GERMANY SUBMITS TO ISLAMIC MODESTY RULES
Paul Joseph Watson covers a story about German women being assaulted
while jogging. The police department gave a less than assuring response
to these acts of violence and sexual assault.
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
NIGEL FARAGE WARNS: EUROPE FACING DECADES-LONG "BLOODY FIGHT" WITH JIHADISTS
EUROPE FACING DECADES-LONG "BLOODY FIGHT" WITH JIHADISTS, WARNS NIGEL FARAGE
Civil war in Europe now inevitable due to
Islamic invasion
BY DAN LYMAN
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/europe-facing-decades-long-bloody-fight-with-jihadists-warns-nigel-farage/;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
British statesman Nigel Farage has conceded that Europeans
have crossed a tipping point and are now facing a battle against
jihadists that could go on for decades, despite countless forewarnings
about border security and immigration trends issued by nationalists like
him.In an interview with Westmonster, Farage was asked how he feels about the unfolding crisis of Islamic terrorism in the UK and Europe, knowing that he has attempted for many years to avert the looming catastrophe while being constantly defamed and slandered by the global elite, EU internationalists, and mainstream media alike.
“To be honest, even my most pessimistic view of what was going to happen here has been far exceeded by truth and reality.”
“I think we are in a very bad place. I think we are in for decades of a very difficult and literally bloody fight, and I believe we have brought it all upon ourselves,” he assessed.
The EU’s head of counter-terrorism, Gilles de Kerchove, revealed in a recent interview with El Mundo that there are more than 50,000 known Islamic radicals currently in Europe, 20,000 – 25,000 of whom are in the United Kingdom.
“I would not venture to a specific figure, but tens of thousands, more than 50,000,” Kerchove stated when asked to estimate the number of jihadists in Europe.
According to El Mundo, Kerchove believes that Islamic slaughter in Europe is “a generational question that will accompany us for decades,” and that “we will suffer more attacks… it seems clear that something like Barcelona will happen again,” which serve as confirmations of Farage’s assertions.
Additionally, Kerchove admits that European governments and intelligence agencies have been overwhelmed and are incapable of tracking all threats since the migrant crisis exploded, saying, “Three years ago it was easy to identify someone radicalized. Now, most fanatics disguise their convictions.”
Neil Basu, counter-terrorism chief for the London Metropolitan Police, disclosed that security services are currently probing over 600 possible terrorist plots – more than 60 of which have been opened in the past six weeks, and that more investigations are being launched than are being closed.
“It is not going to change. This was truly a summer like no other, it was truly a shift and not a spike, it is truly a new norm that we face,” Basu told a conference of police superintendents, blaming “porous” borders and ports, and “a lack of biometrics and advanced passenger information” for new arrivals.
At least 35 attempted or successful terrorist attacks have been carried out across Europe so far in 2017, as demonstrated on a map compiled by Breitbart London’s editor-in-chief, Raheem Kassam, who writes, “The continent has seen 72 deaths and over 430 injuries this year as a result. Only one of those deaths, and 10 of the injuries, were not migration-related or Islamic in nature.”
In 2015, Infowars reported on an Islamic State handbook that detailed the group’s plans to send their fighters and loyalists into Europe, disguised within the waves of migrants and ‘refugees’ pouring onto the continent.
“A newly uncovered 99-page manifesto produced by the Islamic State brags about how the terror organization has exploited the refugee program to send jihadist sleeper cells to Europe since 2012, with the goal of creating Muslim “no go zones” in western cities that can be used as a base from which to launch further Paris-style attacks,” wrote Paul Joseph Watson. “The manifesto, entitled Black Flags from Rome, serves as a shocking reminder of the danger posed by allowing potentially millions of Muslim migrants to enter Europe and America via the ‘refugee’ red carpet.”
RADICAL SPLC NOW DEMANDING ARMY POSTS BE RENAMED
Every liberal, Progressive agenda — homosexual marriage, abortion,
anti-bullying edicts, the marginalization of Judeo-Christian beliefs,
etc. — has a societal price: We count the costs and ask whether the
changes are worth the price. -
RADICAL SPLC NOW DEMANDING ARMY POSTS
BE RENAMED
BY STEVE BYAS
SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/26835-radical-splc-now-demanding-army-posts-be-re-named;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Having recently released a list of 1,500 “Confederate monuments” that
the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is demanding be taken down, the
radical organization is now calling for renaming several army posts
because they bear the name of a Confederate general. (Although sometimes
called “bases,” army installations are known as “posts”; it is air
force installations that are known as “bases.”)And if they are not taken down, the SPLC predicts, there will be “more turmoil and bloodshed.”
