POPE FRANCIS TO CELEBRATE "MASS FOR MIGRANTS" IN VATICAN BASILICA

FULL MASS:

POPE FRANCIS TO CELEBRATE "MASS FOR MIGRANTS" IN VATICAN BASILICA

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/07/pope-francis-to-celebrate-mass-for-migrants-in-vatican-basilica; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

“Abandoned and helpless children.” Yes, that’s who these people are. Here are some: Somali Muslim migrant Mohammad Barry in February 2016 stabbed multiple patrons at a restaurant owned by an Israeli Arab Christian; Ahmad Khan Rahami, an Afghan Muslim migrant, in September 2016 set off bombs in New York City and New Jersey; Arcan Cetin, a Turkish Muslim migrant, in September 2016 murdered five people in a mall in Burlington, Washington; Dahir Adan, another Somali Muslim migrant, in October 2016 stabbed mall shoppers in St. Cloud while screaming “Allahu akbar”; and Abdul Razak Artan, yet another Somali Muslim migrant, in November 2016 injured nine people with car and knife attacks at Ohio State University. 72 jihad terrorists have come to the U.S. from the countries listed in Trump’s initial immigration ban.

What’s more, all of the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015 had just entered Europe as refugees. In February 2015, the Islamic State boasted it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. The Lebanese Education Minister said in September 2015 that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country. On May 10, 2016, Patrick Calvar, the head of France’s DGSI internal intelligence agency, said that the Islamic State was using migrant routes through the Balkans to get jihadis into Europe.

Pope Francis is a disgrace to the Catholic Church, to Judeo-Christian civilization, and to the free world.

“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)

“Pope Francis to Celebrate ‘Mass for Migrants’ in Vatican Basilica,” by Thomas D. Williams, Breitbart, July 5, 2018 (thanks to Ken):

Pope Francis will celebrate a special “Mass for Migrants” this Friday at the main altar of Saint Peter’s Basilica to commemorate the fifth anniversary of his visit to migrants on the Italian island of Lampedusa, the Vatican announced Wednesday.

The Director of the Holy See Press Office, Greg Burke, released a statement on the Vatican’s website alerting people to the Mass in support of migrants, which “will be a moment of prayer for the deceased, for survivors and for those who assist them.”

Mr. Burke said that some 200 people are expected to be present at the event, “including refugees and people who take care of them.”

In recent months, the Pope has launched a full-court press on behalf of migrants in the hopes of bringing about a “change in mindset” regarding immigration, insisting in a recent message that migrants do not pose a threat to society but are, rather, an enrichment.

“This demands a change in mindset,” he said. “We must move from considering others as threats to our comfort to valuing them as persons whose life experience and values can contribute greatly to the enrichment of our society.”

“For this to happen, our basic approach must be to encounter the other, to welcome, to know and to acknowledge him or her,” he added.

The pope’s support for free-flowing immigration has placed him on a collision course with populist leaders who are moving to stem the tide of international mass migration.

Last year, Francis said that a growing hostility toward migrants is stoked by “populist rhetoric,” adding that a failure to welcome migrants is rooted in selfishness.

A true change of heart is needed, the Pope said, because the rejection of migrants is “rooted ultimately in self-centeredness and amplified by populist rhetoric.”…

The Vatican has released the prayers for the pope’s Mass for Migrants to be celebrated this Friday, which include the following opening prayer:

O God, father of all men, for you no one is a stranger, no one is excluded from your fatherhood; look with love on refugees, those in exile, victims of segregation, and abandoned and helpless children, so that the warmth of a home and a homeland may to be given to all, and that we may be given a sensitive and generous heart towards the poor and oppressed. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your son, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever.

EPISCOPAL COMMITTEE HEARS CALL TO REVISE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, REPLACING MASCULINE TERMS FOR GOD, MANKIND

EPISCOPAL COMMITTEE HEARS CALL TO REVISE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, REPLACING MASCULINE TERMS FOR GOD, MANKIND

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: https://christiannews.net/2018/07/05/episcopal-committee-hears-call-to-revise-book-of-common-prayer-replacing-masculine-terms-for-god-mankind/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

AUSTIN, Texas — A committee tasked with hearing desired revisions to the Book of Common Prayer listened to remarks on Wednesday from Episcopalian leaders and others who want to make the historical book’s text more gender-neutral by removing masculine nouns and pronouns for God and mankind. Some Episcopalians disagree, and have presented a resolution asking that no changes be made to the book, but rather that deeper devotion be given to the existing text.

