Warning: Constant WPCF7_VALIDATE_CONFIGURATION already defined in /home2/ltg37jq5/public_html/wp-config.php on line 92 Search Results geert wilders « Limits to Growth
The Washington Post cranks out a lot of objectionable ideas, but its Sunday front page story portraying the sharia murder of two young Scandinavian women as an opportunity for the “far right” went way too far on so many levels, beginning with accuracy and fairness.
Let’s consider. For years, persons concerned about the mass immigration of hostile muslims have pointed out that the “religion” of Islam is more correctly understood as an all-encompassing political system. Dutch political leader Geert Wilders lives under 24/7 security because jihadist thugs in Europe have decided he needs to be murdered due to his resistance to the ideology. When Wilders gave a 2015 speech in Garland, Texas, he had a SWAT team of eight well armed men guarding him.
GEERT WILDERS: Islam as an ideology does not allow freedom. Look at almost all the countries in the world where Islam is dominant — you see a total lack of civil society, of rule of law, of freedom for journalists, women, Christians, or even somebody who wants to leave Islam, an apostate.
You are allowed to leave Christianity or Judaism and become an atheist or the follower of another religion; you are not allowed to leave fascism, you are not allowed to leave Communism. And still today in Holland, in Germany, in the Arab world, the penalty is death if you want to leave Islam.
And let’s not forget the extreme violence, the murders where muslims kill nonbelievers because the koran says to do so in over 100 verses. There are so many examples — like the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3000.
It was so shocking that America pledged never to forget.
But the Washington Post has forgotten that Islam is a historic opponent of the West, and the paper should not condemn those of us who do remember and name the enemies of free people.
Perhaps if the press were not so politically correct in protecting the reputation of hostile Islam, the two young women would have thought twice about a hiking trip in Morocco (99 percent muslim). The media adoration of diversity uber alles does not stand up under scrutiny.
Below, Norwegian Maren Ueland (left) and Dane Louisa Vesterager Jespersen were murdered in Morocco by jihadists.
In a crime apparently intended to impress the Islamic State, two Scandinavian women were brutally slain in Morocco. The killings were seized on by the far right to attack Islam.
MARRAKESH, Morocco — Their screams must have carried for miles in the thin air of the Atlas Mountains, anguished sounds of a terrorist attack that no one was there to hear, see or stop.
Maren Ueland, 28, and Louisa Jespersen, 24, Scandinavian students who revered the outdoors, were descending North Africa’s highest peak in December when they encountered four men searching for Westerners to kill.
The men waited until after nightfall, then approached the women’s tent with knives and misplaced hopes of becoming Islamist heroes. They attacked Ueland, a Norwegian, and her Danish friend, Jespersen, in their sleeping bags, stabbed them until their bodies went limp and severed their heads in a ghastly sequence recorded on a cellphone.
The December 2018 attack, like so many in this age of mass killings and social media, was an act of senseless and performative violence. The killers, poor and uneducated, became absorbed in a violent Islamist universe they saw on the screens of their cellphones, then sought their own place in it. Their overriding aim was to impress the Islamic State, earn the status of soldiers in its apocalyptic struggle and see their own recording distributed across the group’s propaganda platforms.
Reality didn’t follow that script. The targeting of defenseless women and the abysmal quality of the recording managed to violate the standards of a terrorist group not known for having any. The Islamic State did not distribute the video, refused to acknowledge the attack and to this day has ignored the Moroccans’ pledges of loyalty.
The video went viral nonetheless. An attack that had gone unheard and unseen ended up being viewed millions of times by Islamic State supporters who didn’t share the group’s selectivity, by dark-Web bottom dwellers devoted to gore and by the morbidly curious.
The most alarming audience, however, was one that the attackers had not envisioned. Within days, the one-minute, 16-second recording spread rapidly across networks associated with the far-right and white-nationalist movements. Extremists posted gruesome scenes of the women’s deaths on Facebook, Twitter and other platforms alongside condemnations of Islam and calls for a civilizational clash.
“Look at this video of the one girl being decapitated alive,” wrote a far-right figure in Norway as he posted a link to his Twitter account. “It’s God awakening us Germanic men to action. It’s enough now. It’s enough.”
When officials in Norway and Denmark pleaded with the public to stop sharing the video, that effort was denounced by far-right groups as a betrayal of religion and race — censorship of content that revealed the true nature of Islam.
For families of the victims, the aftermath compounded the pain. Their mothers were inundated with messages on Facebook. Many were expressions of condolences, but some were gestures of astonishing cruelty, saying their daughters deserved to die and attaching links to the video of their slaughter.
The attack in Morocco was not of the same magnitude as the mass shooting that killed 51 people at mosques in New Zealand three months later, or the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka five weeks after that, when more than 200 people attending church services were killed. But all are part of a pattern of violence and viral incitement in which the extremes of intolerance react to and further radicalize one another online.
In the Moroccan case, a video that was created to strike a blow for Islamism was almost immediately repurposed and weaponized by those who consider the religion an existential threat to the ethnic and cultural identity of Northern Europe.