The SPLC has even posted the names of elementary and middle schools across the country that must be renamed, causing some alarm that such an irresponsible listing could precipitate violence that could involve little children. Some far-left agitators such as Antifa have suggested that since the police won’t shut down what they call fascists, they will have to do it themselves.
Eight U.S. army posts use the names of a Confederate general, including Fort Bragg in North Carolina (home of the 82nd Airborne division); Fort Hood in Texas; and Fort Benning in Georgia.
Fort Bragg was named for General Braxton Bragg, who commanded the Confederate “Army of Tennessee,” who won the Battle of Chickamauga in northern Georgia, but subsequently blundered away Confederate control of the city of Chattanooga (an important rail center), leading to his removal by Confederate President Jefferson Davis in 1863.
Fort Hood was named for General John Bell Hood, who had a reputation as one of the best brigade and division commanders in the Confederate army. He lost use of his arm during the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863, and then suffered a severe leg wound at Chickamauga, which led to its amputation. Despite these injuries, he led the Army of Tennessee in the famous Confederate defeat at the Battle of Franklin on November 30, 1964, which combined with an ill-advised assault upon Nashville soon after essentially destroyed the army.
Fort Benning was named for General Henry Lewis Benning, who had been a legislator and a member of the Supreme Court in Georgia, before commanding “Benning’s Brigade” in the war.
Other posts named for Confederate generals include Fort Gordon, Fort Lee, Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Polk, and Fort Rucker.
The Department of Defense has said they will not even consider renaming any of the posts.
Why did the U.S. Army choose to name several army posts after Confederate generals? The answer can be traced back to the sentiment expressed by President Abraham Lincoln in his second inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1865, when it was clear that the Southern Confederacy was collapsing. Lincoln called for reconciliation, saying, “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
In short, it was determined among those in the victorious North that nothing was to be gained by verbally castigating the defeated foe. When General Robert E. Lee surrendered what was left of the Army of Northern Virginia, on April 9, 1865, General U.S. Grant forbade celebrating by his soldiers in Lee’s presence. “They are our countrymen again,” Grant advised them.
In other words, they wanted the country to reconcile. This was the prevailing view when it was decided that U.S. army posts in the former Confederacy be named after Confederate soldiers. It was a noble gesture — and a wise one.
Unfortunately, far too many politicians today appear to be more influenced by scoring cheap political points by trashing these generals, or they are too timid to stand up to the politically-inspired attacks upon them. And, of course, the ultimate goal is not Confederate generals, anyway. Once the precedent is established by attacking men that many are afraid to defend, lest they be accused of being “pro-slavery,” or at least “insensitive,” the cultural subverters will then move on to the Founding Fathers — men such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. This brings the subverters to the ultimate goal of chipping away at the foundations of the country, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which will be disparaged as archaic documents hopelessly tainted by slavery and bigotry.
The cultural subverters will then propose to replace our Constitution with a “social democracy,” by which they really mean a Marxist regime. This Taliban-like assault will not end until Americans make it clear to their elected representatives that we will not tolerate these continued attacks upon American heritage. Marxists always use existing divisions in society (or create them) to advance their goals, and the present campaign to attack Confederate monuments is really no different.
SESSIONS ANNOUNCES TRUMP HAS ENDED "DACA" BY GIVING IT TO CONGRESS~OBAMA UPSET, CALLING IT "CRUEL"
SESSIONS ANNOUNCES TRUMP HAS ENDED "DACA"
Trump Kicks “Dreamer” Question to Congress,
Where It Belongs
Under Obama’s DACA, children brought to the United States illegally by their parents would be allowed to stay. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution gave Obama the legal authority to change U.S. immigration law, but he argued that he was simply deferring prosecution of illegal aliens who were brought to the United States illegally by their parents.
Because of this, Trump’s action simply restores the status quo as it existed before Obama’s constitutionally dubious action.
