London Elects Muslim Mayor: Churchill Comes Out of His Grave! Don Boys, Ph.
SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/london-elects-muslim-mayor-churchill-comes-out-of-his-grave-don-boys-ph/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Sadiq Kahn, New Moslem Mayor of London
On Oct. 19, 1739, Great Britain declared war against Spain in what is called the War of Jenkins’ Ear! This war drove Spain into an alliance with France, an alliance that was a threat to England for ninety years. At the announcement, bells rang out from the London churches and the crowds thronged the streets shouting their approval. The Prime Minister looked down upon the jubilant English mob and remarked, “They are ringing their bells now, but soon they will be wringing their hands.” He called it right.
Church bells are ringing throughout London as the people celebrate their demonstration to the world of their tolerance, kindness, and courage and their rejection of racism, bigotry, and nationalism. London, one of the world’s oldest and greatest cities has just elected a Muslim as their mayor! They will soon be wringing their hands but it will be too late. In fact, it is already too late. England is no longer England. Unknown to most people, major parts of London are almost 50 percent Muslim! London will soon be known as Londonistan, and we are watching the twilight of the British Empire and the dawning of a new caliphate.
Winston Churchill, whose leadership saved Britain and Europe from the Nazis (with some help from America), commented on Islam in his 1899 book, The River War: “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries [dedicated followers]! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live….Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.” Churchill called it right long before others.
The above-quoted passage appeared in The River War when it was first published as a two-volume set in 1899, but the passage was removed when the book was condensed into one volume and republished in 1902. Political correctness even in those days! Cowards are always with us.Bottom of Form
London’s new mayor Sadiq Khan, whose family emigrated from Pakistan, will run the city of 8.6 million people. It is astounding that Khan won, especially after his ties to Islamic extremists were revealed. When Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron revealed those ties on the Parliament floor, he was shouted down by chants of “racist!” But few asked if his charges were true–which they were! It seems truth doesn’t matter to the leftists of the world.
Most people, and I mean most people of the world, are so uneducated, unprincipled, or uncaring that they rush to be among the first to accept any false, failed, or foolish ideology whether it be same-sex “marriage,” transgenderism, Black Lives Matter, environmentalism, redistribution of wealth, freebies for the poor, political correctness, men in women’s restrooms, affirmative action, etc. I think the world is insane or in the total control of the wicked one. London citizens have just demonstrated that warm feelings are more valuable to them than warranted facts.
Khan was successful in defending notorious Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan’s right to visit England. Moreover, Khan supported the usual leftwing causes including same-sex “marriage” as a Member of Parliament. He is opposed to Britain leaving the European Union. He also had connections with confessed terrorist Babar Ahmad who spent time in a U.S. prison before being returned to England.
Khan was charged by critics as unfit to be London’s Mayor after it emerged that he had described moderate Muslim groups as “Uncle Toms,” suggesting that they are subservient to Whites. Khan obviously thinks moderate Muslims are not true Muslims since they are so moderate. In other words, he advocated for a more extremist Islam. Additionally, there have been numerous charges of anti-Semitism against him and the Labour Party. Yet, Londoners showed how broad-minded they are and chose him as their leader!
Khan was charged by critics as unfit to be London’s Mayor after it emerged that he had described moderate Muslim groups as “Uncle Toms,” suggesting that they are subservient to Whites. Khan obviously thinks moderate Muslims are not true Muslims since they are so moderate. In other words, he advocated for a more extremist Islam. Additionally, there have been numerous charges of anti-Semitism against him and the Labour Party. Yet, Londoners showed how broad-minded they are and chose him as their leader!
That massive rumble you hear is Winston Churchill charging out of his grave, but alas, even Churchill would not be able to save his beloved island again. Modern politicians who worship Churchill dead would revile him living and would not follow him even to the men’s room. They sure would not follow him to victory for their English culture, civilization, and country by defeating the Islamization of Britain. They don’t feel strongly about anything important and lasting.
