Twitter ‘Not’ taking down Islamic State accounts, but banning users who report terrorists

What illness has overtaken the people who run Twitter — and Facebook? What illness has overtaken mainstream media reporters and so much of the Western intelligentsia? Why are they so willing to abet evil?

125000 accounts suspended

“Hackers Say Twitter Isn’t Telling the Whole Story About Anti-Terror Fight,” by Joshua Philipp, Epoch Times, March 4, 2016:

Online activists have added fuel to the controversy over the effectiveness of Twitter’s attempts to fight ISIS supporters who use its services to spread terrorist propaganda and recruit new members.

While Twitter says it is making strong efforts to shut down terrorist accounts, activists say that not only is the microblogging company not taking down the accounts that matter, but it has even been shutting down accounts of users trying to report terrorists.

In January, a Florida woman, Tamara Fields, filed a lawsuit against Twitter, alleging that it breached the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act by “spreading extremist propaganda,” which caused an attack in Jordan that killed her husband, a private contractor, Lloyd “Carl” Fields Jr.

Facing bad press and a lawsuit, Twitter published a blog post on Feb. 5, saying that since mid-2015 it suspended 125,000 accounts for “threatening or promoting terrorist acts, primarily related to ISIS.”

Members of the online anti-terrorist community were quick to fire back, however. They say that Twitter is taking credit for their work, and there are still many holes in its efforts to keep terrorist recruiters off its services.

Several hacker groups, including Anonymous, have rallied against ISIS under an online campaign they call #OpISIS. While most participants keep their identities hidden, most of their activities are public. They often publish lists of ISIS supporters and recruiters, and call on the community to report the accounts.

Through this campaign, Anonymous claims by Nov. 23, 2015 to have taken down more than 11,000 Twitter accounts linked to ISIS, according to a tweet from OpParisOfficial.GhostSec, another hacker group, claims it has reported 19,568 Twitter accounts promoting terrorism.

GhostSec was credited with helping prevent a terrorist attack in Tunisia, and may have helped stop another attack in New York City in 2015, according to Michael Smith, principal of national security company Kronos Advisory. Smith was GhostSec’s go-between for law enforcement and intelligence officials.

“Who suspended 125,000 accounts? Anonymous, Anonymous affiliated groups, and everyday citizens,” says a statement from WauchulaGhost, an anti-terrorist hacker with the hacker collective Anonymous, but was formerly with GhostSec.

“You do realize if we all stopped reporting terrorist accounts and graphic images, Twitter would be flooded with terrorists,” WauchulaGhost says.

Who Suspended 125,000 Twitter accounts? #OpISIS #Anonymous #GhostOfNoNationhttps://t.co/BR44Ie1mP6 pic.twitter.com/kIa8mabJQd

After Twitter made its announcement claiming to have shut down ISIS accounts, many participants in #OpISIS saw a very different development. Twitter began banning accounts of users who were trying to report online terrorism.

Members of the community have taken this as a slap in the face. While Twitter is telling the public it’s working to stop ISIS recruitment on its services, it has been suspending accounts of the community who are doing the actual footwork.

Sometimes the accounts get hit one-by-one, other times in groups. Members of the community sometimes rally behind account holders, and Twitter gets them back up and running quickly. Other times, the accounts may stay suspended.

For instance, on Feb. 28 close to 15 Twitter accounts of users involved in the anti-terror campaigns were suspended, including some of the top accounts involved in #OpISIS, including WauchulaGhost’s. Their supporters barraged Twitter with tweets, and most of the accounts were back online about two hours later.

WauchulaGhost said he’s still not sure what happened, noting, “I never received an email from Twitter.”

After one week, Twitter had not responded to an email inquiring why it banned the anti-terror accounts.

Some members of the community say Twitter is suspending accounts in its new campaign to stop online bullying—but that explanation has raised the question of why calling out users spreading terrorist propaganda and trying to recruit terrorists is categorized as “harassment.”