“As long as a masculine God remains at the top of the pyramid, nothing else we do matters. We construct a theological framework in which we talk about gender equality … then we say that which is most holy in the universe is only and exclusively male. That just undoes some of the key theology that says we are equal in God’s sight, we are fully created in God’s image,” Wil Gafney, a Hebrew Bible professor at Brite Divinity School in Texas, who is among those calling for the change, told The Washington Post.

According to the Episcopal News Service, among those who spoke before the “Committee to Receive the Report of Resolution A169” (referring to a 2015 resolution calling for the changes) were two women who identify as men, Ian Stanford of the Diocese of Oregon and the Cameron Partridge of the Diocese of California. They asserted that gendered language is a hindrance to the youth that they seek to bring into the church.

Stanford said that she was worried about how the young people will receive the language they hear during the services.

“What am I inviting them into?” she asked.

Kathleen Moore, a seminarian from the Diocese of Vermont, similarly told the committee that gender specific language is an impediment to her work to reach youth.

“Let’s let God be God,” she said.

Rowan Pantalena, who identifies as “non-binary transgender” and a candidate for the Diocese of Connecticut, contended, “I am not your brother or your sister. I am your sibling.” Pantalena asked for language that would expand on the existing text, rather than a complete overhaul.

The listening period took place during the 79th General Convention, which will continue through July 13. A subcommittee regarding how to move forward has now been formed, citing two proposed resolutions, one of which specifically calls for “inclusive and expansive language” in the Book of Common Prayer.

“That the 79th General Convention recognize the urgent pastoral and evangelical need for revision of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, particularly in regard to the use of inclusive and expansive language for humanity and divinity, continuing work which began even as the 1979 BCP was being developed,” Resolution 36 reads.

Read the resolution in full here.

However, while some support the concept of revising the Book of Common Prayer, others have presented a resolution to the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music that calls for deeper study of the Book within congregations for the next three years.

It asks that the “Episcopal Church … devote the next triennium to deep engagement with the structure, content, language and theological thrust of The Book of Common Prayer (1979), with a view to increasing the Church’s familiarity with the book in its entirety; and directs the SCLM to develop materials to aid local dioceses, congregations, seminaries, and schools in the process of this deep engagement, focusing particularly on the use of the Prayer Book as an instrument for the catechesis and spiritual formation of the whole people of God.”

Read Resolution 69 in full here.

As previously reported, in 2015, when a group of women known as WATCH moved for the Church of England to start referring to God as a “she” during the weekly liturgy, stating that to make mention of God solely in the male pronoun is sexist, some expressed strong opposition.

“Referring to God as ‘mother’ drives a horse and cart through Scripture. Such an innovation is guaranteed to split the C of E as never before,” wrote Damian Thompson in the Daily Mail.

“Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, has warned us that the church could be extinct in 25 years’ time unless services become more spiritually fulfilling. Calling God ‘she’ will not achieve that fulfillment,” he stated. “The proposed twist of language will do nothing to stop the decline of Christian faith in this country. On the contrary, it will make worshippers squirm. And nothing empties pews faster than that.”

1 John 4:14 reads, “And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.”

Jesus also said in John 15:26, “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me.”
_____________________________________________________________
SEE OUR PREVIOUS POSTS:
https://ratherexposethem.blogspot.com/2018/02/capitol-apostasy-dc-episcopalians-opt.html
https://ratherexposethem.blogspot.com/2018/02/episcopal-diocese-votes-to-avoid-using.html

FACEBOOK DELETES PART OF DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AS "HATE SPEECH", REMOVES POST

FACEBOOK DELETES PART OF DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AS "HATE SPEECH", 

REMOVES POST

BY  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/29452-facebook-deletes-part-of-declaration-of-independence-as-hate-speech-removes-post; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Mark Zuckerberg might want to get his DNA tested to see if he’s related to King George III.

Facebook marked as “hate speech” and then removed part of the Declaration of Independence posted on the social media site by a small Texas newspaper called the Liberty County Vindicator.