When Hitler was raging across the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg in early May of 1940, the new Prime Minister told the House of Commons that “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.” There was talk of compromise and capitulation to Hitler, but Churchill said to his cabinet on May 28, 1940: “I am convinced that every man of you would rise up and tear me down from my place if I were for one moment to contemplate parley or surrender. If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground. That doesn’t sound like weepy, wimpy, wobbly modern-day politicians, but a warrior.
A few days later Churchill had to prepare his people for a possible Nazi invasion and the fall of France, he declared, “… we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender….” But the British decided they would rather switch than fight. They will be wringing their hands soon to no avail.
Londoners have swallowed the Kool Aide and are destined to strangle on it and it seems American officials are standing in line for their serving.
And America will no longer be America!
________________________________________________________
London Elects First Muslim Mayor, Sadiq Khan
BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: http://christiannews.net/2016/05/07/london-elects-first-muslim-mayor-sadiq-khan/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
LONDON — Residents of London have elected the city’s first ever Muslim mayor, choosing to elect the Labor Party’s Sadiq Khan over the Conservative Party’s Zac Goldsmith 56 to 43 percent.
Goldsmith had been characterized as being “negative” and “dirty” for alleging that Khan had ties to Islamic terrorists. Khan accused Goldsmith of trying to frighten voters and cause division in a city that is inhabited by over a million Muslims.
“The Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith repeatedly attacked Sadiq Khan as someone who had fraternized and shared platforms with Muslim extremists,” reports Al Jezeera. “Sadiq Khan and Labour’s response was very angry, they said that the Conservatives were playing a subtle and even not so subtle, Islamophobic and racist campaign.”
Prime Minister David Cameron had also expressed concerns, alleging that Khan had shared a platform with an ISIS supporter, to which Khan replied via Twitter, “Disappointed PM has joined Zac Goldsmith’s divisive, dog-whistling campaign. I’ve fought extremism all my life.”
Some Conservative Party members believe that the arguments over Khan’s religion are what led to Goldsmith’s defeat.
“I was supportive of the whole campaign apart from one element and that one was where it seemed to attribute radical tendencies to people of orthodox religious views,” said Assembly Member Andrew Boff.
“I think that is a complete misunderstanding of the patchwork of faiths there are in London, and has the potential to alienate people and say that people who do have orthodox religious views, conservative religious views, are for some reason not welcome and won’t be listened to,” he opined.
Khan has dubbed himself “the British Muslim who will take the fight to the extremists,” and is a former human rights attorney who has also once served as a member of Parliament. According to reports, he was sworn in on the Koran by the Queen in 2009.
“The palace called me and said, ‘What type of Bible do you want to swear on?’ When I said the Koran, they said, ‘We haven’t got one.’ So I took one with me,” he told the New Statesman.
Khan was sworn in on Saturday during a multi-faith ceremony at the Southwark Cathedral, an Anglican house of worship in the city. He received a standing ovation from those gathered, including professing Christians.
“This election was not without controversy, and I am so proud that London has today chosen hope over fear and unity over division,” Khan said. “Fear does not make us safer, it only makes us weaker, and the politics of fear is not welcome in our city.”
Britain First candidate Paul Golding, however, is stated to be among those who turned their back during Khan’s speech, and a member of his staff shouted, “Britain has an extremist mayor!”
The party released a statement decrying the increase of Muslims in the area.
“[A]s became blatantly obvious with the election of Labor’s Islamist mayor, there is an increasingly shrinking number of Britons left in the capital overall and far too many Muslims,” it said. “Britons make up less than 45% of the capital and at least half of those who remain will be the ‘trendy’ leftwing chattering class types, the gormless liberals and bigoted white socialists in areas such as Camden, Islington etc.”
“With such a small and rapidly declining pool of voters to appeal to we rightly said this election was London’s ‘Last Stand’ and the prospects of major gains, even with major resources, were slim.”