Oklahoma Senator James Lankford, a Republican, agreed with Trump’s action, saying it should be up to Congress, not the president, to pass laws concerning immigration. “We must confront the nation’s out-of-date immigration policy and finally resolve the issues of strong border enforcement and merit immigration,” Lankford said.
He added, “It is right for there to be consequences for those who intentionally entered this country illegally. However, we as Americans do not hold children legally accountable for the actions of their parents.”
Whatever decision Congress eventually makes on this issue, the bottom line is that it is theirs to make, not Obama, Trump, or any other U.S. president. If Congress chooses to do nothing, that is also its decision to make, despite former President Obama’s assertion that if Congress failed to act, he had to. That is not how the Constitution is supposed to work.
Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution states that all legislative power is given to Congress.
Despite the clear wording of the Constitution, presidents and courts have usurped the law-making power of Congress on matters both foreign and domestic. For example, the Iranian Nuclear Deal, regardless of what one thinks of its merits, is obviously a treaty. A treaty requires the approval of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate before it is a law in the United States, yet over the past few decades, presidents have made treaties with foreign countries without any approval by either house of Congress. They have managed to do this by calling the treaties “executive agreements,” but calling them by a different name does not change what they are — treaties.
Courts have also taken over areas that are clearly legislative. In still other instances, federal bureaucrats have essentially made law. Writing in Bureaucracy, the great economist Ludwig von Mises said, “The experts of the various government agencies are certainly fine men. But they are not right in becoming indignant whenever the legislature frustrates their carefully elaborated designs.… But the only question is: Who should run the country? The voters or the bureaucrats?”
Unfortunately, the increasingly prevailing truth is that presidents, courts, and bureaucrats make our public policy decisions — not the people’s elected representatives. Although presidents can be voted out of office, judges and bureaucrats cannot.
But why does Congress allow this situation to continue? Don’t they know that the Constitution gives them, not the president, the courts, and the bureaucracy the power and authority to determine immigration policy and other issues that concern the general public? Aren’t they jealous of this usurpation of their power?
One would think so. No doubt the framers of the Constitution assumed Congress would not allow the president, courts, or bureaucrats to infringe on their constitutional right to make laws.
It is probable that James Madison and the other delegates did not anticipate that members of Congress would cheer a president who takes unconstitutional actions they agree with. If so many members of Congress care little about their oath of office, it is not surprising that they care little about unconstitutional actions by the executive branch, the courts, or the bureaucracy.
Second, if someone else makes a decision on a controversial issue, such as what to do about illegal aliens who were brought here by their parents, then that means they, the members of Congress, do not have to go on record themselves on the issue — and face an angry electorate in the next election.
Trump’s action simply returns the power to make the decision back to Congress. As Jill Colvin of the Associate Press said in her article on this subject, this hands a “political hot potato to Republicans on the Hill.” The dirty little secret is that members of Congress, of either party, would rather someone else make the decision on these political hot potatoes, so they can tell their constituents, “I agree with you on the issue but [insert the culprit: courts, president, bureaucrats] have taken it out of our hands.”
But members of Congress are shirking their duty by allowing important issues to be usurped by others. And if members of Congress are not going to stand up for their constitutional authority, the voters need to replace them with others who will.
OBAMA CALLS TRUMP'S DECISION "CRUEL"
Where It Belongs
BY STEVE BYAS
SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/26845-trump-kicks-dreamer-question-to-congress-where-it-belongs;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“If President Trump makes the decision we [Congress] will work to
find a legislative solution to their dilemma,” said Senator Lindsey
Graham (R-S.C.), in reaction to President Donald Trump’s announcement
today that he is ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
(DACA). DACA was implemented by “executive order” by former President
Barack Obama.Under Obama’s DACA, children brought to the United States illegally by their parents would be allowed to stay. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution gave Obama the legal authority to change U.S. immigration law, but he argued that he was simply deferring prosecution of illegal aliens who were brought to the United States illegally by their parents.
Because of this, Trump’s action simply restores the status quo as it existed before Obama’s constitutionally dubious action.
Oklahoma Senator James Lankford, a Republican, agreed with Trump’s action, saying it should be up to Congress, not the president, to pass laws concerning immigration. “We must confront the nation’s out-of-date immigration policy and finally resolve the issues of strong border enforcement and merit immigration,” Lankford said.