“I can say they are suspending a lot of accounts for harassment. Good accounts not Daesh accounts,” WauchulaGhost said in an interview on Twitter. “Even a lot of our (Anonymous) accounts are being suspended for harassment.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pamela Geller “WORTH RAPING AND CHOPPING”: Mark Zuckerberg ALLOWS SAVAGE DEATH THREATS by Muslims but CENSORS Posts Critical OF Muslim Migrants

UK: Queen Mary University Palestine Solidarity Society hosts jihad terrorist murderer as featured speaker

UK: Muslim Uber driver tells Jewish bus driver he will “kill all the Jews”

A Scientific Consensus on What Now? by Robert P. Murphy

Authority versus Science in the Climate Change Debate.

When it comes to the climate change debate, many of the loudest voices are confidently making assertions that are not backed up by the actual evidence — and in this respect, they are behaving very unscientifically.

One obvious sign that many people in the climate change debate are appealing to emotions rather than facts is their reliance on pejorative terminology. For example, rather than make an informative statement that they support subsidies for wind and solar, and taxes on coal and oil, they may instead say they support “clean energy” while their opponents favor “dirty energy.”

The coup de grâce, of course, occurs when partisans in the debate refer to their opponents as “climate deniers.” This is a nonsensical slur that would have impressed Orwell. Obviously, nobody denies climate. Furthermore, nobody denies that the climate is changing. And, when it comes to the serious debate among published climate scientists, people on both sides agree that human activities are contributing to warmer temperatures; the dispute is simply overhow much. (Those who think the change is mild have embraced the label “lukewarmers.”)

To label critics of a carbon tax or EPA regulations on power plants as “climate deniers” is utterly destructive of rational inquiry and tries to link legitimate skepticism to Holocaust denial. Those who use this term without irony demonstrate that they have no interest in scientific discovery.

Related to this lack of nuance, and the appeal to an exaggerated consensus, is the oft-repeated claim that “97 percent of climate scientists agree” on the state of human-generated climate change. Physicist-turned-economist David Friedman (among others) has investigated the methods used to generate such claims, and finds that they are seriously lacking.

Using the very data (on abstracts from published papers) that forms the basis of these headline announcements, Friedman reckons that more like 1.6 percent of the surveyed papers explicitly endorse humans as the main cause of global warming since the 1800s. Friedman further argues that this confusion — where the actual findings of the paper ended up being misinterpreted by the media — appears to have been deliberately produced by the survey’s authors.

“Hottest Year on Record” and “the Pause”

A January 2016 New York Times article epitomizes the advocacy disguised as reporting in the climate change debate. The very title lets you know that a serious case of scientism is coming, for it announces, “2015 Was Hottest Year in Historical Record, Scientists Say.”

Now, we must inquire, what is the purpose of adding “Scientists Say” at the end? Does any reader think that the Times would be quoting plumbers or accountants on whether 2015 was the hottest year on record? The obvious purpose is to contrast what scientists say about global warming with what thosenonscientist deniers are saying. The article goes on to let us know exactly what “the scientists” think about global warming and manmade activities:

Scientists started predicting a global temperature record months ago, in part because an El Niño weather pattern, one of the largest in a century, is releasing an immense amount of heat from the Pacific Ocean into the atmosphere. But the bulk of the record-setting heat, they say, is a consequence of the long-term planetary warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

“The whole system is warming up, relentlessly,” said Gerald A. Meehl, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

It will take a few more years to know for certain, but the back-to-back records of 2014 and 2015 may have put the world back onto a trajectory of rapid global warming, after a period of relatively slow warming dating to the last powerful El Niño, in 1998.

Politicians attempting to claim that greenhouse gases are not a problem seized on that slow period to argue that “global warming stopped in 1998,” with these claims and similar statements reappearing recently on the Republican presidential campaign trail.

Statistical analysis suggested all along that the claims were false, and that the slowdown was, at most, a minor blip in an inexorable trend, perhaps caused by a temporary increase in the absorption of heat by the Pacific Ocean.

This excerpt is quite fascinating. We have something reported as undeniable fact when it actually relies on assumptions of what might happen in the future (“may have put the world back onto a trajectory of rapid global warming”) and offers conjectures to explain why the measured warming suddenly slowed down (“perhaps caused by a temporary increase in the absorption of heat”).