The good folks at the Vindicator had been posting paragraphs from the Declaration of Independence — approved 242 years ago this week — on its Facebook page, but one paragraph didn’t show up and later the paper’s editors found out why.

The post “goes against our standards on hate speech,” Facebook wrote in a message to the Vindicator.

Although the Vindicator had been posting the series of sections from the Declaration of Independence since June 24 without incident, on July 2, the post was flagged by Facebook and removed.

The supposedly offending language of the Declaration reads as follows:

“He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

“He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

“He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

“He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

While the editor of the Vindicator is unhappy with Facebook’s censorship and lack of access to a human who might be able to explain the action, the editor also concedes that as a private company Facebook can delete anything it wants to without regard to what users might want. It might not be the best business decision, but it certainly isn’t unconstitutional.

Why?

Because the relevant part of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.”

Notice: The First Amendment does not bind private entities from abridging speech all day, every day.

That isn’t the issue here, though.

The issue is that the social media mammoth actually employs mathematical algorithms designed to tag and eliminate “hate speech” and the algorithm tagged and eliminated part of the Declaration of Independence!

George III had a similar take on the means and ends of American people and of the documents they built upon as they drafted the Declaration.

In his Proclamation of 1775, George III described Americans as having committed “variably disorderly acts”; “disturbance of the publick peace”; “open and hostile rebellion”; and of having sent “traitorous correspondence.”

George III ended his proclamation by commanding all British officers, as well as loyalists, “to use their utmost endeavors to withstand and suppress such rebellion.”

The king was using those terms inaccurately.

The truth is, the 13 colonies weren’t rebelling; they were trying to restore what had been taken from them: their right to self-government.

Or, as Thomas Jefferson wrote and his colleagues supported, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

This Fourth of July, please take time not only to think about our noble forefathers and the price they paid for independence, but also to remember that we, too, must be true to the timeless principles of liberty as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Lastly, please take time to read this little article I’ve linked to here. It will not only help you to understand the Declaration of Independence, it may also help encourage you and your family to join the struggle in our own time to restore the liberty and self-governance that cost the best blood of of the 18th Century to bequeath to us.

As of July 3, the post had been restored and Facebook said it would launch an investigation into the incorrect action as well.

_________________________________________________________________

Facebook flags Declaration of Independence as 

“hate speech”

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/07/facebook-flags-declaration-of-independence-as-hate-speech; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

This highlights the authoritarianism of Facebook’s speech police. Facebook routinely flags posts that are critical of jihad terror and Sharia oppression as “hate speech”; in February 2017, referrals to Jihad Watch from Facebook dropped by 90% in a single day and have never recovered. The “hate speech” label is a tool of the powerful in order to silence the powerless, and the political and media elites have decided that opposition to jihad murder and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others falls into this category. This story, however, shows how absurd this whole enterprise really is.

“Facebook flags Declaration of Independence as hate speech,” by Victor Morton, Washington Times, July 4, 2018 (thanks to Noor):

In the week of America’s Independence Day, the algorithms of Facebook decided that the Declaration of Independence was hate speech.

The Liberty County Vindicator, a community newspaper between Houston and Beaumont, had been posting the whole declaration in small daily chunks for nine days on its Facebook page in the run-up to July 4. But the 10th excerpt was not posted Monday as scheduled, and the paper said it received an automated notice saying the post “goes against our standards on hate speech.”

Part of the standard notice, Vindicator managing editor Casey Stinnett wrote, included a warning that the newspaper could lose its Facebook account, on which it depends for much of its reach, if there were more violations.

The offending passage?

It was part of the document’s “Bill of Particulars” against Britain’s King George III: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

Mr. Stinnett dryly replied in an article about the rejection, “Perhaps had Thomas Jefferson written it as ‘Native Americans at a challenging stage of cultural development’ that would have been better. Unfortunately, Jefferson, like most British colonists of his day, did not hold an entirely friendly view of Native Americans.”

He noted that the newspaper wanted “a means of contacting Facebook for an explanation or a opportunity to appeal the post’s removal, but it does not appear the folks at Facebook want anyone contacting them. Or, at least, they do not make it easy.”

Within a day, Facebook had paid heed, allowing the posting and sending the Vindicator an apology.

