Tuesday, December 1, 2015



Oklahoma College President: This Is Not a Daycare. This Is a University!

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

With protests sweeping across America’s college campuses, designed to impose a progressive worldview devoid of free speech, one college president in Oklahoma has decided to speak out. In a recent opinion piece, Oklahoma Wesleyan University President Dr. Everett Piper told students who do not wish to hear contrary viewpoints, “This is not a daycare. This is a university!”
With hundreds of college presidents no doubt quaking in fear after the student-forced resignation of University of Missouri President Tim Wolfe, Piper has stood up for the free exchange of ideas that has been the cornerstone of universities since the Middle Ages.
Piper began his column, posted on the university's website, by recounting an incident that took place after a chapel service at Wesleyan. A student told Piper he felt “victimized” by the sermon taken from the 13th chapter of Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth — the famous “love chapter” of the New Testament. Piper wrote,
It appears that this young scholar felt offended because a homily on love made him feel bad for not showing love. In his mind, the speaker was wrong for making him, and his peers, feel uncomfortable.
“I’m not making this up,” Piper felt compelled to explain, in case anyone thought this was a joke, based on recent events at other colleges across the nation. He continued,
Any time [students'] feelings are hurt, they are victims. Anyone who dares challenge them and, thus, makes them feel bad about themselves, is a “hater,” a “bigot,” an “oppressor,” and a “victimizer.”
Piper offered advice for a student who is interested in playing the “hater” card:
If you want to be enabled rather than confronted, there are many universities across the land (in Missouri and elsewhere) that will give you exactly what you want, but Oklahoma Wesleyan isn’t one of them.
Oklahoma Wesleyan is not a “safe place," but rather a place to learn.... This is a place where you will quickly learn that you need to grow up.
In a previous column, Piper diagnosed the problem that has caused the present conditions in the universities. Referencing Richard Weaver and his famous book Ideas Have Consequences, Piper placed much of the blame for the student unrest on campuses on the universities themselves. “Run by the State and its thought police," Piper asserted, "colleges across the land have become indoctrination camps more so than campuses of open inquiry. Propaganda and power now reign.”
Piper zeroed in on the hypocrisy of American progressives who dominate the universities today:
The American university is imploding in its self-refuting duplicity. Safe zones are anything but safe. People are bullied by those decrying bullying. Rather than celebrate liberty, liberals now demand conformity. Campuses have become bastions for speech codes rather than free speech.... The banner of tolerance has become a dark flag of tyranny almost overnight. What was academic freedom yesterday has become ideological fascism today.
But where are all the thousands of other college presidents across the land who should be joining President Piper in his articulate defense of liberty and free speech?
At Princeton, protesters have occupied the president’s office, demanding changes, including stripping the name of former Princeton President Woodrow Wilson from all buildings. (Certainly conservatives can sympathize with those who have a low opinion of Wilson, but that is an article for another day.) Instead of simply having the trespassers arrested, the administrators at Princeton are cowering in fear that they will be targeted next for removal from office.
At most colleges and universities, the administration will not dare stand up for the free exercise of expression that should be the ideal of such institutions. On the contrary, the administrators usually join the mob, and demand conformity from the non-protesting student body and faculty in worshiping at the shrine of censorship of any ideas not acceptable to the progressive fascists. They force students to take certain courses in order to indoctrinate those who are not sufficiently "politically correct."
But students at California's Claremont McKenna College — journalists of the Claremont Independent — have challenged not only the student radicals, but also the administrators who have buckled to the demands of those who would suppress free speech on campus.
Their challenge is in response to the recent episode in which Claremont McKenna's Dean Mary Spellman resigned following student protests of an e-mail she sent to a “Latina student,” in which she pledged to work with those who did not fit the “CM mold.” But Dean Spellman's attempt to mollify students who use their “minority” status as a weapon did not work, and now she finds herself without a job.
In response to the protesters, and the weak reactions from Claremont McKenna's administrators, the three student journalists of the Claremont Independent — Editor-in-chief Hannah Oh, Publisher Steven Glick, and Managing Editor Taylor Schmitt — authored a column entitled “We Dissent," in which they expressed disappointment not only with Dean Spellman for allowing herself to be bullied into resigning, but also with those students who bullied her.
Their opinion piece mirrored the diagnosis of Dr. Piper of Oklahoma Wesleyan. They blamed the college for teaching the students at Claremont that emotional and angry reactions will force administrators to act as the protesters want.
Continuing to address Dean Spellman, the Claremont jounalists wrote,
We are disappointed that you and President [Hiram] Chodosh put up with students yelling and swearing at you for an hour.... Above all, we are disappointed that you and President Chodosh weren’t brave enought to come to the defense of a student who was told she was “derailing” because her opinions regarding racism didn’t align with those of the mob around her.
They expressed disappointment that President Chodosh stood “idly by” and watched students “berate, curse at, and attack Dean Spelling,” accusing her of being a “racist,” adding,
That only further reinforced the fear among the student body to speak out against this movement. We needed your leadership more than ever this week, and you failed us miserably.
Turning their attention to the students involved in the protests, they continued.
We are disappointed in your demands. If you want to take a class in “ethnic, racial, and sexuality theory,” feel free to take one, but don’t force such an ideologically driven course on all CMC students.
The disrespect for the concept of free speech is rampant on college campuses. For years, conservatives have either not been invited to speak, or if invited, they were often shouted down and even threatened with physical harm. Some have been hit by pies in the face, and some have even been driven from the stage by angry students.
Is this lack of regard for the open sharing of ideas limited to only a small group of radicals? According to a recent poll of 800 undergraduates across the country conducted by McLaughlin & Associates, 30 percent of students who identify as “liberal” believe the First Amendment is outdated. In addition, a majority (51 percent) of students favor codes on campus limiting free speech. Fifty-two percent of students surveyed agreed with the statement, “My college or university should forbid people from speaking on campus who have a history of engaging in hate speech.”
One presumes that the previous question was in regard to guest speakers. But what about the free exchange of ideas among the students and faculty already on the campus? A startling 72 percent of those queried agreed that “Any student or faculty member on campus who uses language that is considered racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise offensive should be subject to disciplinary action.”
One must ask: Who will make these judgments as to what is racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise offensive? After all, the accusation of racism is thrown around incredibly loosely today. In some circles, simple opposition to a policy position of President Obama is considered racist. Others regard the Catholic Church as sexist for its doctrinal position of not ordaining women to the priesthood. A Christian student or faculty member who expresses a belief in the Bible as the word of God will be labeled homophobic by many.
As of now, student journalists such as those at the Claremont Independent and college presidents such as Dr. Piper are lone voices speaking out against this assault on liberty, free speech, and all the values that have been largely taken for granted as part of the purpose of the university.
Will other students, faculty, and administrators join them in defense of freedom of expression on campus?