The “statistical analysis” did not establish that the critics’ claims were false. It is undeniably true that the official NASA GISS records showed, for example, that the average annual global temperature in 2008 was lower than the annual temperature in 1998, and that’s why people at the time were saying, “There has been no global warming in the last ten years.”

Here is a NASA-affiliated scientist arguing that such claims are misleading, and perhaps they were, but it is similarly misleading to turn around and claim that the pause didn’t exist.

If you asked a bunch of Americans whether they gained weight over the last 10 years, their natural interpretation of that question would be, “Do I weigh morenow than I weighed 10 years ago?” They wouldn’t think it involved construction of moving averages since birth. In that sense, the people referring to the pause were not acting dishonestly; they were pointing out to the public a fact about the temperature record that would definitely be news to them, in light of the rhetoric of runaway climate change.

However, the more substantive point here is that the popular climate models predicted much more warming than has in fact occurred. In other words, the question isn’t whether the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s. Rather, the issue is given how much concentrations of greenhouse gases have risen, is the actualtemperature trend consistent with the predicted temperature trend?

To answer this, consider a December 2015 Cato Institute working paper from two climate scientists, Pat Michaels and Paul Knappenberger: “Climate Models and Climate Reality: A Closer Look at a Luke warming World.” They avoid the accusation of cherry-picking by running through trend lengths of varying durations, and they compare 108 model runs with the various data sets on observed temperatures. They conclude, “During all periods from 10 years (2006–2015) to 65 (1951–2015) years in length, the observed temperature trend lies in the lower half of the collection of climate model simulations, and for several periods it lies very close (or even below) the 2.5th percentile of all the model runs.”

Thus we see that the critics arguing about the model projections aren’t simply picking the very warm 1998 as a starting point in order to game the results. The standard models produced warming projections well above what has happened in reality, and for some periods the observed warming was so low (relative to the prediction) that there is less than a 2.5 percent chance that this could be explained by natural volatility. This is the sense in which the current suite of climate models is on the verge of being “rejected” in the statistician’s sense.

To be sure, I am not a climate scientist, and others would no doubt dispute the interpretation of the data that Michaels and Knappenberger give. My point is to show how utterly misleading the New York Times piece is when it leads readers to believe that “scientists” were never troubled by lackluster warming and that only politicians were trying to confuse the public on the matter.

Climate Economists Don’t Believe Their Models?

Finally, consider a December 2015 Vox piece with the title, “Economists Agree: Economic Models Underestimate Climate Change.” Furthermore, the URL for this piece contains the phrase “economists-climate-consensus.” We see the same appeal to authority here as in the natural sciences when it comes to climate policy.

The Vox article refers to a survey of 365 economists who had published in the field of climate economics. Here is the takeaway: “Like scientists, economists agree that climate change is a serious threat and that immediate action is needed to address it” (emphasis added).

Yet, in several respects, the survey reveals facts at odds with the alarmist rhetoric the public hears on the issue. For example, one question asked, “During what time period do you believe the net effects of climate change will first have a negative impact on the global economy?” With President Obama and other important officials discussing the ravages of climate change (allegedly) before our very eyes, one might have expected the vast majority of the survey respondents to say that climate change is having a negative impact right now.

In fact, only 41 percent said that. Twenty-two percent thought the negative impact would be felt by 2025, while an additional 26 percent would only say climate change would have net negative economic effects by 2050. Would anyone have expected that result when reading Vox’s summary that immediate action is needed to address climate change?

To be clear, the Vox statement is not a lie; it can be justified by the responses on two of the other questions. Yet the actual views of these economists are much more nuanced than the pithy summary statements suggest.

Authority versus Science

On this particular survey, I personally encountered the height of absurdity in the context of scientism and appeal to authority. For years, in my capacity as an economist for the Institute for Energy Research, I have pointed out that the published results in the United Nations’ official “consensus” documents do not justify even a standard goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, let alone the over-the-top rhetoric of people like Paul Krugman.

In order to push back against my claim, economist Noah Smith pointed to the survey discussed earlier, proudly declaring, “Apparently most climate economists don’t believe their own models.” Thus we have reached the point where partisans on one side of a policy debate rely on surveys of what “the experts say,” in order to knock down the other side who rely on the published results of those very experts.