“It looks like we made a mistake and removed something you posted on Facebook that didn’t go against our Community Standards. We want to apologize and let you know that we’ve restored your content and removed any blocks on your account related to this incorrect action,” Facebook wrote back, the Vindicator reported….

REJECTION OF BIBLE SEPARATION A SLIPPERY SLOPE

REJECTION OF BIBLE SEPARATION 

A SLIPPERY SLOPE

BY DAVID CLOUD 

(Friday Church News Notes, July 6, 2018, www.wayoflife.org, fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The rejection of Bible separation is a slippery slope. It begins in “small” ways with “a little leaven” and takes incremental steps, always moving farther away from the Bible’s teaching on separation. The rejection of separation begins softly and quietly. It is something that can be difficult to put one’s finger on, something not easy to identify. It is a change of mood as much as anything. The rejection of separation begins with a mere change in mood toward a more positive emphasis. It is characterized by a greater tolerance of error. It is a gradual loss of militant zeal in the defense of the faith. The first step in the rejection of separation can be identified not so much by what a preacher or a church or a Bible college does or says as by what it fails to do and what it neglects to say. Typically, those who are at the outset of rejecting separatism are offended when someone challenges them that this might be happening. They still want to be known as separatists because they are still associated with separatists or with those who want to be known as separatists. The following questions can help identify whether or not a church is going soft on separation: Do clear warnings go out from the pulpit? Are the people who sit under the church’s ministry well educated about influential compromisers and heretics? Does the church invite strong separatist preachers to blow the trumpet against compromise in a plain way? Does the church warn more about disunity and “fragmentation” than it does about compromise? Does the church dislike men who give plain public warnings about compromise? Does the church ever host a conference on separation and give clear warning on issues? Does the church publicly and unhesitatingly identify itself with forthright separatists? Does the church recommend literature on separation to its members? What is in the bookstore? Is separation something that was once preached, talked about, and practiced but now left out of the agenda? Is the church affiliating with those who are careless in their affiliations? Is the church warming up to “conservative evangelicals”? Does the church routinely recommend books by New Evangelicals? Is the church affiliating with those who use CCM and contemporary Southern Gospel and perhaps moving toward adopting this music itself? CCM is not just music; it is a philosophy of Christianity that is diametrically opposed to separatism and CCM and a separatist stance cannot and will not live in harmony for long.

"THANK GOD FOR ABORTION" FLOAT APPEARS IN NEW YORK CITY HOMOSEXUAL PRIDE PARADE

BELIEF THAT GOD BLESSES KILLING OF THE UNBORN, FORNICATION, "NON-BINARY" GENDER IDENTITY

"THANK GOD FOR ABORTION" FLOAT APPEARS IN NEW YORK CITY HOMOSEXUAL 

PRIDE PARADE

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: https://christiannews.net/2018/07/04/thank-god-for-abortion-float-appears-in-new-york-city-homosexual-pride-parade/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

NEW YORK — A profanity-laced video posted to social media on Monday features an interview with the woman behind the “Thank God for abortion” float that appeared at the NYC Pride Parade on June 24. The woman, who claims that she was “blessed” to have two abortions, says that she is trying to push back against the Christian beliefs that stand against both homosexuality and abortion, and characterized the float as a “never before seen spectacle of autonomy and conviction.”

“The tie between GLQTQ and people seeking abortion rights is very much both real and unspoken—queer people need abortion access too! And the same Christian core beliefs that fuel homophobia are at the seat of the anti-abortion movement. The #TGFAPrideFloat brings that all together and together is where we need to be,” a GoFundMe page for the float reads. The fundraising effort exceeded its goal of $6,000.

Viva Ruiz states that she created the float because she wanted to celebrate autonomy, as she believes people have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies. One photo on the “Thank God for abortion” website shows Ruiz standing in front of a Ten Commandments monument wearing a “Thank God for abortion” shirt.

“[A]utonomy is where we meet as a queer community. That’s what it’s about—I have a right to do what I want with this body,” she said in the video. “This is a march in independence from a police state; a break from subjugation. That’s where we meet. Physical personhood. Autonomy.”

“And that’s where the joy comes in. We celebrate our right,” Ruiz continued. “I celebrate your right to have 20 abortions. I’ll throw you a party. Or zero. It’s a celebration.”