Swedish Woman Raped by 'Refugee', Refuses to Report it Because She Feels Sorry For Him


Victim sympathized with rapist's "difficult situation"

below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

A Swedish woman who was raped by an Iraqi “refugee” on a train initially refused to report the incident to police because she ‘felt sorry’ for her attacker.
The incident occurred on a night train between UmeƄ and Sundsvall back in October. The Iraqi refugee was traveling back to Sweden because he was unhappy with the standard of asylum in Finland.
The woman found herself sharing a compartment with three Arab men, whom she immediately took pity on because they were ‘poor refugees’ and bought them sandwiches.
The men began to get drunk before attempting to touch the 28-year-old woman who told them to stop.
The woman subsequently went to bed only to be awoken by one of the men sexually molesting her. She fought off the rapist and ran to get help from a train attendant.
According to a report out of, the victim initially refused to report the rape to police because she “felt sorry for him” due to his “difficult situation” and feared that he would be deported back to Iraq.
The train attendant eventually convinced the woman to report the incident and the perpetrator was later arrested and sentenced to one year in prison while also being ordered to pay the victim 85,000 kronor in damages.
It later transpired that the rapist’s refugee status was bogus – he was not in any danger in the region of Iraq he had left and had merely traveled to Scandinavia for economic reasons.
After serving his sentence, the man will be deported back to Iraq and banned from re-entering Sweden for five years.
Rapes in Sweden have skyrocketed by a shocking 1,472% since the mid-70’s, with 6,620 sexual assaults being reported to police in 2014 compared to just 421 in 1975. The country is now known as the rape capital of the west.
“77.6 percent of the country’s rapists are identified as “foreigners” (and that’s significant because in Sweden, “foreigner” is generally synonymous with “immigrant from Muslim country”), writes Selwyn Duke. “And even this likely understates the issue, since the Swedish government — in an effort to obscure the problem — records second-generation Muslim perpetrators simply as “Swedes.”
Rapes occurring in and around migrant camps are now so prevalent, that authorities in Germany are covering up details of incidents so as not to “legitimize” critics of mass immigration.
Despite massive evidence that the west is importing a real rape culture that threatens the safety of untold numbers of women, feminists and the left continue to vehemently support the migrant invasion in the name of political correctness.