This is the epitome of elevating appeals to scientific authority over the underlying science itself.

In the climate change debate, legitimate disputes are transformed into a battle between Noble Seekers of Truth versus Unscientific Liars Who Hate Humanity. Time and again, references to “the consensus” are greatly exaggerated, while people pointing out enormous problems with the case for policy action are dismissed as “deniers.”

Robert P. MurphyRobert P. Murphy

Robert P. Murphy is research assistant professor with the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech University.

RELATED ARTICLE: College Professor Advocating Climate Change May Have Mismanaged Millions in Tax Dollars

VIDEO: New York Doubles — The Catholic Homosexual Mafia?

Michael Voris sits down with a high-ranking source in the archdiocese of New York to get exclusive behind-the-scenes information on what really goes on with Cdl. Timothy Dolan and the alleged homosexual mafia that reportedly runs the archdiocese.

TRANSCRIPT

A couple of weeks ago, Church Militant reached out to the archdiocese of New York to ask for a private one-on-one meeting with Cdl. Dolan.

Our continuing investigation of the Fr. Peter Miqueli sex and embezzlement case, along with the more important archdiocesan cover-up of the embezzlement, has led to a number of sources from inside the archdiocese that are now spilling the beans on what is an increasingly disturbing story.

So we contacted the archdiocese through spokesman Joe Zwilling and asked for a private meeting with His Eminence to reveal what we knew only to him with the hope of exacting some kind of promise that he would do something. Zwilling and archdiocesan attorneys replied and said there would be no meeting.

So, we are now bound to reveal the results of our ongoing investigation to this point.

The allegations from our on-camera source very close to the inner circle has been confirmed for us by a number of other New York archdiocesan personnel: that there is an unwritten code — known of by Cdl. Dolan — that priests under his care can lead a sexually active double life as long as they keep it hidden.

It would explain the reason why again Fr. Peter Miqueli’s case of embezzlement and lurid gay-for-pay sexual encounters were essentially ignored by the archdiocese despite numerous complaints from parishioners — which could result in criminal charges.

But even more alarming are the charges that Cdl. Dolan has done nothing to clean up the chancery after arriving in New York as archbishop back in 2009.

Insiders tell Church Militant it is common knowledge that senior archdiocesan clergy comprise a homosexual hotbed that existed long before Dolan arrive, stretching back to the days of Cdl. Egan and even earlier — all the way back to the 1980s, and these men’s association at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Dunwoodie, a Yonkers, New York neighborhood. Sources tell Church Militant these associations involved senior faculty and leadership at the seminary.

This flood of stories from diocese after diocese of sexual impropriety, financial misdealings, cover-ups by senior clergy, knowledge of all of it by the bishop — or in this case cardinal — these stories are ripping the heart out of the souls of faithful Catholics.

While the U.S. bishops sit around and try to develop new programs for evangelization and introduce watered-down catechetical programs like ALPHA, come up with ways to share Communion with non-Catholics and those in mortal sin, allow big-name clergy to keep spreading the lie that we have a reasonable hope that all men are saved, keep turning a blind eye to the significant problem of active homosexual clergy, continue to allow and even foster abuses at Mass — they will have nowhere except themselves to look when Our Blessed Lord asks them at the judgment throne why they let the Faith in America die on their watch.

Church Militant has been following this case very closely now for over three months, and every few days, another piece of inside information comes our way incriminating Cdl. Dolan and his senior clergy more and more.

We’ve spoken with various sources, as we said, many of them inside the chancery, to cobble together this emerging picture of damaging information. As we said, we reached out to the cardinal to let him know all that we knew — and our offer was rebuffed.

So, now we present, in full, the interview you have seen in brief cuts in this Vortex. Just click on the link.

Our informant has had to keep his identity hidden for fear of losing his job and livelihood. But we have independently confirmed with other sources all that he has told us in this interview.

Please spread the word about all this. Contact the New York archdiocese. Tell them that you demandaccountability. This kind of filth cannot be allowed to go on under the cover of the Church any longer.