The large black float featured the “Thank God for abortion” motto written across the side and back, and those aboard danced as they wore shirts that read “legal,” “safe,” “free.” Ruiz wore a golden spray on her head that spelled out the word abortion. Some participants also held banners that read “Thank God for abortion.”

“There’s a release, I think, that happens with the project—to see it out in the open, to see it joyfully claimed, and to have God in it,” Ruiz said.

The video, shared to social media by The Root on Monday, has already received 74,000 views and has generated mixed response. View it in full here. Warning: profanity.

One commenter remarked, “God bless you brave and intelligent ladies. Yes, it’s your body and your baby. You all have the right to do what’s best for you. Nobody else has the right to tell you what to do with your body. … We don’t need back alley abortions to be the thing again. These so-called evangelical Christians aren’t Christians. They’re hateful, greedy and lying CINO’s. Christians in name only.”

“Pregnant people are people, and they have the rights to end parasitic relationships should they wish to. I mind my uterus, and everyone especially those without uteruses, should mind their own business,” another stated.

A third mourned, “The celebration of a murdered child. Could there be anything much more sad? Save a whale, save a tree, save a titmouse. But please blend up your unborn child for the dumpster. So heartbreaking.”

“This is blasphemy. This is pure evil. If good people continue to be silent and not call it what it is, then evil will continue. God help us, please,” another lamented.

As previously reported, Scripture teaches that men and women are to glorify God with their bodies, and no longer live in autonomy unto themselves, but to give their all to Him.

2 Corinthians 5:15 reads, “He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them and rose again.”

1 Corinthians 6:20 also states, “For ye are bought with a price: therefore, glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.”

Romans 6:13 and 19 instruct, “Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. … [F]or as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.”

POLISH LAWMAKER: "WE WILL NOT RECEIVE EVEN ONE MUSLIM....THIS IS WHY POLAND IS SO SAFE"

POLISH LAWMAKER: 

"WE WILL NOT RECEIVE EVEN ONE MUSLIM....

THIS IS WHY POLAND IS SO SAFE" 

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/07/polish-lawmaker-we-will-not-receive-even-one-muslimthis-is-why-poland-is-so-safe; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

“There are a billion people in Africa. In the European Union, we have what, 500 million? How many Africans can we take? Don’t misunderstand me, we want to help the people who are suffering, but we need to help them where they are, at home. It’s not about being racist, nationalist — it’s about adopting a logical, rational system.”

Indeed. But he will be excoriated as a racist nationalist anyway. It’s what the Left does.

“EXCLUSIVE: Polish Lawmaker Speaks Out After Cathy Newman’s Latest Car Crash Interview on Illegal Migration,” by Jack Montgomery, Breitbart, July 3, 2018 (thanks to David):

Polish lawmaker Dominik Tarczyński has stuck to his guns following a frank interview on the migrant crisis with Cathy Newman, insisting his government will not take a single illegal migrant because that is what his party promised before the elections.

The Channel 4 presenter, who became infamous online following her viral interviewwith Canadian scholar Jordan Peterson, had demanded to know how many “refugees” Poland had taken, to which the Law and Justice Party (PiS) politician replied: “Zero.”

“And you’re proud of that?” Newman demanded.

“If you are asking me about Muslim illegal immigrants, none, not even one, will come to Poland,” Tarczyński repeated.

“We took over two million Ukrainians — who are working, who are peaceful — in Poland. We will not receive even one Muslim, because this is what we promised… this is why our government was elected; this is why Poland is so safe, this is why we have not had even one terror attack,” he said.

“We can be called ‘populists’, ‘nationalists’, ‘racists’, I don’t care — I care about my family, and about my country.”

Breitbart London contacted the Polish lawmaker for his thoughts on the explosive interview, asking if he still felt confident that it was Poland’s strategy on the migrant crisis which had spared his country from the radical Islamic terror attacks which have plagued countries such as Germany, Sweden, and Spain.

Mr Tarczyński insisted that “strategy” did not come into it and that the Law and Justice government’s decision to refuse migrants from the Middle East and North Africa came down to something much more simple.

“It hasn’t been about strategy for us, but simply keeping our promises to the Polish people,” he explained.

“We promised to say no to illegal immigrants in Poland before the elections in 2015, and we have kept our promises to the voters who elected us because that’s what they expected,” he said.