The victims were caught between warring ideologies that they had rejected in life. In the days after the attack, far-right activists scoured the women’s social media accounts and mocked them for their tolerant views.
“It is obvious to point out the naivete of the two deceased, but they are, as all, a product of their upbringing,” said an entry on Uriasposten, a Danish, anti-Islamic website. “Perhaps the eternal struggle against ‘prejudice’ has unpleasant side effects.”
This account of the attack in Morocco and its aftermath online is based on Moroccan court records including statements from the suspects; interviews with officials in Morocco, Norway, Denmark and the United States; and friends and relatives of the victims and of the suspects in their deaths. (Continues)
It’s curious to learn that some Somali muslims are not immersed in Koran study as part of their upbringing. But immigrant to Sweden Mona Walter said she had never read Islam’s holy book at home, which is 99.8 percent Islamic and is run according to sharia principles.
When Mona arrived in Sweden as a refugee at age 19, she “discovered” the truth about Islam from reading its book, that it is a religion of violence and repression. That knowledge put her on a spiritual and political journey which Dale Hurd documented several years ago in a CBN story:
Now she has converted to Christianity and is warning her new country about the dangers of her previous faith, which can be better understood as a wholistic political system, one not friendly to democratic rights and values.
Here’s a recent report on Mona and her efforts to wake up Swedes from their apparent belief that Diversity is the highest good. It isn’t, particularly when muslim immigration is concerned.
Mona Walter is a Somali woman who came to Sweden in the 90’s. In Somalia, she had never been religious, but in Sweden she was more or less forced to go to the mosque and wear a hijab.
After a couple of years she rebelled, left Islam and became an atheist. Eventually she came to believe in Jesus and converted to Christianity.
“For many years I have tried to get the Swedes to understand what the Muslim goal is – to take over your country. The first thing they will do is demand sharia courts, just like in the UK”, she says.
But the mainstream media does not want to listen to Mona Walter. They call her controversial and most Swedes turn away from her message, which they perceive as too frightening, according to the news blog Ingrid and Maria.
“Swedes are so convinced that Swedish laws will always apply in their country. But ask any Englishman if he 30 years ago would have believed that Britain would have legal sharia courts in 2019. No one would have thought it possible.”
“If Sweden recognises Sharia courts the Muslims will have new demands, like permission to rule their own enclaves without interference from the Swedish society. The end goal is for Sharia to rule all of Sweden.”
[. . .]
But no one seems scared by the fact that Sweden now have approximately one million Muslims in the country, of which many have infiltrated the political parties to promote their own interests. The question is when Muslims will form their own party in Sweden.
In Belgium the Islam Party has been very successful over the last few years, with political goals like making the country a “100 percent Islamic state” and introducing Sharia law. They say Belgium will have a Muslim majority in only 12 years.
“The only solution for Sweden is to start a mass repatriation of people who think everything here is “haram”, that don’t want to become a part of society and refuse to assimilate.”
“If we don’t do that, Islam will take over in 50 years. The demography is very clear – in 100 years it’s game over”, Mona concludes.
It’s been obvious for a long time to any astute observer that liberals are lecturing complainers, while conservatives seek to convince through logical arguments. Interestingly, a scientific analysis now agrees, according to a Dutch investigation published recently.
New study shows liberal politicians use more complex language than cultural conservatives
Some politicians use complex language, for instance long sentences with difficult words, while others communicate clearly and to the point. Can this difference be explained by the political ideology to which they subscribe? Yes, says a new study by researchers from the University of Amsterdam (UvA), who analysed over 380,000 speeches by politicians in several European countries between 1946-2017. The team’s results reveal that culturally liberal politicians use more complex language than their conservative counterparts. The results were published on 6 February in the journal PloS One.
The research was carried out by Martijn Schoonvelde (University College Dublin) and UvA researchers Anna Brosius, Gijs Schumacher and Bert Bakker.
The researchers found that politicians who hold culturally liberal views on topics such as immigration, the EU, abortion and euthanasia use more complex language than right-wing politicians. ‘What is striking is that we came across the same results across different countries, different speeches and different types of politicians’, says Schoonvelde. ‘For instance, our scores show that former culturally liberal British Prime Minister Gordon Brown delivered speeches that were markedly more complex than his successor, the culturally conservative David Cameron. We saw the same thing in Spain, where the language used by liberal Prime Minister José Zapatero was much more complex than that of his successor, the conservative Mariano Rajoy. There are also notable differences between countries. For example, the culturally liberal German politician Joschka Fischer and British liberal Nick Clegg score much higher for the complexity of their language use than the conservative Dutch politician Geert Wilders or his Swedish counterpart Jimmie Åkesson.’