If you don’t want to live according to the Church, then get out of the Church.

Augustine of Hippo — An Unjust Law Is No Law at All by Lawrence W. Reed

To write about a man known chiefly as a theologian — a bishop in the early Catholic Church, no less — might suggest at first a discourse on religious issues. Augustine of Hippo (later canonized as “St. Augustine”) was unquestionably a giant of Christian thought and teaching at the time he wrote in the early fifth century AD. He remains so to this day, among Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox Christians as well. On matters of salvation, grace, free will, original sin, and “just war,” his brilliant observations continue to spark lively debate throughout Christendom and beyond. He could be regarded as a hero for those contributions alone, but those are largely matters for readers to explore and evaluate on their own.

Augustine was a hero because he took charge of his troubled, wayward life and transformed it. Then, once committed to the highest standards of personal conduct and scholarly inquiry, he offered pioneering insights on liberty critical to the development of Western philosophy. One does not have to be a person of any particular faith to learn a great deal from this man who lived over 16 centuries ago. The Roman province of Africa produced a no more consequential figure than Augustine, born in 354 AD in Thagaste, now called Souk Ahras, in modern-day Algeria.

It was a momentous time to be alive. By the fourth century, the old Roman Republic and its liberties had been snuffed out for 400 years, succeeded by the increasingly corrupt, tyrannical, and dysfunctional welfare/warfare state that we know as the Roman Empire. It survived barely another century after Augustine’s birth. He would live to see the Visigoths sack the “Eternal City” of Rome itself in the year 410. Twenty years later, as the Vandals laid siege to Augustine’s own city of Hippo in North Africa, he died at age 75. His life was proof that even as the world you know crumbles into dust, you can still make a difference for the betterment of humanity’s future.

Augustine’s youth was hedonistic and self-centered, in spite of the earnest prayers and intense counseling of his devoutly Christian mother, Monica. His father, a volatile and angry tax collector who converted to Christianity on his death bed, died when his son was a teenager. Augustine’s voracious sexual appetite led him into numerous affairs, which he regretted in later life.

Though a bright student with remarkable rhetorical skills, he found plenty of time to get into trouble. Years later in his magnificent autobiography, The Confessions, he recalled with analytic introspection an incident in which he and some young friends stole pears from a man’s orchard. He did not steal the fruit because he was hungry, he wrote, but purely because “it was not permitted.” Noting this as evidence of his flawed character, he explained, “It was foul, and I loved it. I loved my own error — not that for which I erred, but for the error itself.”

In his twenties, Augustine bought into the cult of Manichaeism, a strange concoction of Christian, Buddhist, Gnostic, astrological, and pagan elements. He also flirted with Neo-Platonism, a school of philosophy drawing heavily from Plato and from one of Plato’s later followers, Plotinus. While Augustine’s mother Monica despaired at her son’s shifting fancies, two encounters — one with a book and one with a man — would ultimately fulfill her hopes and change his life.

The book was Hortensius by the great Roman republican, Marcus Tullius Cicero. Though the text was eventually lost to history, scholars have reconstructed its core message through citations by contemporaries and Augustine himself. According to Robin Lane Fox’s magisterial biography, Augustine: Conversions to Confessions, “Cicero defined philosophy as the ‘love of wisdom’ (philo-sophia), words which struck home to his young reader.” It ignited what Augustine termed “an incredible blaze” in his heart for truth and a disdain for pseudo-philosophers, hypocrites, and deceivers. Cicero’s emphasis on acquiring knowledge would play a key role even in Augustine’s sexual life. He concluded that the passions of the flesh were a distraction from his growing love of wisdom, though this was a transition that took a little time. Before becoming a celibate priest in his early thirties, he famously asked God, “Give me chastity … but not yet.”

The other life-altering encounter was with Ambrose, the bishop of Milan who was considered one of the greatest orators in the Roman world. Reflecting on Ambrose’s influence, Augustine credited the bishop as the decisive factor in his own conversion to Christianity. That conversion would dominate his every waking moment in the second half of his life. Before his 40th birthday, it was apparent to contemporaries that, thanks to Cicero and Ambrose and, secondarily, his mother Monica, Augustine had developed a remarkable, searching intellect combined with a deeply Christian conscience. His account of his conversion in The Confessions is a classic of Christian theology and a seminal text in the history of autobiography. It’s been described as “an outpouring of thanksgiving and penitence” and includes observations about the nature of time, causality, free will, and other central topics in philosophy.

