Thursday, November 17, 2016

Shut Up! Or Go to Jail!

We told you to shut up about migrants!

One thing the election of Donald Trump has spared us of is Hillary-style censorship à la the European Union, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Organization of Islamic Conference (née Cooperation). Huma Abedin, a card-carrying member of the Muslim Sisterhood, ever since high school, will not be appointed Hillary’s Speech Czarina or anything else. It’s over for her. It’s back to Riyadh with you, middle-aged lady, where you can conform to Sharia and wear a burqa all day long.

First of all, when I logged into my blogger setup, I found this notice. It was not there yesterday.

European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent.

As a courtesy, we have added a notice on your blog to explain Google's use of certain Blogger and Google cookies, including use of Google Analytics and AdSense cookies.

You are responsible for confirming this notice actually works for your blog, and that it displays. If you employ other cookies, for example by adding third party features, this notice may not work for you.  Learn more about this notice and your responsibilities.

Your HTTPS settings have changed. All visitors are now able to view your blog over an encrypted connection by visiting [xxxcom – my blogname]. Existing links and bookmarks to your blog will continue to work.

This notice also appears on my statistical pages. My response – or “responsibility” – to this notice is and will continue to be a one-finger salute.

While it claims not to be a terrorist organization, a document found during a 2004 FBI raid of a Brotherhood safe house reads that they believe “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 God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack.”

Have the real life heirs of Sergeant Preston of the Yukon been tasked to slap Canadians into “right think”?

On October 26th, the Canadian Parliament has passed an anti-Islamophobia “motion” that condemns Islamophobia, just as the OIC and Hillary Clinton do. The text reads:

"Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam. Their actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiments in Canada; and these violent individuals do not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam. In fact, they misrepresent the religion. We categorically reject all their activities. They in no way represent the religion, the beliefs and the desire of Muslims to co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world. We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia".

All I said was I don't want a halal cheeseburger!
Knowing little or nothing about ISIS’s playbook adherence to the Koran, the legislators can get away with a woozy statement such as “an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities …as a pretext for a noble rise in anti-Muslim sentiments in Canada.” And the statement buys into the notion, repeatedly contradicted by terrorists not members of ISIS, but who were inspired by ISIS and by the Koran.
"Hate speech":Man arrested for giving a Muslim a dirty look

The Gatestone article, continues:

While a motion will have no legal effect unless it is passed as a bill, the symbolic effect of the Canadian parliament unanimously condemning "all forms of Islamophobia," without making the slightest attempt at defining what is meant by "Islamophobia," can only be described, at best, as alarming.

What exactly are they condemning? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Debating Mohammed? Depicting Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Is any Canadian who now writes critically of Islam or disagrees with the petitioners that ISIS "does not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam" now to be considered an "Islamophobe"?

No one knows, and it is doubtful whether the members of the Canadian parliament know what it means themselves. It would seem, however, that the initiator of the petition, Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Samer Majzoub, knows. This is what he had to say in an interview with the Canadian Muslim Forum after the motion passed:

"Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning ... We need to continue working politically and socially and with the press. They used to doubt the existence of Islamophobia, but now we do not have to worry about that; all blocs and political figures, represented by Canada's supreme legislative authority, have spoken of that existence. In the offing, we need to get policy makers to do something, especially when it comes to the Liberals, who have shown distinct openness regarding Muslims and all ethnicities... All of us must work hard to maintain our peaceful, social and humanitarian struggle so that condemnation is followed by comprehensive policies."

We really expected more from the Canadians than to take Samer Majzoub, at his word, but under Justin Trudeau. He is  Canada’s prime minister and a kind of “red diaper baby,” except you can call him a niqab baby, he is acting as Canada’s elected undertaker. Calling Sergeant Preston! Leave King behind. Bring plastic cuffs and duct tape to silence these warped people!

In the meantime, most European governments, especially those with a major presence in the European Union, are determined to punish anyone for speaking his mind about Islam, Muslims, and the “migrant” invasion. Douglas Murray at Gatestone reports in his article, “Europe’s New Blasphemy Courts”:

… The front-door reintroduction of blasphemy laws, meantime, is being initiated in a country which once prided itself on being among the first in the world to throw off clerical intrusion into politics. The Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been put on trial before. In 2010 he was tried in the courts for the contents of his film "Fitna" as well as a number of articles. The trial collapsed after one of the expert witnesses -- the late, great Dutch scholar of Islam, Hans Jansen -- revealed that a judge in the case had tried in private to influence him to change his testimony. The trial was transparently rigged and made Dutch justice look like that of a tin-pot dictatorship rather than one of the world's most developed democracies. The trial was rescheduled and, after considerable legal wrangling, Wilders was eventually found "not guilty" of a non-crime in 2011.