“It’s incredible that these people in the European media and the European Commission — who are unelected, by the way — can’t understand this. We made a promise to the people, and we have a democratic responsibility to keep it.”

Mr Tarczyński described how he had visited genuine refugees in the Lebanese camps neighbouring Syria several times — “unlike many of Poland’s critics” — and that they made it clear to them that genuinely needy refugees simply could not afford to pay people-smugglers to make the long journey through the Near East and South-Eastern Europe to the welfare states of North-West Europe.

He added that, as the migrant crisis expanded to take in sub-Saharan Africans as well as the Middle-Easterners, open borders were simply not a viable solution to the problem.

“There are a billion people in Africa,” he said matter of factly. “In the European Union, we have what, 500 million? How many Africans can we take?” he asked.

“Don’t misunderstand me, we want to help the people who are suffering, but we need to help them where they are, at home. It’s not about being racist, nationalist — it’s about adopting a logical, rational system….

_______________________________________________________

Polish Official: “We Will Not Receive Even One Muslim” in Poland

BY SELWYN DUKE

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/29454-polish-official-we-will-not-receive-even-one-muslim-in-poland; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

A sea change is occurring in Europe — and the continent may never be the same again. Whereas just some years ago immigration would not be questioned, the ice is now beyond broken: European nations are increasingly rebelling against globalist, culture-rending European Union migration policies. The latest example is a Polish official who, responding to an attempt at politically correct shaming, unabashedly told a British television host, “We will not receive even one Muslim, because this is what we promised.... This is why our government was elected, this is why Poland is so safe, this is why we have not had even one terror attack.”

Breitbart reports:

Polish lawmaker Dominik Tarczyński has stuck to his guns following a frank interview on the migrant crisis with Cathy Newman, insisting his government will not take a single illegal migrant because that is what his party promised before the elections.

The Channel 4 presenter, who became infamous online following her viral interview with Canadian scholar Jordan Peterson, had demanded to know how many “refugees” Poland had taken, to which the Law and Justice Party (PiS) politician replied: “Zero.”

“And you’re proud of that?” Newman demanded.

“If you are asking me about Muslim illegal immigrants, none, not even one, will come to Poland,” Tarczyński repeated.

“We took over two million Ukrainians — who are working, who are peaceful — in Poland. We will not receive even one Muslim, because this is what we promised… this is why our government was elected; this is why Poland is so safe, this is why we have not had even one terror attack,” he said.

“We can be called ‘populists’, ‘nationalists’, ‘racists’, I don’t care — I care about my family, and about my country” [video below].

There are multiple reasons — some reflecting idealism, others what I’ll call “anti-Westernism” — why many Westerners have a lust affair with the invasion known as (im)migration. First, the desire to preserve the EU and, related to this, the belief that with no nations there’ll be no wars, has birthed an effort to dissolve national cohesion via population mixing. For example, if the French reach a point where many aren’t “French” and don’t see such status as important, there’ll be little desire to preserve French sovereignty.

Second and related to the above (there can’t be successful statist EU schemes without empowering statists), the Left long ago realized it can win elections by importing voters. In the United States, 85 to 90 percent of our immigrants hail from the Third World, and 70 to 90 percent of them vote Democrat upon naturalization. In Europe, the phenomenon is the same, which is why Britain’s leftist Labour Party panders to Islamists.

Then there’s immigration, the dogma that immigration is always good, always necessary, and must be the one constant in an ever-changing universe of policy. The notion was long ago disgorged by pseudo-elites and, as ideas will, it took on a life of its own. Enough citizens in many Western countries believe it so that instead of reflexively recoiling at anti-Western, open-borders, immigration politicians, they support them, often enticed by other policies (e.g., offering handouts). Some years ago I ran into a woman who fit this mold; though she was a rank-and-file Republican, she told me with a straight face that a million immigrants annually into the United States weren’t enough.

Yet another idea has now taken on a life of its own: A nationalist, pro-European-culture wave is sweeping Europe. Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán has led this charge, warning of globalist forces aiming to destroy Christian civilization and saying unabashedly last month, “We do not want to be mixed with others[;] we are fine the way we are now.”