Obama’s Motorcade for Climate Change Talks Costing $784,825 (Alone)

Contract: ‘No sustainability included’
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Car service, hotels, and accommodations for the president and other administration officials to attend climate change talks in Paris are costing taxpayers nearly $2 million, according to government contracts.
The COP21 meeting of global leaders, which President Obama said is a “powerful rebuke” to terrorists, began on Monday. Representatives from 195 countries traveled to Paris, burning 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide for the United Nations conference that is seeking to reduce global emissions.
The tab for Obama’s motorcade alone totals $784,825. The State Department issued a $407,868 contract to Biribin Limousines, an international chauffeur service, for vehicles for the president’s security detail.
“No Sustainability Included,” the document states under a section for contract clauses.
Numerous other contracts for passenger vehicle rentals, including $9,042 for accompanying press, totaled $376,957.
Taxpayers were also billed $100,216 to book hotel accommodations for the president’s stay. Hotel rooms and cell phones for the U.S. Secret Service traveling with the president cost $16,642 and $4,034, respectively.
A number of cabinet secretaries are also in Paris for the United Nations conference, including IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, whose car service tab is $5,400.
Secretary of State John Kerry’s car service totaled $76,435, with three separate contracts worth $38,684$15,789, and $21,962.
Car service for Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz is costing $19,080, and two contracts worth $10,153and $10,737 were issued for Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s chauffeur service.
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell is also attending the conference, with hotel accommodations at the Tuileries Finances in Paris costing $36,091, and her car service totaling $13,903.
In all, costs associated with the climate change summit totaled $1,805,282.
The spending included $51,337 to rent a hangar for Marine One for the duration of the trip, $4,744 to rent office equipment, $12,478 for a hotel suite for a control room, and $7,239 hotels for the United States Agency for International Development.
The government also paid Decoral, an interior design agency running accommodations for COP21$486,989 and $134,778.
Spending on the conference dates back to August, when the government paid $9,576 to rent a meeting room.
President Obama’s goals he proposed for the conference are estimated to cost up to $45 billion per year and would reduce global temperatures by less than two-tenths of one degree.