But it seems that the Dutch legal system, like the Mounties, is intent on always getting its man. On Monday of this week the latest trial of Geert Wilders got underway in Holland. This time Wilders is being tried because of a statement at a rally in front of his supporters in March 2014. Ahead of municipal elections, and following reports of a disproportionate amount of crimes being committed in Holland by Muslims of Moroccan origin, Wilders asked a crowd, "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?" The audience responded, "Fewer, fewer." To which Wilders responded, "Well, we'll arrange that, then…."

On trial again for bad-mouthing Muslims and Moroccans.
Opinion polls suggest that around half the Dutch public want fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands and many opinion polls going back decades suggest that the Dutch people want less immigration in general. So at the very least Wilders is being put on trial for voicing an opinion which is far from fringe. The long-term implications for Dutch democracy of criminalizing a majority opinion are catastrophic. But the trial of Wilders is also a nakedly political move.

There’s more, as Judith Berman reports in “Europe: Let’s End Free Speech!

In Europe, is the enemy now the governments? Evidence is mounting that expressing even a mild opinion that runs counter to official government policy can land you in prison, or at least ensure a visit from your friendly local Kafkaesque police. Has Europe effectively become a police state?

Several European governments are making it clear to their citizens that criticizing migrants or European migrant policies is criminally off limits. People who go "too far," according to the authorities, are being arrested, prosecuted and at times convicted.

In the Netherlands, the police visited people who naïvely made critical comments about asylum centers on Twitter in October 2015. In the town of Sliedrecht, police came to Mark Jongeneel's office and told him that he tweeted "too much" and that he should "watch his tone": his tweets "may seem seditious". His offense? The town had held a citizens meeting about a refugee center in the region, and Jongeneel had posted a few tweets. One said: "The College of #Sliedrecht comes up with a proposal to take 250 refugees over the next two years. What a bad idea!" Earlier he had also tweeted: "Should we let this happen?!..."

He was not the only one. In Leeuwarden, according to New Europe:

"...about twenty opponents of the plans [to establish asylum centers] in the region received police visits at home. It also happened in Enschede, and in some places in the Brabant, where, according to the Dutch media, people who had been critical of the arrival of refugees and ran a page on social media on the topic were told to stop".

A spokesperson for the national police explained that ten intelligence units of "digital detectives" monitor Facebook pages and Twitter accounts in real time, looking for posts that go "too far," so that they can visit with people to tell them "what effect a post or tweet on the internet can have." In other words, the Netherlands are engaging in state censorship, thus raising the question: Is the Netherlands now a police state?

In the United Kingdom, Scott Clark was arrested in February 2016 for writing on the Facebook page of the Scottish Defense League that Syrian refugees would "see the nasty side to us." According to a news report, he referred to sexual assaults on women in Cologne, Germany on New Year's Eve by men of Arab or North African appearance as justification for his online comments, in which he also wrote, "If anything happens to any young girl I will personally spit in the face of councilors who pushed and pushed to get them housed here..." He also wrote, "There's defo an Islamic invasion. Defo something going down. Just witnessed 15 Syrians in the local boozer... I opposed their arrival from the start."

Inspector Ewan Wilson from Dunoon police office told the Guardian:
"I hope that the arrest of this individual sends a clear message that Police Scotland will not tolerate any form of activity which could incite hatred and provoke offensive comments on social media."

Bergman has much, much more to report on the government depredations against citizens. What Sharia Law under and on the table.
Donald Trump vs. the Cloaks of  Darkness
Britain, the EU, and the member governments are practicing is

But relief, at least in the U.S., may be in sight, and Google Analytics' days may be numbered and I can rest my middle finger. Paul Bremmer of The Counter Jihad Report wrote:

The Muslim Brotherhood’s days of influencing the United States government may be coming to an end, and those who are expert in the field of Islamist activism and the threat of terror are pleased.

WND reported earlier President-elect Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to jumpstart a bill in Congress that would ban the Muslim Brotherhood by declaring it a terrorist organization.
Walid Phares, a foreign policy adviser to Trump, says he believes Trump will support the plan to make the designation.

Philip Haney, a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security and author of “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad,” greeted the news with hope, saying his former agency is finally returning to its initial mission.

Julian Assange, who blew the lid off of the Clinton campaign
As the National Review and other outlets have reported, Barack Obama from the very beginning has refused to designate the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

Barack Obama has spent his presidency cultivating Islamists, particularly from the international Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates in the United States. As we saw this week, he chafes at the term “radical Islam” — as do his Islamist advisers. At their insistence, he had instructional materials for training government agents purged of references to Islamic terms that illuminate the nexus between Muslim doctrine and jihadist terror. Obama’s vaunted national-security strategy, “Countering Violent Extremism,” is Orwellian. The term CVE supplants identification of our jihadist enemies with the woolly notion that “violence” can be caused by any form of “extremism” — it has nothing to do with Islam. By transferring security responsibilities from government intelligence agents to Muslim “community leaders” (often, Islamist groups), CVE actually encourages violent extremism.

So, it seems that come January, we are going to have a radical change of tune about Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood. It can’t happen too soon.

No comments:

Post a Comment