He added, “It is right for there to be consequences for those who intentionally entered this country illegally. However, we as Americans do not hold children legally accountable for the actions of their parents.”
Whatever decision Congress eventually makes on this issue, the bottom line is that it is theirs to make, not Obama, Trump, or any other U.S. president. If Congress chooses to do nothing, that is also its decision to make, despite former President Obama’s assertion that if Congress failed to act, he had to. That is not how the Constitution is supposed to work.
Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution states that all legislative power is given to Congress.
Despite the clear wording of the Constitution, presidents and courts have usurped the law-making power of Congress on matters both foreign and domestic. For example, the Iranian Nuclear Deal, regardless of what one thinks of its merits, is obviously a treaty. A treaty requires the approval of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate before it is a law in the United States, yet over the past few decades, presidents have made treaties with foreign countries without any approval by either house of Congress. They have managed to do this by calling the treaties “executive agreements,” but calling them by a different name does not change what they are — treaties.
Courts have also taken over areas that are clearly legislative. In still other instances, federal bureaucrats have essentially made law. Writing in Bureaucracy, the great economist Ludwig von Mises said, “The experts of the various government agencies are certainly fine men. But they are not right in becoming indignant whenever the legislature frustrates their carefully elaborated designs.… But the only question is: Who should run the country? The voters or the bureaucrats?”
Unfortunately, the increasingly prevailing truth is that presidents, courts, and bureaucrats make our public policy decisions — not the people’s elected representatives. Although presidents can be voted out of office, judges and bureaucrats cannot.
But why does Congress allow this situation to continue? Don’t they know that the Constitution gives them, not the president, the courts, and the bureaucracy the power and authority to determine immigration policy and other issues that concern the general public? Aren’t they jealous of this usurpation of their power?
One would think so. No doubt the framers of the Constitution assumed Congress would not allow the president, courts, or bureaucrats to infringe on their constitutional right to make laws.
It is probable that James Madison and the other delegates did not anticipate that members of Congress would cheer a president who takes unconstitutional actions they agree with. If so many members of Congress care little about their oath of office, it is not surprising that they care little about unconstitutional actions by the executive branch, the courts, or the bureaucracy.
Second, if someone else makes a decision on a controversial issue, such as what to do about illegal aliens who were brought here by their parents, then that means they, the members of Congress, do not have to go on record themselves on the issue — and face an angry electorate in the next election.
Trump’s action simply returns the power to make the decision back to Congress. As Jill Colvin of the Associate Press said in her article on this subject, this hands a “political hot potato to Republicans on the Hill.” The dirty little secret is that members of Congress, of either party, would rather someone else make the decision on these political hot potatoes, so they can tell their constituents, “I agree with you on the issue but [insert the culprit: courts, president, bureaucrats] have taken it out of our hands.”
But members of Congress are shirking their duty by allowing important issues to be usurped by others. And if members of Congress are not going to stand up for their constitutional authority, the voters need to replace them with others who will.
OBAMA IS UPSET
Obama never intended DACA to be perminent: Kellyanne Conway
Sarah Sanders WH Press Briefing
on Trump Ending DACA 9/5/17
on Trump Ending DACA 9/5/17
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
LABOR DAY, FREEDOM, & THE WRECK OF SOCIALISM
LABOR DAY, FREEDOM, & THE WRECK OF SOCIALISM
Americans today enjoy higher standard of living
than kings of yesteryear
BY WASHINGTON EXAMINER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes,
from: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/labor-day-freedom-and-the-wreck
-of-socialism/article/2633145
Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, leaders of the ascendant left wing of the Democratic Party, believe that socialism in some form is crucial for America's better future. Young people seem to be buying the message. According to a May 2016 Gallup poll, 55 percent of Americans under the age of 30 have a positive view of socialism.
So, this Labor Day, as leftists invite you to step along their pathway to a workers' utopia, let us consider what capitalism has already achieved for this country, and especially for its wage earners.
First, the economy has created social mobility on a level the world has known in no other time and in no other place. Not every member of the public will become wealthy or even enter the middle class, but doing so is a realistic aspiration for anyone. As the chart below indicates, 59.9 percent of this country's citizens are in the middle class.
That's just the start. Ordinary people in this country enjoy a standard of living that the wealthy of yesteryear, even kings and aristocrats, could not have dreamed of. This is largely thanks to the innovation of other Americans.