Political dimensions
‘European politics are generally characterised by political competition along two dimensions: a sociocultural conservative-liberal dimension and an economic left-right dimension’, explains Brosius. ‘The former typically includes issues like European integration, immigration and the environment, and is the dimension in which we distinguish between cultural-left and cultural-right.’ Continue reading this article
A couple weeks backs he gave a brief but jam-packed talk about the history of Islam, focusing on three important lessons therein, namely (one) there has never been a lasting alliance between a Muslim state and a non‑Muslim one; (two) there has never been a Western-style secular republic that was based on Islamic principles; (three) there’s never been a shortage of non‑Muslims who are willing to help the jihad.
Along the way, we learn about where Saudi Arabia got its name and how a Minneapolis charter school that received taxpayer funds was named for a Muslim conqueror of Spain.
Below, Islam was spread by the sword, giving the political system quite a bit of territory today.
Spencer gave his speech at the recent Restoration Weekend sponsored by the David Horowitz organization:
Thank you very much, and yes indeed, The History of Jihad is the first book that chronicles the entirety of the phenomenon of jihad for 1,400 years. Not just the jihad against Europe, although that’s very much a part of the book, but also the jihad against India and the jihad elsewhere, also tying in the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is itself a jihad, and of course, the people who struck us on 9/11 were motivated by the exact same ideology that has motivated the jihad conquests of the distant past and is still with us very much today. Of course, one of the reasons why anybody is interested in reading history or studying history is because of the old adage “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” More to the point, really, is that if you do not learn from your mistakes, you keep making the same mistakes again and again and again. That’s U.S. foreign policy today, because of, in large part, a lack of awareness and understanding of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat and of a complete lack of knowledge of the history of jihad. So I thought this morning very briefly I’d give you three lessons from history that could have a very great impact on foreign policy today in the United States, were there to be sanity in the State Department, which, of course, I know is at a premium.
Now, the first one is that nowhere in history, and this is something to bear in mind when you’re thinking about the case of Jamal Khashoggi, who is, of course, the sainted and martyred journalist who was killed by the Saudis. He was actually a pro-Al Qaeda Muslim Brotherhood operative who was killed by the Saudis, so there are no good guys in that story. But in light of it, it is important to remember that when you look through and examine and study the history of Islam for 1,400 years, there has never been a lasting alliance between a Muslim state and a non‑Muslim state. It would be nice if there had been. There were some sort-term alliances of convenience, but that’s another problem as well. Continue reading this article
The left’s censorship is a worsening problem these days, since the liberal overlords of Silicon Valley and beyond demand that the little people to conform to their globalist open-borders worldview. Liberal censors insist, for one thing, that their foolishly idealized view of diversity be obeyed as gospel, even when the facts clearly indicate otherwise.
As a result of the harassment, critics of sharia and its parent ideology political islam have gotten a lot of trouble. Not only are their lives in danger because of murderous jihadists — Dutch freedom fight Geert Wilders has required 24/7 security for years — but critics who cite chapter and verse of the koran’s commands for violence against infidels often have their sources of financial support shut down.
Arguably top on that list is author Robert Spencer who has been informing the free world about the threat of aggressive sharia for years through his many books and website JihadWatch.org.
Lurking in the background and pulling strings is the fake hate spotter the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) that has parlayed bogus accusations against honorable people into a multi-million-dollar empire. These days, the left is working to impoverish conservatives by cutting off normal means of making donations such as Paypal.
Robert Spencer described his struggles in a recent video that was derived from an article in PJ Media:
First Alex Jones was banned by nearly all the social media giants. Then Twitter banned Gavin McInnes. Then Facebook blocked Dennis Prager’s Prager University videos, although it later backtracked and apologized. Then Patreon and GoFundMe banned me, and make no mistake: you may dislike Jones, McInnes, Prager, and me, but this isn’t over. The Left is moving quickly now to silence all dissent, and there is no telling who could be next. It could be you.
Patreon started the ball rolling when they deleted the account I had started to raise funds to renovate an old TV studio, which I had hoped to use for Jihad Watch videos. Patreon gave me no explanation for banning me other than that MasterCard had demanded that they do so, and the only explanation from MasterCard was published in Breitbart News:
A Mastercard spokesperson responded to a Breitbart News request for comment with the following statement. “As part of our normal process, we share information about websites that may have illegal content with the acquirer — or merchant’s bank — that connects them to our network to accept card payments. The acquirer would then review the site for compliance with legal requirements and our standards. They would then determine what action to take. In this case, the acquirer advised us that they decided to terminate acceptance.”
What “illegal content”?
Which website — Patreon or Jihad Watch? All I had at Patreon was a video stating my hopes to rebuild the studio, and a notice about an upcoming livestream. At Jihad Watch, all we have are news articles, almost all from mainstream news sources, with commentary. To what “illegal content” is MasterCard referring?
It is not (yet) illegal in the United States to criticize Islam and to oppose jihad mass murder and the Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others. It is, however, illegal to do so under Sharia. Is MasterCard operating according to Sharia blasphemy laws now?
