 12-23 years of age have been detained by police at least once. One third of this group has been detained five or more times. Moroccan criminals are convicted four times more than Dutch suspects.

 

To illustrate the problem, … a Moroccan street gang that terrorizes the neighborhood and asks pedestrians to pay a toll in order to pass. Its local rap group boasts about its defiance of, and supremacy over, the law — an event all too common in the author’s town of Delft.

 

Dutch Moroccan street thugs also frequently gang up on isolated girls to rob, harass or hurt them — assaults that are mostly not caught on film and only very rarely reported in English language media, but can, for instance, be seen here (2:40) [Blog Editor: The video is in Dutch so English speakers have to pay attention to see the Dutch gal being harassed by Muslim street thugs]. A detail worth emphasizing is that they always attack non-Muslim girls.

 

 

14% (p.67) of all working age Dutch Moroccans live off welfare and have their housing and healthcare heavily subsidized by Dutch taxpayers. Child support checks, payments for special needs children, and survivor benefits are also being paid to adults and children who have a Dutch passport or whose parents have a Dutch passport, even after they have gone back to Morocco and now live there…. READ ENTIRETY (The Moroccans That Infuriate the Dutch; By Timon Dias; Gatestone Institute; 4/23/14 4:00 am)

 

Geert Wilders remarks of working on fewer Moroccans was not racist but based on the Domestic Tranquility. In America the Domestic Tranquility is encoded in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution:

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [Bold emphasis mine]

 

Interestingly a poll reported in Yahoo News and picked up by MagaFeed.com shows Geert Wilders’ poll numbers have risen substantially since a three judge panel convicted him. Poll numbers are very important in a Parliamentary system of government.

geert-wilders-rises-in-dutch-polls-after-conviction

Dutch MP Geert Wilders will not be stopped! Since his hate speech conviction earlier this week, polls have shown he continues to rise in popularity.

 

Failing Yahoo reports:

 

The party of populist anti-Islam Dutch MP Geert Wilders has risen strongly in the polls since the lawmaker was tried and convicted of discrimination, according to a survey published Sunday.

If legislative elections due next March were held this week, Wilders’ Freedom Party (PVV) would pick up 36 out of 150 seats in the lower house of parliament, making it the biggest single political group, it found.

Before the trial began on October 31, the PVV was credited with 27 seats.

READ THE REST (Dutch Geert Wilders Rises In Polls After Conviction; MagaFeed.com; 12/11/16)

 

With all this Leftist Multicultural injustice, Geert Wilders has delivered some English version thoughts proclaiming he will never be silent.

 

JRH 12/11/16 (Hat Tip: Todd Candidate Brophy of Facebook Concerned Conservative)

Please Support NCCR

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

Reaction of Geert Wilders to His Conviction

 

By Geert Wilders

December 9, 2016 7:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

Dear friends, I still cannot believe it, but I have just been convicted. Because I asked a question about Moroccans. While the day before yesterday, scores of Moroccan asylum-seekers terrorized buses in Emmen and did not even had to pay a fine, a politician who asks a question about fewer Moroccans is sentenced.

 

The Netherlands have become a sick country. And I have a message for the judges who convicted me: You have restricted the freedom of speech of millions of Dutch and hence convicted everyone. No one trusts you anymore. But fortunately, truth and liberty are stronger than you. And so am I.

 

geert-wilders-i-will-never-be-silent

You can count on it. I will never be silent

 

I will never be silent. You will not be able to stop me. And you are wrong, too. Moroccans are not a race, and people who criticize Moroccans are not racists. I am not a racist and neither are my voters. This sentence proves that you judges are completely out of touch.

 

And I have also a message for Prime Minister Rutte and the rest of the multicultural elite: You will not succeed in silencing me and defeating the PVV. Support for the Party for Freedom is stronger than ever, and keeps growing every day. The Dutch want their country back and cherish their freedom. It will not be possible to put the genie of positive change back in the bottle.

 

And to people at home I say: Freedom of speech is our pride. And this will remain so. For centuries, we Dutch have been speaking the unvarnished truth. Free speech is our most important possession. We will never let them take away our freedom of speech. Because the flame of freedom burns within us and cannot be extinguished.

 

Millions of Dutch are sick and tired of political correctness. Sick and tired of the elite which only cares about itself and ignores the ordinary Dutchman. And sells out our country. People no longer feel represented by all these disconnected politicians, judges and journalists, who have been harming our people for so long, and make our country weaker instead of stronger.

 

But I will keep fighting for you, and I tell all of you: thank you so much. Thank you so much for all your support. It is really overwhelming; I am immensely grateful to you. Thanks to your massive and heartfelt support, I know that I am not alone. That you back me, and are with me, and unwaveringly stand for freedom of expression.

 

Today, I was convicted in a political trial, which, shortly before the elections, attempts to neutralize the leader of the largest and most popular opposition party. But they will not succeed. Not even with this verdict. Because I speak on behalf of millions of Dutch. And the Netherlands are entitled to politicians who speak the truth, and honestly address the problems with Moroccans. Politicians who will not let themselves be silenced. Not even by the judges. And you can count on it: I will never be silent.

 

And this conviction only makes me stronger. This is a shameful sentence, which, of course, I will appeal. But I can tell you, I am now more vigorous than ever. And I know: together, we aim for victory.

 

Standing shoulder-to-shoulder, we are strong enough to change the Netherlands.

 

To allow our children to grow up in a country they can be proud of.
In a Netherlands where we are allowed to say again what we think.
Where everybody can safely walk the streets again.
Where we are in charge of our own country again.

 

And that is what we stand for. For freedom and for our beautiful Netherlands.

 

VIDEO: Reaction Geert Wilders to conviction

 

Posted by PVVpers

Published on Dec 9, 2016

 

____________

Intro to ‘Reaction of Geert Wilders to His Conviction’

Edited by John R. Houk

Posted on December 11, 2016

____________

Reaction of Geert Wilders to His Conviction

 

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

 

Follow Geert Wilders on Twitter

 

© 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.

 

[Blog Editor: I did not receive prior written consent before cross posting. I will honor any request or demand by the Gatestone Institute to remove that portion of this post.]

 

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