Instant communications and endless entertainment are at every worker's fingertips. Drugs exist to treat and cure ailments (both those that are deadly and those that are merely difficult and unpleasant) that were once incurable. Jet engines can move you at an affordable price from New York to Los Angeles or from Miami to Anchorage in a matter of hours. Computer software instantly handles problems today that took hours of toil in the past. America's innovators shape humanity's future.
Whether you want to measure American achievement by counting the Nobel Prize winners there are among our scientists and inventors — at 353, we're way ahead of anyone else — or by the tough effectiveness of our soldiers, it is dazzlingly clear that American know-how leads the world. Whether you want to measure it in the high rate of homeownership, the widespread access to endless entertainment and affordable vacations, the robust community spirit, or the relative freedom from government interference, the average American's ability to pursue happiness is unparalleled.
This is no accident but the legacy of a political system that is flexible enough to change and right historic wrongs, yet rigid and scrupulous in its respect for freedom. The American way has achieved a more comfortable and dignified life for workers than any other.
Let us look at the socialist alternative favored by Sanders and Warren. The miseries, deprivations, and backwardness it has inflicted on populations wherever and whenever it has been tried are boundless. They amount to the biggest empirical data set of political and economic failure in the history of humankind. In Venezuela, to take only the latest unfortunate experiment, it has meant the world's largest oil reserves being wasted and stolen while children starve on the streets. The historical legacy of Soviet socialism, National Socialism, and Maoist Communism, to cite the most egregious versions of this poisonous left-wing political ideology, is so well known that it does not need to be rehearsed here.
Even those countries that experienced the more gentle "democratic socialism," such as modern South Africa and Brazil, socialism has allowed corrupt politicians to pilfer state industries while the poor live and die young in slums. Even in the socialized utopias of Europe, it has meant destructive youth unemployment rates, a dearth of innovation, and death panels in hospitals.
To the extent that these nations have succeeded, it is mostly because they have come to imitate us. It is in spite of, not because of, their sympathy for ideas that turned Cuba and North Korea into the world's two largest prisons.
America is not perfect. Its health care system is absurdly expensive (although also the world's most effective). Its extortionate higher education system increasingly resembles a fraudulent pyramid scheme. Its ballooning entitlement state robs the young and gives to the old, with such generosity that today's Medicare recipients receive three times more in benefits than what they paid in. And far too many Americans are victims of crime, gangs, and collapsing families.
But every society has problems, and ours could be so much worse. Just look at those run under the system that leading lights of the Democratic Party regard as an ideal.
GEERT WILDERS SLAMS EUROPEAN UNION, MIGRANT INVASION, IN DEFIANT SPEECH AT GLOBALIST CONFERENCE
Geert Wilders - Europe's Suicide in the Face of Islam
GEERT WILDERS SLAMS EUROPEAN UNION,
MIGRANT INVASION, IN DEFIANT SPEECH
AT GLOBALIST CONFERENCE
The future belongs to a Europe of sovereign nations
BY DAN LYMAN
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/dutch-mp-wilders-slams-eu-migrant-invasion-in-defiant-speech-at-globalist-conference/;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Geert Wilders, leader of the Netherlands’ second-most popular
political party, delivered a speech to a crowd of globalists and
technocrats in which he denounced the EU superstate and the on-going
Islamization of the European continent.Wilders was an unlikely guest at the exclusive Ambrosetti Forum, hosted in Italy by the European House, a highly influential think tank.
The Dutch populist, known for his strong opposition to globalism and Islam, held nothing back in a powerful address titled “The Europe We Want.”
“I applaud the fact that you invite someone who does not share your enthusiasm for the European Union. Or your European dream as Euro commissioner Frans Timmermans just called it. To be honest: his dream is my nightmare,” Wilders began. “I believe in a positive future for Europe as a community of independent, sovereign and democratic nations – working together without a supranational political union – a Europe without the European Union.”
Wilders extolled the virtues of the nation state and professed the critical importance of national sovereignty in the protection of a society, its culture, and its people – contrasted with the bullying tactics and reckless policies of unelected, internationalist dictators in Brussels.
“Another extremely important thing the Dutch have achieved over the past centuries were clear and defined borders. Borders are important. Because they protect us and define who and what we are,” Wilders said. “Thanks to our governments who gave away sovereignty we are now no longer in charge of our immigration policy and even our own borders, and the result is devastating.”