Poland’s Law and Justice Party followed this lead. Among other things, Prime Minister Beata Szydło responded last year to Europe’s importation of a jihadist threat by issuing the following call to the continent: “Rise from your knees and from your lethargy or you will be crying over your children every day.” She also stated, “It needs to be said clearly and directly: This [migration scheme] is an attack on Europe, on our culture, on our traditions.”

In the same vein, pro-Western forces have taken power in Italy with its Five Star Movement/Lega government and in Austria with its Austrian People’s Party/Freedom Party of Austria ruling coalition. The latter’s anti-invasion chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, recently targeted “political Islam” by closing mosques and expelling imams. And Italian interior minister Matteo Salvini said last month in reference to his government’s pledge to deport up to 500,000 migrants, “get ready to pack your bags.”

The point is that critical mass might have been reached. The fire of European cultural survival is spreading, and with each passing day increasing numbers of the continents’ natives are willing to stand up and say that they will no longer serve their civilization-destroying EU would-be masters. Oh, immigration and the hate-speech laws helping to enforce it still hold the reins, but they no longer reign supreme.

As for Poland’s Tarczyński, he also pointed out that the genuinely needy migrants cannot even make it to the West. He told Breitbart that he visited Lebanese refugee camps and was informed that these hapless people simply can’t afford to pay smugglers to ferry them all the way to Europe.

This accords, mind you, with the testimonial of Dr. Mudar Zahran, a Jordanian Opposition Coalition leader currently living as an asylee in Britain. He said in a 2015 interview that Syrians in their nation’s “disaster areas cannot ... leave.” And this explains Hungarian bishop Laszlo Kiss-Rigo’s 2015 observation that the Muslim migrants do not deserve assistance because they “have money” (a phenomenon we see in the United States as well).

Of course, Europe isn’t yet at the Japanese’s point. Approximately 20 years ago, their island nation expelled a large number of illegal migrants and stated (I’m paraphrasing), “Japan is for Japanese. Others are welcome to come and visit, but they’re expected to return home.” This raises the exit questions: Are the Japanese “racist”? Why isn’t there a push to diversify them into demographic destruction?

And why was such a statement from the Japanese barely noticed by immigrationists, when far less from pro-Western leaders brings the harshest condemnation?

HUNGARY'S FOREIGN MINISTER CHIDES "UNBALANCED, ONE-SIDED" BBC ANCHOR FOR PRO-EUROPEAN UNION, PRO-MIGRATION RANT

HUNGARY'S FOREIGN MINISTER CHIDES "UNBALANCED, ONE-SIDED" BBC ANCHOR FOR PRO-EUROPEAN UNION, PRO-MIGRATION RANT

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/07/video-hungarys-foreign-minister-chides-unbalanced-one-sided-bbc-anchor-for-pro-eu-pro-migration-rant; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Emily Maitlis’ disgraceful performance here is just one manifestation of the indefatigable determination of the political and media elites to destroy the very concept of the nation state, as well as the concept of ethnicity, in their pursuit of a utopian vision of a socialist internationalist global order that will obviate the need for wars, as every place will be pretty much like every other place, and people will be pretty much the same everywhere. In reality, however, they are bringing the virtual certainty of chaos and civil war to Europe, and to North America as well, unless they’re stopped. Will Maitlis be spared by the jihadis who will enter the UK among peaceful migrants? Unlikely.

“Hungarian Minister Chides ‘Unbalanced, One-sided’ BBC Anchor for Pro-EU, Pro-Migration Rant,” by Jack Montgomery, Breitbart, June 30, 2018 (thanks to the Geller Report):

Hungarian foreign minister Péter Szijjártó had to chide BBC anchor Emily Maitlis for “unbalanced, one-sided” journalism after she lost her temper and launched into a rant about the EU standing for “tolerance, diversity, and human rights”.

Speaking to Szijjártó on the publicly-funded broadcaster’s flagship BBC Newsnightprogramme, Maitlis took umbrage with the Hungarian statesman’s claim that “the current migration policy of the European Union can be very easily translated as an invitation” to illegal migrants.

“On World Refugee Day this week, you passed a new law which makes it illegal to help migrants. It criminalises helping undocumented immigrants, and that includes asylum seekers. Why would you do that?” she asked.