Obama Climate Deal Would Reduce Power of Congress, U.S. Sovereignty

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Continuing his pattern of running roughshod over Congress, the U.S. Constitution, and America’s national sovereignty, President Obama is now asserting that he can unilaterally negotiate climate deals that are legally binding on the United States. And all without a vote of the U.S. Senate.
His aggressive assertion of power has demonstrated itself in a multitude of ways in the past: military interventions in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere, all without a declaration of war by Congress; using executive fiat to alter provisions of the Affordable Care Act; forging a nuclear weapons deal with Iran without Senate advice or consent; and changing immigration law by executive order, to name only a few.
Obama has now assured the more than 120 world leaders attending the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference taking place in Paris (November 30-December 11) that the United States will reduce its emissions of “greenhouse gases” (GHGs) by 28 percent by 2025. Because the Senate appears disinclined to ratify such an agreement, Obama has adopted a strategy of avoiding specific targets. Instead, he is pushing for binding procedures on how and when a supposedly sovereign nation should review its targets.
In his speech, Obama boldly declared that the reduction of greenhouse gases would be “legally binding” on nations, including the United States. “Although the targets themselves may not have the force of treaties, the process, the procedures that ensure transparency and periodic reviews, that needs to be legally binding,” he insisted.
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, took issue with Obama’s power grab, insisting,
The U.S. Senate will not be ignored. If the president wishes to sign the American people up to a legally binding agreement, the deal must go through the Senate. There's no way around it.
Inhofe, it will be remembered, was a voice crying in the wilderness years ago in opposition to the global-warming scare.
Globalists have long desired to strike down the constitutional requirement that two-thirds of the Senate must concur with any international agreement before it is considered law. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) — (an organization formed in the aftermath of President Woodrow Wilson’s failure to push the United States into a world government via the League of Nations after World War I — in 1928 called for the elimination of the two-thirds requirement, recognizing it as a formidable obstacle to their one-world plans.
Nigel Purvis, president of Climate Advisers and a major supporter of global action on “climate change,” argues that Obama already possesses all the legislative authority he needs to enter into an agreement without further Senate action, because the 1992 Rio Treaty was signed by President George H.W. Bush and approved by the Senate.
However, the Rio Treaty set no binding limits on GHGs for individual nations, and contained no enforcement mechanisms. What it did, however, was dangerous enough. It created “protocols” on how treaties would be negotiated in order to set up binding limits on GHGs. Five years later, the Kyoto Protocol established legally binding obligations for developed countries; however, this proposal was roundly rejected by the U.S. Senate. Chinese and Indian officials also declared that they would not ratify any treaty binding them to reducing CO2emissions. Canada later withdrew from Kyoto, recognizing that it was a scheme to transfer wealth to lesser-developed nations.
Nigel Purvis paints an ominous scenario of where the global-warming alarmists are headed. Recently, he declared, "Paris may be remembered as a turning point — the moment when governments sent a clear signal that this complex global transformation is inevitable. (Emphasis added.) He heaped praise on Obama for his “leadership” on the issue in forcing “accountability” upon nations of the world, adding that what has happened in Paris is “only the beginning” in the construction of a global “architecture.” He declared that what has emerged from the Paris talks is a change from what countries could do “on their own” to reduce GHG emissions, to “what they can do together.”
Purvis hopes that "what they can do together" is transfer wealth from nations such as the United States to developing nations. No doubt realizing that American taxpayers may not wish to have even more of their wealth transferred out of the country, Purvis called upon the Obama administration to use the authority of the “executive branch” to promote climate-change action abroad.
In other words, Obama should use his “pen and phone" to bypass Congress, placing the responsibility for action on climate-change policy in the hands of international governing bodies.
In 2008, John Dexhage, director of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), published a paper that openly called for a reduction in national sovereignty in order to deal with the issue of supposed global climate change. He declared,
Climate change poses serious challenges to traditional global environmental governance models and by doing so, demonstrates itself to be a fascinating issue on a number of fronts. For one, it represents a strong challenge to traditional, (neo) realist paradigms of international order, which assume state/national hegemony in an anarchic world, although the staying power of the neo-realist model in frustrating real progress on climate change should not be underestimated.
In other words, although people governing themselves in states and nations is a difficult problem to overcome in dealing with supposed anthropogenic (man-made) global climate change, the effort to diminish the sovereignty of nations must continue.
Drexhage argued, “To address the multi-faceted climate challenge we face, governance efforts must evolve beyond the current global-building model and that environmental and development policies must become much better integrated."
While Drexhage allowed that “Kyoto played a critical and necessary role in establishing a global value to carbon and in sending positive investment signals, directly and indirectly, for clean energy investments worldwide,” a “tremendous achievement,” now more must be done, he insisted. What did he suggest?