“The Dutch have their own identity. And so do the other nations of Europe. But there is NO single European identity.”
“The EU is characterized by cultural relativism and enmity towards patriotism. But patriotism is not a dangerous threat, it is something to be proud of,” he continued. “It means defending a nation’s sovereignty and independence, and not selling it out in shabby compromises to the EU and its bureaucrats.”
Geert Wilders at EU Meeting in Italy on 3rd September 2017 (BBC World This Weekend) https://t.co/BtdAD397Yb #audio via @chirbit— Geert Wilders (@geertwilderspvv) September 3, 2017
Wilders went on to place the lion’s share of the blame for the on-going migrant crisis on German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s shoulders, saying her “Wir schaffen das – We can do it” rhetoric has been a invitation for disaster, as millions of mostly-Muslim Third World “asylum seekers” pour onto the European land mass, desperate to become one of “Mama Merkel’s” esteemed “guests” – but who refuse to assimilate or work, and aren’t expected to do so.
Referring to the growing list of Islamic terrorist attacks being carried out across Europe, he declared, “Brussels together with the pro-EU leaders in the national capitals created the conditions which made these horrible events and attacks possible by allowing millions of immigrants to enter Europe – often unchecked, by making no assimilation demands whatsoever, by refusing to impose a leitkultur, a dominant culture, by being politically correct and because of a total lack of leadership.”
Wilders concluded with a barrage of anti-globalism proclamations that likely set the room on fire.
“But, despite all the bad news, as I said at the beginning, I am an optimist. All over Europe, ever more people are becoming proud patriots, and know that the patriots will win. And so will the nation state,” he said. “We can also work together to fight terrorism. But all on a voluntary basis, as sovereign nations.”
“And without a political union. Without the EU. The future belongs to the Europe of sovereign nations.”
Read Wilders’ full speech HERE.
TWITTER SUSPENDS SHAZIA HOBBS, FORMER MUSLIM, ANTI FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION CAMPAIGNER
http://www.shaziahobbs.com/
Former Muslim, anti-FGM campaigner Shazia Hobbs suspended from Twitter
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/09/former-muslim-anti-fgm-campaigner-shazia-hobbs-suspended-from-twitter;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Twitter is evil. It lets stand open death threats against me. It censors content to suit Iran’s Islamic authorities. It has flagged as “hateful” tweets stating the fact that Islam is not a religion of peace and reporting accurately about anti-Semitic statements by an imam. It has let Islamic State accounts stand while banning those of people who report terrorists. It has shadowbanned my account, preventing thousands of readers from seeing Jihad Watch posts.Twitter, like the other social media giants, should be broken up using anti-trust laws. It is an increasingly fascist platform that ruthlessly clamps down on voices that dare to dissent from the Leftist agenda.
“Former Muslim, Anti-FGM Campaigner Shazia Hobbs Suspended from Twitter,” by Oliver JJ Lane, Breitbart, September 4, 2017:
A Muslim apostate and high profile campaigner against both female genital mutilation (FGM) and forced marriage has been suspended from micro-blogging platform Twitter, amidst a wider crackdown on right wing voices on the website, and other online platforms like Facebook._______________________________________________________
Twitter users noticed the prolific writer and campaigner had vanished from the platform Friday. Hobbs had previously spoken at the Unite Against Hate ‘Gays Against Sharia’ march in Manchester, where she spoke out against Muslim rape gangs preying on young white girls.
Hobbs turned away from Islam after escaping an arranged marriage with a physically abusive husband she had been forced into aged 18.
Speaking to Breitbart London, Ms. Hobbs confirmed she has been suspended indefinitely.
“It’s absolutely disgusting,” she told the website. “There was no reason given. Twitter would not tell me what tweets were in violation of their rules. They said it was because of ‘harassment’.
“All I tweet about is the rape of Pakistani children by Pakistani men,” she said.
She appealed directly to Twitter which has so far rejected her petition, and condemned the platform for shutting down a voice raising awareness of child sexual abuse in Pakistani British communities.
“No one speaks out against the rape of Pakistani children,” she said.