Szijjártó attempted to correct the presenter, saying that the anti-illegal immigration package — dubbed ‘Stop Soros’ — was aimed only at those organisations which “help people to ask for asylum even if they have no legal basis for that… and promoting [immigration] opportunities with no legal basis”.

Maitlis appeared not to take heed of Szijjártó’s explanation, however, jabbing her finger at the foreign minister and doubling down on her previous claims.

“You will be making it illegal to help refugees fill in form,” she alleged, leaning forward aggressively.

“You will make it punishable by jail to organise or distribute information that could help migrants.

“Now, you accept that this legislation flouts not only human rights, but it also breaks an international treaty you have signed,” she asserted, laughing incredulously.

“The content of the law is not what you have listed,” replied the Hungarian, perplexed.

“The content of the law is that if you promote illegal possibilities to come to Hungary–” he began to explain, before Maitlis interrupted him.

“No, I want to talk about this question of ‘illegal’, right, because anyone who lands in your country who calls themself an asylum seeker has the right to have their papers and their situation examined,” she insisted.

Szijjártó attempted to explain that Hungary, which lies in Central Europe, is surrounded by peaceful countries, and that there is “no point of reference in any piece of international regulations why you should be allowed or helped or assisted to violate the border between two peaceful countries”.

Maitlis did not address this point, but turned openly scornful, sneering: “You do know you don’t have an immigrant problem in Hungary? You do know that your own official data says you have 3,600 asylum seekers in a country of ten million? You do know that there were 300 asylum claims only this year? You don’t have an immigrant problem in your country!”

Szijjártó explained that illegal migration into Hungary — which was running at 3,000 a day at the height of the migrant crisis, as Maitlis herself reported at the time — has only been brought under control because of the tough stance adopted by the Hungarian government, and that the country remains on the frontline as the situation in the Balkans looks set to boil over again….

ROBERT SPENCER: INDEPENDENCE DAY~WHY WE FIGHT

INDEPENDENCE DAY~WHY WE FIGHT

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/07/independence-day-why-we-fight-3; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Another Independence Day is upon us. Each one presents to us a challenge: will we also fight for freedom and independence, or give them up? The struggle for freedom has not changed, and will never change. It is the eternal struggle over whether human beings will live free, or willingly submit to slavery.

All over the world today, slaves are seeking slavery. Slaves everywhere are defending and even glorifying slavery. As those who are standing against tyranny continue to be excoriated as enemies of the people, demonized, and marginalized, avoiding slavery will be harder than ever. People everywhere defend oppressors and carry water for bullies and tyrants, and think all the while that they’re serving the cause of freedom.

In reality, you are either fighting for one thing, or the other. If you’re not working to advance the cause of freedom, you’re working to advance the cause of slavery. The cause of slavery has so very many advocates today. Be an advocate for freedom — for what we must defend, not what we must fight against:

1. Governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

What we must defend:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” — Declaration of Independence

What we must defend it against:

Non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.” — Syed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of the Pakistani political party Jamaat-e-Islami

2. Equality of rights before the law.

What we must defend:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” — Declaration of Independence

What we must defend it against:

“The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man. The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid for a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth that of a Muslim.” — Reliance of the Traveller, a classic manual of Islamic sacred law (o4.9)

“Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution. … Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash. … Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain…Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed. … Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them.” — Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

3. Freedom of speech

What we must defend:

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” — First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

What we must defend it against:

“In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film ‘Fitna’, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.” — Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation

“Pakistan will ask the European Union countries to amend laws regarding freedom of expression in order to prevent offensive incidents such as the printing of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and the production of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch legislator…” — Daily Times of Pakistan

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” — Barack Hussein Obama

“We also understand that, for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy. So we are focused on…us[ing] some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.” — Hillary Clinton

“We are going to have the filmmaker arrested.” — Hillary Clinton, referring to the filmmaker whose YouTube video about Muhammad she blamed for the Benghazi jihad massacre

4. Freedom of religion, and non-establishment of religion

What we must defend:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” — First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

What we must defend it against:

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” — Hamas-linked CAIR co-founder and longtime board chairman Omar Ahmad (he denies saying it, but the original reporter stands by her story)

“I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.” — Hamas-linked CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper

The Muslim Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” — Mohamed Akram, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America”

Never surrender. Never submit. Never be silenced. Freedom and independence forever.