______________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
London’s new Muslim mayor calls moderate Muslims “Uncle Toms”
London’s new Muslim mayor defended al-Qaeda member
UK: Conservatives unapologetic for highlighting Muslim London mayor’s ties to jihadis
Pakistan’s ruling party hails Muslim London mayor’s win over “millionaire Jew”
Robert Spencer in FrontPage: Muslim Elected Mayor of London
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/05/robert-spencer-in-frontpage-muslim-elected-mayor-of-london; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
In FrontPage this morning I discuss whether the election of Sadiq Khan is a triumph of multiculturalism or of Islamic supremacist deception – or both:
Labour Party candidate Sadiq Khan, a Muslim, has been elected mayor of London, and the international Left is thrilled. “Son of a Pakistani bus driver, champion of workers’ rights and human rights, and now Mayor of London. Congrats, @SadiqKhan. –H,”tweeted Hillary Clinton. Likewise happy are Islamic supremacists worldwide: members of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), the party of Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the majority party in the nation’s National Assembly, held up a sign emblazoned: “Heartiest Congratulation [sic] to Sadiq Khan 1st Muslim Mayor of London who defeated millionaire Jew Zec [sic] Goldsmith.”
Those two messages summed up the dichotomy that characterizes the response to Sadiq Khan, and his own associations and intentions. Khan himself has written about the necessity to “ensure that the perception of Islam is not tainted by those with extremist views.” But his concern about this “taint” is relatively newly-minted: back in 2004, Khan spoke at a gender-segregated event entitled “Palestine — the suffering still goes on.” Also on the bill was Daud Abdullah of the Muslim Council of Britain; who once led a boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day; Ibrahim Hewitt, the chairman of Interpal, which the U.S. Treasury Department has designated a “global terrorist” organization for funneling money to Hamas; Muslim leader Azzam Tamimi, who has called for the destruction of Israel and its replacement with an Islamic state; Muslim cleric Suliman Gani, who has echoed the Qur’an (4:34) in saying that women should be “subservient” to men; Ismail Adam Patel of Friends of Al-Aqsa, who has claimed that “Hamas is no terrorist organization”; and Church of England cleric Stephen Sizer, who has blamed Israel for the 9/11 jihad terror attacks.
Khan and his supporters have cried foul at Khan’s being held responsible for the views of these men. Their hypocrisy is evident, however, since the Left’s various dossiers against foes of jihad terror rely heavily on guilt by association, and then, even more tendentiously, on guilt by association built upon its earlier smears of others. Nonetheless, Khan’s appearance at that long-ago event should really only cause concern if Khan holds such views.
Does he? In a 2009 interview with Iran’s state-controlled Press TV, Khan criticized the British government for working with moderate Muslim organizations, saying: “I wish we only spoke to people who agree with us. I can tell you that I’ve spent the last months in this job speaking to all sorts of people. Not just leaders, not just organizations but ordinary rank and file citizens of Muslim faith and that’s what good government is about, it’s about engaging with all stakeholders. You can talk about articles in the newspapers about what an organization might get but the point is you can’t just pick and choose who you speak to, you can’t just speak to Uncle Toms.” The “Uncle Toms” in question were the Quilliam Foundation, which is a declared foe of Islamic “extremism.”
The Conservative Home website lists other problematic aspects of Khan’s record, summarized by Raheem Kassam at Breitbart:
- A letter to the Guardian in the wake of the 7/7 terrorist bombings on London, blaming terrorism on British Government policy;
- His legal defence of Zacarias Moussaoui, a 9/11 terrorist who confessed to being a member of Al Qaeda;
- His chapter in a book, entitled ‘Actions Against the Police’ which advises on how to bring charges against the police for “racism”. This is the same police force that Mr. Khan as London mayor would exercise authority over;
- His defence of Islamist extremist Azzam Tamimi. When Dr. Tamimi told a crowd that the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed would “cause the world to tremble” and predicted “Fire… throughout the world if they don’t stop”, Mr. Khan, who shared a platform with him, dismissed the threats as “flowery language”;
- His platform-sharing with Suliman Gani, a south London imam who has urged female subservience to men, and called for the founding of an Islamic state.