Suspended for so-called harassment, Ms. Hobbs told Breitbart London that she is frequently called “racist” and accused of being “full of hate” for calling for the jailing of parents who subject their daughters to genital mutilation.
“I get the biggest amount of hate from Pakistani men and ‘feminazis’ who tell me I’m ‘fueling the far right’.
“I’m trying to put a stop to these harmful practices. I’ve had more love and acceptance from the so-called ‘far right’ than from the Pakistani community,” she asserted….
BRUSSELS: NINE MEN THROWN OFF FLIGHT FOR SCREAMING "ALLAHU AKBAR" AND CLAIMING TO CARRY BOMBS
BRUSSELS: NINE MEN THROWN OFF FLIGHT FOR SCREAMING "ALLAHU AKBAR" AND CLAIMING TO CARRY BOMBS
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/09/brussels-nine-men-thrown-off-flight-for-screaming-allahu-akbar-and-claiming-to-carry-bombs;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Ryanair may now be denounced as “Islamophobic” for thinking that screams
of “Allahu akbar” were any cause for alarm. Nowadays, one must deny
reality in order to avoid charges of “bigotry.”
“9 men thrown off Ryanair flight for shouting ‘Allahu Akbar,’” RT, September 2, 2017:
Nine men have been thrown off a Ryanair flight for allegedly shouting “Allahu Akbar” and claiming to carry bombs, which they later said was a “joke.”
The group was removed from the Madrid-bound flight before it took off from Zaventem Airport, Brussels early Saturday.
Following the disruptive passengers’ removal, the Boeing 737-800 was briefly evacuated and searched before departing with a two-hour delay around 9:15am local time.
Spokesperson for the Belgian federal police, Peter De Waele, confirmed the incident to RT.com, and said one man was arrested.
“The flight commander refused to take these nine people (a group of friends) after the incident. One of them was a foolish joker and called ‘Allahu Akbar’ (‘God is great’),” said De Waele.
A spokesperson for Ryanair told RT.com that the flight crew requested police assistance “after a number of passenger became disruptive prior to departure.”…
INDIANA: TAXPAYER FUNDED BALL STATE UNIVERSITY GIVES ACADEMIC CREDIT TO STUDENTS FOR MEETING MUSLIMS
INDIANA: TAXPAYER FUNDED BALL STATE UNIVERSITY GIVES ACADEMIC CREDIT TO STUDENTS
FOR MEETING MUSLIMS
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
This is based on the oft-repeated claim of the establishment media
and Islamic apologists that “Islamophobia” stems from people simply not
knowing any Muslims personally, and if these racist, redneck yahoos
would simply meet some of these charming, wise, noble people, they would
no longer be greasy Islamophobes, but would morph immediately into
metrosexual, horn-rimmed-glasses-wearing donors to the Southern Poverty
Law Center.This absurd notion is based on the false assumption that distrust of Islam stems from “Islamophobic” propaganda, and not from the actions of Muslims such as Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Nidal Malik Hasan, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Syed Rizwan Farook, Tashfeen Malik, and other bloodthirsty jihadis.
“Taxpayer-Funded University Gives Academic Credit To Students For Meeting Local Muslims,” by Eric Owens, Daily Caller, August 31, 2017:
Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana will offer a course which gives actual academic credit to students for meeting Muslims, hanging out at a Muncie mosque, and making a documentary film about Muslims who reside in the local area.
The taxpayer-funded course at Ball State is a seminar titled “Muslims In Muncie,” according to an informational email obtained by The Daily Caller.
The course is scheduled for the spring semester.
A flyer promoting the “Muslims In Muncie” course explains that enrolled students will “learn about the history and diversity of Muslims in America” by participating “in the social and ritual life of the Muncie Islamic Center.” Students will also meet Muslim leaders and collect oral histories from Muslims for a documentary film.
At the end of the course, students will “host a public showcase in May 2018” — presumably in relation to the film.
The for-credit seminar will help students become “empowered as critically engaged, globally aware citizens.”
Students who sign up for Ball State’s for-credit Muslim meet-and-greet course will receive credit through the honors college or for graduation requirements related to humanities, social science, fine arts or religious studies….
Ball State philosophy and religious studies professor Elizabeth Agnew is organizing the course.