“There is a growing consensus," observed Drexhage, "that, at the very least, global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will need to be reduced by at least 50 percent by the middle of this century. Clearly, achieving such a goal will require the engagement of all major economies." (Emphasis added.) Such actions will most likely lead to drastic reductions in the standard of living for Americans (such as living in smaller houses, making more use of public transportation, etc.), and Drexhage admits that is a political problem. Still, he wants to push a “globally binding regime by the end of this decade."
Obama's speech in Paris contained similar wording to that of Drexhage, and inferring from it, “binding” and “sovereignty” appear to be opposites, when applied to the nations of the world. If the U.S. Senate refuses to ratify such an agreement, Drexhage suggested setting up “an alternative structure, even if only as an initial step.”
He envisions that ultimately the United Nations would take control of policy, in regard to GHG emissions, and impose an “internationally binding GHG emission cap regime.” Developed countries would help “fund and support” non-developed countries as they adopt environmental policies favored by those such as Drexhage.
By 2025, Drexhage expects the imposition of “an internationally binding regime that will literally determine the mode of societies’ development over this century and beyond.”
So, it is clear that policies favored by Drexhage and Obama (note both cite 2025 as the year globalists will establish an "internationally binding regime") will lead to an increase in the executive power of the president to impose his environmental agenda through a world government — and a corresponding decrease in the national sovereignty of America. And Americans will be expected to reduce their standard of living significantly in order to accommodate this new world order.
However, the U.S. Constitution is crystal clear: No treaty is considered law in the United States unless it is approved by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate present. In the Constitution, the Founders gave “all legislative powers” to Congress. The president (the executive branch) is given no power to make law, even by making agreements with other nations.
It should also be emphasized that even were the president able to obtain a two-thirds concurrence from the Senate, any treaty so approved is constitutional only if it does not violate the Constitution. A treaty cannot be used to amend the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution provided the process by which it can be amended (in Article V), and amendment by treaty is not mentioned.
Thomas Jefferson, while serving as the third president of the United States, addressed this issue directly in 1803. “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.”
Secretary of State John Foster Dulles expressed a contrary view in 1952, when he claimed,
Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land.... Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body, and they can cut across the rights given the people by the constitutional Bill of Rights.
It should be noted that Bill of Rights does not “give” the people rights. Under the philosophy of government expounded by Thomas Jefferson and the Continental Congress in the Declaration of Independence, “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.” The Bill of Rights simply guards those God-given rights.
So who is right on the effect of a treaty — Jefferson or Dulles? 
Article VI of the Constitution is at the heart of this dispute. It states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
This is the “supremacy clause” of the Constitution. It is often misquoted to say that federal law trumps state law. That is not at all what it says. The “supremacy” spoken of here is not the federal government, but rather the federal Constitution. After all, it clearly states, “This Constitution,” not “This Federal Government.” Federal law is supreme only when it is made in pursuance of  the enumerated powers given to the federal government in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution.
The same can said of treaties, which after all are another form of federal law. International agreements are not law anywhere in the United States until they are approved by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. Otherwise, the president could make law through a treaty. And again, the Article I of the Constitution states clearly that Congress (not the executive branch) has all legislative power.
To affirm, as Dulles did, that a treaty could override the Constitution itself, is ludicrous. That would be adding another method of amending the Constitution, in addition to that found in Article V. In Article V of the Constitution, under the method that has been used for all 27 constitutional amendments, Congress (both houses, not just the Senate) must approve by two-thirds vote of each house, and then send the proposed amendment to the states for ratification. Only after three-fourths of the states ratify the proposal is the Constitution legally amended.
Under Dulles’ faulty reasoning, the president and the Senate, could, acting on their own, cut the House of Representatives and the states completely out of the amendment process.
Once a treaty is approved under the authority of the United States (which means through the constitutional process provided for in the Constitution itself), it is indeed the law of the land, and it is superior to anything found in the constitutions or laws of any state not in the federal Constitution.
The only way that a treaty could amend the Constitution itself is if it were adopted through one of the methods provided for in Article V. It appears that Dulles was just developing "supremacy clause" theory to support increased power for international organizations, such as the UN, at the expense of the United States.
It is a commentary on the wisdom of the Founding Fathers that they had the foresight to include the requirement that a simple majority of the Senate is not enough to ratify a treaty, but rather two-thirds vote is needed, and that no treaty can amend the Constitution.