All this raises genuine concerns that as mayor of London, Khan will be less than energetic in protecting Londoners against jihad terrorism, or challenging Muslim communities in the U.K. to clean house. But when Khan’s opponents in the UK raised these and other concerns, they were excoriated as “racist.” Even the clueless and compromised dhimmi David Cameron was accused of “racism” for noting Khan’s hospitable attitude toward Islamic supremacists and jihadists.
This is the way these things always work nowadays: if you dare to mention that there are reasons to believe that a Muslim may be involved in jihad activity or, as in this case, clearly positive toward jihadists, it’s your fault, and a clear sign of “racism” and “Islamophobia,” even if the charges are accurate.
Leftists and Islamic supremacists have used such charges for years, and have succeeded in stigmatizing any discussion of how jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims as “bigotry” — which is why such discussions are so seldom pursued, and never in mainstream fora.
And so this Reuters story is all about how the wicked Conservatives are “unapologetic” for raising Khan’s ties to “extremists.” Reuters publishes no articles about the possible implications of Khan’s ties to “extremists.” The only concern is how “racist” the Conservative Party is.
In this environment, London marches happily into its brave new multicultural future, led by its Muslim mayor. Let’s hope it doesn’t blow up on them. But it probably will.
________________________________________________________
LONDON ELECTS MUSLIM MAYOR (Friday Church News Notes, May 13, 2016, www.wayoflife.orgfbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) -
For the first time in history, a Muslim has been elected mayor of London. Sadiq Kahn, son of a Pakistani immigrant taxi driver, was elected by a wide margin and sworn in at an interfaith ceremony at the Anglican Southwark Cathedral. Instead of plainly condemning Islamic terrorism in his acceptance speech, Kahn took a swipe at Donald Trump for his reasonable stand against unvetted Muslim immigration, implying that this is evidence of Islamophobia. Kahn says, “I’ll work with London universities to ensure that anti-Semitic or Islamophobic preachers of hate are not welcome” (“I know how discrimination feels,” Times of Israel, Apr. 26, 2016). But there is no such thing asIslamophobia. It was invented by Muslim propagandists to harass and ultimately shut the mouths of their opponents. A phobia is an unreasonable fear, but fear of Islam is not unreasonable, as its own history and most authoritative teachings prove. His talk of promoting interfaith harmony aside, by targeting “Islamophobia” as one of his chief priorities, Kahn demonstrates that he doesn’t want the British people to examine the truth about Islam. In contrast, former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote the following in the 1899 two-volume edition of The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan: “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries [followers]! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities ... but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith” (The River War, vol. 2, pp. 248-250).
WINSTON CHURCHILL'S VIEW OF ISLAM
& ITS FOLLOWERS; MAYOR KHAN'S ISLAMOPHOBIA CAMPAIGN
BY DAVID CLOUDLONDON ELECTS MUSLIM MAYOR (Friday Church News Notes, May 13, 2016, www.wayoflife.orgfbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) -
For the first time in history, a Muslim has been elected mayor of London. Sadiq Kahn, son of a Pakistani immigrant taxi driver, was elected by a wide margin and sworn in at an interfaith ceremony at the Anglican Southwark Cathedral. Instead of plainly condemning Islamic terrorism in his acceptance speech, Kahn took a swipe at Donald Trump for his reasonable stand against unvetted Muslim immigration, implying that this is evidence of Islamophobia. Kahn says, “I’ll work with London universities to ensure that anti-Semitic or Islamophobic preachers of hate are not welcome” (“I know how discrimination feels,” Times of Israel, Apr. 26, 2016). But there is no such thing asIslamophobia. It was invented by Muslim propagandists to harass and ultimately shut the mouths of their opponents. A phobia is an unreasonable fear, but fear of Islam is not unreasonable, as its own history and most authoritative teachings prove. His talk of promoting interfaith harmony aside, by targeting “Islamophobia” as one of his chief priorities, Kahn demonstrates that he doesn’t want the British people to examine the truth about Islam. In contrast, former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote the following in the 1899 two-volume edition of The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan: “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries [followers]! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities ... but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith” (The River War, vol. 2, pp. 248-250).