Shortly after that, I started a GoFundMe page to make up for the loss of Patreon. But after a few days, GoFundMe canceled my account and refunded all the donations. GoFundMe sent me this explanation:
It seems you’re using WePay [GoFundMe’s service to pay those who receive donations] for one or more of the activities prohibited by our Terms of Service …
WePay is unable to process payments related to Hate, violence, racial intolerance, terrorism, the financial exploitation of a crime, or items or activities that encourage, promote, facilitate, or instruct others regarding the same.
There was, of course, no further explanation.
It’s very clear what’s going on. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) claims that I am a “hate group leader,” and that’s that: when the SPLC says “jump,” Patreon and MasterCard say “how high?”
Indeed, the SPLC’s infallibility in such matters is taken for granted by all the social media giants as well. This is despite the SPLC’s massive admission of error in the Maajid Nawaz case, in which they paid a $3.3 million settlement to a Muslim reformer they accused of being an “anti-Muslim extremist” (which is what they call me). The SPLC’s far-Left political agenda, in lumping legitimate groups in with the likes of the KKK and neo-Nazis in order to discredit and destroy them, is also obvious.
But GoFundMe, like Patreon and MasterCard, allowed me no appeal, no discussion, no questioning of the SPLC’s fiat.
And of course, it isn’t just the SPLC. It is now taken for granted by large segments of the American population, and by innumerable people elsewhere, that to oppose jihad mass murder of innocent civilians and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others is “hate” — or as GoFundMe puts it, “Hate” with a capital “H.”
I remember how flabbergasted I was in 2003 when I was on MSNBC with Keith Olbermann and Ibrahim Hooper of Hamas-linked CAIR, and Hooper called me a “hatemonger.” I thought, “It’s ‘hate’ to oppose jihad terror? That will never fly.”
But it has. And the outcome will be that more and more people will be afraid to oppose jihad terror and Sharia oppression for fear of incurring these charges, and this discrimination and libel.
I’m going to be doing what I can to challenge GoFundMe’s uncritical acceptance of the SPLC’s smear of me, and the likely same uncritical acceptance by MasterCard/Patreon. But the SPLC has hundreds of millions of dollars and I don’t. And many who don’t realize how vulnerable they are will applaud what is happening to me because they don’t realize or believe how easily the same tactics can and will be turned on them. But they will be.
This is getting very serious. It won’t stop with me. After my adventures with Patreon and GoFundMe, MasterCard and Visa stopped processing donations for the David Horowitz Freedom Center, with which I am affiliated, although they backtracked after an outcry.
Despite this small victory, it is clear that the Left is moving quickly to silence all dissenting voices in the run-up to the 2018 elections. The freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society, and it is rapidly being destroyed in the United States. Not only are Horowitz, and me, and Jones, and Prager, and McInnes being silenced — the pressure on the credit card companies shows that the Left is now trying to make sure that we cannot make a living, and will be quite literally destroyed, personally as well as professionally.
There will be more victims. This totalitarian action needs to be stopped quickly, or it will destroy all who are not doctrinaire Leftists — and, without any doubt, the United States as a free society.
How long did the Washington Post have to search in Europe to find a killer jihadist with a whitebread name like Benjamin Herman? The Sunday paper had a lengthy piece about the problem of Islamic radicalization in European prisons, which is a worthy topic, but it neglects to remind the reader about how and when the jihad problem arrived. Charles Martel defeated an earlier Islamic invasion in 732 at Tours in France, but less wise European leaders, e.g. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have allowed millions of the historic enemy to take up residence in Western Civilization’s homeland via immigration in the last several decades.
The Washington Post’s Sunday front page pictured a Frankfurt prison, where jihadists are not jailed separately, but are free to mix with the other prisoners and recruit for Islam.
The Washington Post story was reprinted in the military publication Stars & Stripes:
The Post’s Souad Mekhennet visited four prisons in Belgium and Germany to see how officials are trying to stop Islamic State fighters returned from Syria and Iraq from recruiting fellow inmates.
BRUSSELS — A few months before his killing rampage, convicted robber and prison inmate Benjamin Herman had a jailhouse conversion of a sort. A white suburban teen and a nominal Catholic when he was first incarcerated, he emerged in late May as an avowed Islamist who would murder three people within hours of gaining freedom on a work-release program.
Herman fatally stabbed two female police officers during his hour-long attack in the Belgian city of Liege, and then used one of their pistols to kill a passing motorist. Shouting “Allahu akbar,” he seized a hostage and wounded two more officers before being shot dead in a gun battle with police.
Afterward, as the facts about the killings came to light, one biographical detail stood out: Herman, a product of Belgium’s French-speaking middle class, had come under the sway of a group of radical Islamist inmates in prison.
In a country that has acted aggressively to put extremists behind bars as a means of preventing terrorism, the attack stoked fears that Belgium’s policy could be having the opposite effect, creating hotbeds of radicalism and sprouting new generations of would-be terrorists.
“Never have so many people been arrested on charges related to terrorism, and never have we seen so many of these guys in prison together,” said Thomas Renard, a Belgian terrorism expert and researcher at the Egmont Royal Institute for International Relations in Brussels. “In bringing them together, we are facilitating their ability to recruit. And that is something that will stay with us for a long time.”