American People Billed For Climate Imprisonment
Published on Dec 2, 2015
This is how a new dark age ruled by a totalitarian New World Order is ushered in. 345 global sycophants burned 300,000 tons of Carbon Dioxide to meet in Paris to impose a legally binding carbon taxation plan that will be proactively enforcing climate justice. The first legally binding carbon reduction plan the people of the world have faced.

Obama has already spent $784,825 on his motorcade alone. The New York Daily News reports “President Obama’s flight to the City of Lights emitted roughly 189 tons of carbon alone, burning 19,275 gallons of jet fuel, reports the Daily Caller.His entire trip will send more carbon dioxide into the air than the combined emissions from 31 U.S. homes over the span of a year.”

The State Department spent $407,868 on Limos. The contracted propaganda press spent $376,957. When it was all tallied up, the American taxpayers have already spent $1,805,282 to send a group of elitist New World Order stooges to another country to legally scale back their living standards through incorporated Agenda 21 initiatives.

Once again the liberal sociopaths are ignoring the scientific facts and statistics. Instead, pulling at our heart strings and ramming lies and guilt down our throats in order to achieve their New World Order agenda. Most sufferers of Stockholm syndrome will tell you that Obama and company need that money because these are important people making important decisions. However, the importance of any of these New World Order lackeys will likely be as a stain in a footnote of history. Where stupidity, hubris and greed raised its grisly self important head to once again challenge humanity’s intelligence and resolve.



SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

A Christian ministry’s YouTube channel, which was suspended permanently on Saturday through an unsigned notice from the division of Google, was reinstated on Monday when WND inquired about the action, specifically questioning what was offensive in the interview by Jan Markell of Olive Tree Ministries with Tom Doyle about his book, “Killing Christians: Living the Faith Where it’s Not Safe to Believe.”
A YouTube spokesperson told WND, “When it’s brought to our attention that a video or channel has been removed mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it.”
Markell told WND she was shocked and stunned when contacted by WND with word of the restoration, but very glad that her ministry’s work once again was available to supporters through YouTube. She confirmed to WND all material that had been blocked on Saturday once again was available on Monday.
But she did express some concerns about how the situation developed.
For example, the organization, whose broadcasts are heard on some 800 radio stations across the nation, was notified only of a second “strike” – essentially a complaint about one of its videos – Saturday morning.
That warned of a two-week suspension of all activities on YouTube.
Then only hours later came the notification of the third “strike,” and the permanent ban.
Markell, who founded Olive Tree in 1982 and also has written eight books for prominent Christian publishing houses, has produced a dozen DVDs and works with well-known leaders such as Nonie Darwish and her Arabs for Israel, Joel Rosenberg and Hal Lindsey, said she appealed through a process in which the decision is supposed to be reviewed and was turned down.
The third “strike” was prompted by her weekend interview with Doyle, where she referenced how some of the contemporary terror and violence is occurring in the same region where Assyrians, two millennia ago, did the same.
Doyle noted how those who hate Christianity, specifically Jesus, are influential there and in North Korea, too.
“What this really is is a war on Jesus,” he said. “This is evil regimes wanting to eradicate anything about Jesus on planet Earth. There is persecution wherever people name the name of Jesus.”
He noted how Iraq at one point promised to eradicate Christianity, but now is the scene of one of the fastest-growing per capita branches of the Christian church.
They also agreed that persecution of Christians is “coming to America.”
For that, YouTube dispatched an email to Markell, stating, “The YouTube community flagged one or more of your videos as inappropriate. After reviewing the content, we’ve determined that the videos violate our Community Guidelines. As a result we removed the following videos from YouTube: ‘Stories of Hope.'”
The email continued, “This is the third Community Guidelines strike your account has received within six months. Because of that, your account has now been terminated, and you won’t be able to access or create any other YouTube accounts.”
Markell said the move left her stunned and without an explanation of what was the offense.
WND contacted YouTube, requesting a comment, and provided the link to the video at issue when requested. The company later issued the statement that the termination of the account was a mistake.
Markell said her program was “rather benign.”
Her weekend appeal, which was rejected, was based on the fact, “We don’t present intentionally harmful programming. We just report the news,” she said.
She had told visitors to her own website that she was working to set up a replacement video service.
The program that triggered the YouTube action, she explained, simply talked about Christian persecution in the Middle East and how Christians are overcoming.
It’s just a fact that Muslims are the persecutors, she pointed out.
The first warning several weeks ago from YouTube came when her program addressed Harry Potter during a program about the paranormal.
The web company’s online information warns about pornography, obscenity, graphic content, threats and other issues that appear not to apply in Markell’s case.
“We don’t support content that promotes or condones violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity, or whose primary purpose is inciting hatred on the basis of these core characteristics. … If the primary purpose is to attack a protected group, the content crosses the line,” YouTube says online.

The Threat Of Islam To Christians

Published on Nov 28, 2015
Full show here: Author Tom Doyle from E3 Partnerships talks with Jan Markell about his new book “Killing Christians: Living the Faith Where It's Not Safe to Believe.” They discuss what is happening to Christians in the Middle East and to those Muslims who convert to Christianity.