Students “need to be selected to join the seminar,” according to the email obtained by TheDC. “Dr. Agnew has already started to interview students for this seminar.”…
“From 2012-2015, Professor Agnew participated with a team of Ball State faculty in a U.S. State Department-funded partnership with Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, Pakistan to advance the American Studies graduate program at QAU’s Area Study Center.”…
JUDGE ORDERS DAVID DALEIDEN & HIS ATTORNEYS TO PAY NEARLY $200K TO ABORTION FEDERATION FOR RELEASING UNDERCOVER VIDEO DESPITE COURT ORDER
JUDGE ORDERS DAVID DALEIDEN & HIS ATTORNEYS TO PAY NEARLY $200K TO ABORTION FEDERATION
FOR RELEASING UNDERCOVER VIDEO
DESPITE COURT ORDER
BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: http://christiannews.net/2017/09/03/judge-orders-david-daleiden-attorneys-to-pay-nearly-200k-to-abortion-federation-for-releasing-undercover-video-despite-court-order/;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — A federal judge hasordered pro-life activist David
Daleiden, who is known for his undercover investigation into Planned
Parenthood’s provision of aborted baby body parts to biomedical companies,
along with his attorneys to pay nearly $200,000 to the National Abortion
Federation (NAF) for releasing video footage from the organization’s annual
conventions despite a court order.On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick leveled $195,359.04 in civil sanctions against Daleiden and his criminal defense attorneys, Steve Cooley and Brentford Ferreira, for the Federation’s security and personnel costs, as well as attorneys’ fees surrounding efforts to have the undercover video removed.
“In setting this amount, I have considered the magnitude of ‘the harm threatened by continued contumacy, and the probable effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the result desired,'” he wrote. “CMP, Daleiden, Cooley, and Ferreria are jointly and severally liable for this amount to be paid to NAF.”
As previously reported, the NAF sued Daleiden in July 2015 to prevent footage recorded undercover at its 2014 and 2015 from being made public, claiming that it could jeopardize the safety of its members. Orrick sided with the organization, issuing a preliminary injunction in February 2016 banning Daleiden from releasing any videos recorded at the NAF’s annual conventions.
He noted that the Federation requires attendees to sign confidentiality agreements, promising not to disclose the contents of the event.
“Confidentiality agreements are common to protect trade secrets and other sensitive information, and individuals who sign such agreements are not free to ignore them because they think the public would be interested in the protected information,” Orrick wrote.
Also opining that “the majority of the recordings lack much public interest,” Orrick said that the Federation’s rights to privacy and safety outweighed any public interest in the videos.
“Weighed against that public interest are NAF’s and its members’ legitimate interests in their rights to privacy, security, and association by maintaining the confidentiality of their presentations and conversations at NAF Annual Meetings. The balance is strongly in NAF’s favor,” he wrote.
However, in May 2017, Daleiden released a video that he called a “preview” of a longer forthcoming investigation, which featured clips of various Planned Parenthood officials and other abortion advocates making nonchalant statements about the abortion process, including that the baby’s eyeballs fell into their lap or that they had to tear off a leg to avoid technically performing a partial-birth abortion.
The recording was quickly removed by YouTube shortly after its publication.
In July, Orrick ruled that Daleiden violated the court’s injunction when he released the video. Orrick also found Daleiden’s criminal defense attorneys in contempt as well.
According to reports, the men believed the footage needed to be released after California Attorney General Xavier Becerra charged Daleiden with 14 counts of covertly recording confidential conversations and one count of conspiracy to invade privacy.
Daleiden has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift Orrick’s order prohibiting him from releasing the videos.
“[W]hat is ultimately at stake here is whether those who ‘blow the whistle’ on illegal or inhumane misbehavior in any industry may be silenced and even punished for telling the truth to the public at large and to those charged with enforcing criminal and regulatory bans on nefarious practices,” Tom Brejcha of the Thomas More Society, which is representing Daleiden in the civil matter, said in a statement last month.
“Whether America will remain an open or closed society hangs in the balance,” he opined. We trust that the justices will stand by our traditional disapproval of ‘prior restraints on free speech,’ hear Daleiden’s appeal, vindicate his First Amendment rights, and reverse the lower courts’ egregious mistakes.”
Orrick’s wife has reportedly posted statements online that are favorable to Planned Parenthood, and Orrick had previously served on the board of an organization that permitted a Planned Parenthood facility to operate on its property.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)