Across Europe, prisons are the latest battleground in the evolving fight against Islamist-inspired terrorism. Beginning five years ago, Western countries saw thousands of their citizens migrate to Iraq and Syria to join the Islamic State or other Islamist groups. Since 2016, hundreds have returned, but the mood at home has changed. Traumatized by terrorist attacks and a swelling refugee crisis, European countries since 2016 have taken a hard line on returnees, enacting tough laws that require criminal charges and incarceration for anyone who traveled to the Middle East or sought to support Islamists groups abroad. Until 2016, many returnees were simply allowed to go home if there was no proof they had been fighters or involved in terrorist acts.
Britain’s recent arrest of freedom fighter Tommy Robinson was a reminder of President Reagan’s warning that “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”
Robinson was acting as a citizen journalist to cover a muslim gang-rape trial when police arrested him for “breach of the peace”, but clearly the aim of the government was to shut down the speech of anyone who disagrees with Britain’s slavish cowering to Islam. He was quickly whisked away to a 13-month jail sentence which could be dangerous since Britain’s jails have no shortage of jihadist muslims. Furthermore, the government slapped a gag order on the press about the case — an example of how every nation that imagines itself to be a home of freedom needs a First Amendment.
Geert Wilders — who has had his own struggles against censorship in the Netherlands — made a statement calling for free speech to be restored:
The Drudge Report had an unusually large headline spread about the case on May 28:
There are a number of court cases taking place in Britain which are subject to reporting restrictions. A good percentage of these — and we really don’t know how many, which I think is rather the idea — relate to Muslim gang-rape trials. Tommy was under a 13-month suspended sentence for previously reporting on a gang-rape trial subject to reporting restrictions. In other words, if he broke the law again he would then serve the jail time as per the initial sentence.
I’m not sure if the trial he was reporting on when he was arrested was yet another “reporting restriction” case, but if it was (which I think it was) the police have a duty to issue a warning before taking action if the warning was ignored. Again, I am unsure as to what happened here.
But the police made no mention of reporting restrictions or contempt of court; they arrested him for “breaching the peace” which would seem to be a total fabrication and therefore unlawful. His immediate hearing and sentencing suggests this was a planned action by the police (and our lovely government) in order to shut him down.
To further reinforce the actions of a totalitarian state, a reporting restriction has now been put into operation with regard to his arrest. Tommy has been “disappeared” in much the same manner as countless others were airbrushed out of existence in genuine totalitarian regimes abroad, but I think this is the first time in England that a citizen has been “disappeared” in such a blatant way.
Even more horrifying is the supine manner in which this grotesque act of totalitarianism has been received by our media and purported civil-liberties merchants, none of whom have raised a murmur of disapproval at the time of this writing.
Couple this with the video of the woman arrested a few days ago by the police who threatened to break her down if she refused to open it — “DO NOT RESIST US! DO NOT RESIST US!” and I think it is very clear that the government, given the choice of crushing Islam or crushing those who question Islam, have chosen to crush the latter.
So the decent, democratic Britain I was born into has now gone. I warned some years ago of the direction the British police were taking (“Multiculturalism Has Destroyed the British Police”), and it is time to realise Britain is now a genuine Police State.
As the Islamic threat grows via demographics and violence, so the grip of the Police State will increase over the dissidents. Britain has three progressive routes now open to it: First, submit to the State. Second, submit to Islam after the State submits to Islam. Third, engage in revolution within the next decade in order to head off the two former routes.
I don’t think we will, though. I think Britain is finished as a country, culture and people. Our only hope of achieving revolutionary thought is via total economic collapse. When we are hungry and cold we might, just might, become angry enough to revolt. At the moment, however, we can fly abroad to the sun-kissed beaches of Ibiza and get completely trolleyed even as our country and all that is stands for is incrementally stolen from us by 7th century savages in alliance with our home-grown Traitor Class.
Tommy was a threat to the Traitor Class, so they have removed him. He won’t be the last.
Germany may have survived Hitler, but Islam has shown itself to be a remarkably stubborn infestation once it gets a foothold. And Chancellor Angela Merkel seemed not to realize that Islam has been the enemy of civilization since its beginning of spreading its totalitarian ideology by the sword. So Merkel’s opening European doors to hundreds of thousands of muslims was arguably the worst political decision in decades.
Below, Chancellor Merkel thought it was appealing to pose for selfies with the muslim migrants she invited to Germany and beyond.
Still, the upbeat photos of handshakes and diplomacy on the big world stage were probably a welcome change for Germany’s leader compared to the political morass at home. As Robert Spencer pointed out in a video from a week ago, “running unopposed, Merkel barely squeaked by — 364 votes for Merkel, 315 votes for no one at all” as she ran for chancellor in the Bundestag. Funny how that open-borders thing is finally catching up with her.
Politico reported Wednesday the sad news that “Angela Merkel received the final rubber stamp to lead her fourth government on Wednesday with Germany’s lower house of parliament officially electing her chancellor.” But Merkel is no FDR; as she begins her fourth term, she faces opposition from within her own governing coalition – which has so far only led her to double down on her disastrous and suicidal policies regarding Muslim migration.
According to Politico, “among the 692 MPs to vote in a secret ballot at the Bundestag, 364 voted in favor of another term for the 63-year-old Christian Democrats (CDU) leader and 315 voted against (nine abstained and four votes were invalid). With only nine votes above the needed majority — which lay at 355 votes — Merkel’s victory is her narrowest since she first took office in 2005.”
That’s right: running unopposed, Merkel barely squeaked by: 364 votes for Merkel, 315 votes for no one at all. That’s not exactly a ringing vote of confidence. “There were more opposition votes than I expected,” said German politician Andrea Nahles. No kidding. And the widespread discontent among Germans with Merkel’s policies has required her to bring into her government people who sharply disagree with her. Christian Lindner of the Free Democrats, which are not part of Merkel’s coalition, notes: “The high number of dissenters at Merkel’s chancellor election unmasks the enormous centrifugal forces within the grande coalition.”
One of those centrifugal forces is Horst Seehofer, Merkel’s new interior minister, who recently declared: “Islam does not belong to Germany. Germany is characterized by Christianity. Muslims who are living here of course belong to Germany. But of course that doesn’t mean because of that we would make false considerations and give up our country-specific traditions and customs.”
Merkel sharply disagreed, stating: “Islam belongs to Germany.”
No one would have been more pleased with Merkel’s statement than Adolf Hitler, who once said: “Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers — already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity!-then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.”
And now a German Chancellor has declared that Islam belongs to Germany. According to Turkey’s Anadolu Agency, Merkel also paid lip service to religions that have actually played a role in German history. “‘Our country is largely shaped by Christianity, and it continues to be so,’ Merkel said, adding that Judaism had also been significant in the country’s history and culture.”
Yes, Judaism has indeed been “significant” in Germany’s history, although most famously now for Adolf Hitler’s attempt to destroy that significance. And now Merkel has brought large numbers of Muslims into Germany who share Hitler’s Jew-hatred and admire his genocide of the Jews.
How Hitler would have loved Merkel!
There are, obviously, many people in Germany who oppose how Merkel is destroying the country. But the forces of Anyone But Her didn’t have quite enough votes to deny her another four years as Chancellor, and that may have been a fateful vote. The forces of freedom didn’t have quite enough strength to save Germany. And so now Merkel will have her four more years, or more precisely three and a half, to complete her destruction of Germany and its demise as a free society. The Muslim migrant inundation will continue, and Germany will grow ever more wonderfully diverse.
Yes, “Islam belongs to Germany,” and given Islam’s political, authoritarian and supremacist character, before too long Germany will belong to Islam. “Islam must dominate, and not be dominated,” goes the old adage; Angela Merkel will soon find that this adage applies to Germany as well as to every other land to which Islam has come, and that some Muslims will be working there to make sure that Germany becomes part of the global umma.
An Islamized Germany will be Merkel’s legacy. Future generations of free people in that unhappy land, if there are any, will remember her name with the same revulsion that the name of Adolf Hitler inspires.
Whatever happened to Plano? As a suburb of Dallas, it used to be dependably conservatively American: now the political leaders think it is fine for totalitarian Islam to be taught as a superior ideology to young minds. A recent dust up concerned city councilman Tom Harrison who called for a proper separation between church and state by banning Islamic teachings from public schools.
Plano has changed. A city of 269,776 inhabitants as of the 2010 Census, it has become diverse, presumably because of immigration. City-Data reported that only 66.0% of residents of Plano speak English at home. A Google search for Plano mosques brought up three.
In yet another sign of the confusion of our age, Plano, Texas City Councilman Tom Harrison is in hot water. Mayor Harry LaRosiliere wants him to resign, and local Muslim groups are planning protests until he does. His crime? Calling for a ban of Islam in public schools — in which no religion is supposed to be taught as fact or favored.
The ACLU and atheist groups fought for decades to get Christianity out of American public schools, but are they rushing to defend Tom Harrison? Of course not.
The controversy began when Harrison shared a short video on his Facebook page with the words: “Share if you think Trump should ban Islam in American schools.” LaRosiliere first gave Harrison a chance to get back on the politically correct reservation: “I waited to hopefully see some type of retraction that his account was hacked. I’m not sure why that was there, but that didn’t happen.” And so he called for Harrison to resign: “Mr. Harrison’s position indicates that he is unfit to represent this richly diverse city. This conduct is inconsistent with the values of the city of Plano.”
Dallas imam Omar Suleiman — who last year prevailed upon Google to alter its search resultsto conceal criticism of Islam — was likewise enraged: “When an entire group of people are targeted either by a teacher or an elected official, then those people are unfit to educate or to lead. I think that’s what the post is really all about.” He vowed to drive Harrison from office: “We’re going to stage protests, we’re going to continue to mobilize to make sure that the councilman is replaced.”
Nafis Pathan of the Islamic Association of Collin County was on board with that: “I hope the city councilman understands the consequences and accepts the demand from Mayor Harry.”
In the face of this onslaught, Harrison folded almost completely, issuing an apology:
I want to sincerely apologize to the Plano Muslim Community for the unintentional hurt I caused by reposting something on my personal Facebook page that wrongfully implied I am anti-Muslim. My intent on putting this on my personal Facebook page was to emphasize that Christianity is not the only religion being targeted for exclusion in our public school. It was not meant as a personal attack against the Islamic faith. As a Christian, it is my belief that all should be free to worship as they choose, but we live in a time where any practice of religious expression in public schools is rarely tolerated. My hope is that due to the rightful negative response to my post, that it will spark a renewed discussion about all religions and their place in our public schools. My other regret is that my personal action has reflected poorly on the City of Plano. My action was personal in nature, but I should have remembered this past Monday night’s Council discussion …. none of us are ever truly off duty. None of us are perfect, and we will all be judged one day by the highest authority. Until then, I ask for forgiveness within the community and acceptance of my sincere apology.
This has not, of course, mollified any of his critics. But amidst his groveling, Harrison makes a valid point about Christianity having been driven out of the public schools while Islam is now being introduced.
Should Islam be taught as fact in public schools, and given a privileged position not accorded to other religions? It’s happening, even in Texas where the Harrison imbroglio is raging.
Liberty High School in Frisco, Texas, recently established a prayer room for Muslim students, drawing a rebuke from Texas Deputy Attorney General Andrew Leonie, who said: “Liberty High School’s policy should be neutral toward religion. However, it appears that students are being treated different based on their religious beliefs. Such a practice, of course, is irreconcilable with our nation’s enduring commitment to religious liberty.” But in response, Liberty High School doubled down, and kept its Islamic prayer room.
There have been reports of Islamic indoctrination in public schools in Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, New Jersey, and elsewhere. Is it not possible to have a reasoned discussion about this without charges of being “anti-Muslim” and “Islamophobic”?
Given the response to Tom Harrison’s Facebook post, apparently not. Watch for him to be driven from office and disgraced utterly for his “Islamophobia.” And for the presence of Islam in America’s public schools only to grow larger.
Over the holiday season, a new concern has grown in prominence, namely “security” — accompanied by a big display of well armed police in large cities. Curiously, we never hear the dollar costs for the extra officers with expensive technology. Also what goes mostly unspoken is the frequent cause — muslim immigration which has allowed mass-murder-minded jihadis to enter the west easily.
Although America has certainly been harmed by allah’s helpers, Europe is orders of magnitude worse off because of its enthusiastic pursuit of open borders, encouraged by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and a complicit European Union.
France has been a popular jihad target, with its culturally significant buildings like Notre Dame Cathedral.
All the major capitals of Europe are taking extensive security measures for New Years to protect the people from the diversity the governments allowed:
The Berlin strategy of creating “safe spaces” for women (after the New Years mass sex assaults by muslims against women in Cologne) has become controversial after the criticism by Rainer Wendt. A former police officer, Wendt believes that all of Germany’s public space should be safe for German women, otherwise freedom and equality will have been lost.
A look at security preparations in some of Europe’s major cities, where thousands are expected in the streets to see in the New Year.
Cities across Europe are on alert in the run-up to New Year’s Eve, as the threat of terrorist attacks continues to hang over the continent. Here is a look at plans in some Western European nations.
[. . .]
Germany
Germany is on high alert a year after a deadly truck attack on a Christmas market in Berlin.
Barricades around the Brandenburg Gate will reassure revellers. And there will be a safe zone for women at the site after hundreds were molested and robbed in Cologne on New Year’s Eve two years ago.
Berlin police say the safety area in the capital’s “party mile” around the gate will feature tents, with German Red Cross staff including psychologists on hand for women feeling harassed.
The move has proved controversial. The head of Germany’s second-largest police officers’ union said a women’s zone planned for Berlin sent a “disastrous message”.
“With this message, you’re saying that there are safe and unsafe zones,” Rainer Wendt told the Neue Osnabrücher Zeitung newspaper. He said the move would amount to “the end of equality, freedom of movement and self-determination,” adding that women had a right to be safe everywhere.
In Cologne, police say 1,400 police officers are to be deployed on the central railway station plaza and around the adjacent cathedral. Fireworks are to be banned, while there have been plans for more video surveillance cameras and improved lighting.
The events in Cologne made worldwide headlines two years ago when groups of young men of North African appearance molested hundreds of women in the city centre.
On Sept. 24, 2014, Alton Nolen entered a food processing plant and proceeded to behead one worker, Colleen Hufford, and seriously stab another, Traci Johnson. Nolen had been suspended from Vaughan Foods in Moore, Oklahoma, for making racist remarks; plus he also had converted to Islam while in prison, where too many rough characters get converted to the religion of murder.
Below, Colleen Hufford (left) was killed in Nolen’s attack and Traci Johnson (right) was slashed, as jurors heard during the trial.
Naturally, the killer claimed he was following the koran, which instructs muslims to treat non-muslims harshly, e.g. “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks” (Qur’an 47:4).
Nolen was a born-here convert, but continuing muslim immigration and increasing their numbers is normalizing the totalitarian political system into something acceptable in America, which it is not.
NORMAN, Okla. — An Oklahoma man was formally sentenced Friday morning for beheading a coworker at a food plant.
Alton Nolen, 33, was convicted of first degree murder in late September for beheading his coworker Colleen Hufford inside Vaughan Foods in September 2014. Following a two-phase trial beginning in mid-September, jurors recommended Nolen be sentenced to death in October.
By then, he had already been handed three life sentences plus 130 years combined on assault charges for stabbing another coworker Traci Johnson and attacking other workers inside the plant that day. Johnson survived the attack.
In October, she told reporters she did not know if she could ever forgive Nolen for his actions.
“Mr. Nolen, I don’t understand why you did what you did to me and Colleen and the other gentlemen, but that was wrong and you know it was,” she said. “I pray for you.”
In 2014, Nolen justified his actions to investigators by claiming he was a practicing Muslim and believed his actions were correct by the Quran. During closing arguments in October, Cleveland County District Attorney Greg Masburn noted Nolen asked for the death penalty at one point.
“He wants it, because he thinks something good is waiting for him on the other side. Give it to him, and let him find out,” Mashburn told the jury.
In court Friday morning, Judge Lori Walkley accepted the recommendation of the jury, sentencing Nolen to death by lethal injection for beheading Hufford.
Tuesday’s Los Angeles Times front page contained a sob-story extravaganza of refugee resettlement boosters cast as the virtuous heroes, while the opponents of importing sketchy African/Middle-Eastern Muslims etc. are evil haters. The main photo is of a smiling African boy in a welcoming church.
The Times makes David LeBleu the star of its little morality tale: the former New Yorker pushed for his adopted state to admit lots of refugees, particularly Syrians, which has not been a popular position in Montana. Most residents of the state don’t want their communities to be diversified with burqa-wearing, FGM-practicing, infidel-hating sharia supporters. But diversity infatuation is strong in LeBleu.
The situation is another case of liberal virtue exhibition. If the do-gooders really wanted to help, they would raise funds to assist the struggling people in their homelands, where the cash is twelve times more effective than importing foreigners, according to a 2015 study from the Center for Immigration Studies, The High Cost of Resettling Middle Eastern Refugees. But pursuing the most efficient policy to aid the most people wouldn’t bring the feel-good photo opportunities.
In addition, it’s not like the United States is overflowing with spare jobs. The millions of jobless citizens should get the first shot at employment, and they shouldn’t be standing in line behind foreigners. The March number of officially unemployed Americans was 7.2 million.
Islam can act like a dormant disease where jihad may appear at a later date in a future generation. So why does the government continue the suicidal social policy of Muslim immigration? And why does Washington force it upon American communities that want to maintain their own culture without an enemy element being injected? No good can come of such foolishness.
As images of dead Syrian children flashed across his television this month in Montana, David LeBleu prayed it would finally change minds.
“Could this be our chance?” he wondered.
LeBleu, 73, had been campaigning for a year to bring refugees to his tiny mountainside town of Whitefish. But in conservative Flathead County, he was making little headway.
Donald Trump had won the county with 65% of the vote in the presidential election and found widespread support there for his “America first” message and pledge to halt refugee resettlement nationwide. In that sense, the region wasn’t much different from a broad swath of the nation.
If the deaths of “beautiful babies” — as Trump had put it — in what the U.S. said was a poison gas attack couldn’t sway people, LeBleu figured nothing could.
“They don’t like newcomers here,” he said. “They want to just keep things the way they are, in the past.”
LeBleu himself is a newcomer, part of a wave of liberal-minded transplants drawn to Whitefish, population 6,357, for its natural beauty and slower pace of life. He moved from Long Island, N.Y., three years ago, following his daughter after retiring from teaching high school social studies and losing his wife to multiple sclerosis and cancer.
He was delighted that people would “talk to you on the street and ask how you were doing.” As a lifelong Christian, he was pleased to see churches everywhere.
But the faith that dominated northwest Montana was far more conservative than LeBleu had ever experienced.
To him, being a Presbyterian meant a life of public service and openness to other cultures. Back in Long Island, he sat on a refugee council at his church and once housed a Vietnamese refugee and her two sons. He joined churchgoers for a trip to refugee camps in the Middle East, and his church hosted a Coptic Christian priest from Egypt and a pastor from Syria.
But in Whitefish, the Presbyterian churches he visited were more interested in the Bible than the wider world and didn’t share his passion for women’s or gay rights. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Now she has converted to Christianity and is warning her new country about the dangers of her previous faith, which can be better understood as a 