Augustine was as prolific and eloquent in his writing as he was in his verbal rhetoric. The Confessions is highly regarded and widely read today, but so is his City of God. He wrote the latter as an encouragement to his fellow Christians in an increasingly violent world. It was a ringing defense of Christianity in the face of erroneous claims that Roman abandonment of the old pagan “gods” was the reason for Rome’s decline. Of special interest to me is that in both books, as well as other writings and sermons, Augustine says things that resonate with lovers of liberty.

Augustine was more than a little skeptical of earthly political power. “The dominion of bad men is hurtful chiefly to themselves who rule,” he said,

for they destroy their own souls by greater license in wickedness; while those who are put under them in service are not hurt except by their own iniquity. For to the just all the evils imposed on them by unjust rulers are not the punishment of crime, but the test of virtue. The good man, though a slave, is free; the wicked, though he reigns, is a slave, and not the slave of a single man, but — what is worse — the slave of as many masters as he has vices.

He did not subscribe to any sort of “divine right” of rulers. Nor did he believe that legislation or decrees should pass unquestioned. “An unjust law is no law at all,” he maintained. To Augustine, government was at best a necessary evil that could only grow more evil the bigger it becomes. In this passage from City of God, he questioned the legitimacy of government itself:

Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who doest it with a great fleet art styled an emperor.”

Writing for the blog Discourses on Liberty, Will Harvard notes, “the fact that man has dominion over other men is not a product of God’s intended world, but rather the result of sin.”

Augustine argued that a rational creature made in God’s image was meant to have dominion over nature, not over fellow men. At a time when slavery was common and widely viewed as acceptable, declaring it unequivocally sinful was positively bold and refreshing. He even used church funds to purchase the freedom of individual slaves. The scholar from Thagaste also railed against torture and capital punishment. And theft, in his view, was “absolute wickedness” because it violated something sacred: “the law written in our hearts.”

Rome had its own immorality to blame for its decline and vulnerability to invasion, Augustine thundered. He argued that the old pagan gods imparted no morality to their followers in either Rome or Greece. Romans had allowed their personal and civic virtues to erode. If legionnaires failed to prevent the assaults they had once repulsed, it was because Rome was rotten at its core. Lust for power and ill-gotten gain had come to plague a people who once rose to greatness because of honesty, self-discipline, mutual respect, and responsibility. The welfare/warfare state of the late empire was a den of iniquity presided over by a nest of vipers. Why should decline come as a surprise?

Henry Chadwick in Augustine: A Very Short Introduction observes,

With remarkable prescience of what was to come in the West within a generation of his death, Augustine suggested that the world would be a happier place if the great and proud empire were succeeded by a number of smaller states. The kingdom of God had as much room for Goths as for Romans.

Augustine’s language angered imperialist patriots. He was aware that empires come and go. He did not think the Roman empire was doomed, as some contemporary pessimists were saying. Rome would collapse only if the Romans did. People cursed the times they lived in; but (in Augustine’s words) “whether times are good or bad depends on the moral quality of individual and social life, and is up to us.” Each generation, he remarked, thinks its own times uniquely awful, that morality and religion have never been more threatened. He thought it his duty to attack fatalism and to arouse people to a sense of being responsible if things went wrong. They could have a say in what happened next.

Augustine was a man of peace. He urged Christians in particular to engage only in voluntary interactions with themselves and others unless and until a grave wrong required violence to be stopped. His was, in effect, an early defense ofself-defense and of a concept now known in libertarian circles as the nonaggression principle.

Of all the virtues of personal character, Augustine reserved the highest praise for one that’s often overlooked in our times, as it may have been in his as well. “Humility,” he asserted, “is the foundation of all the other virtues; hence, in the soul in which this virtue does not exist there cannot be any other virtue except in mere appearance.” Was he overrating humility? I don’t think so.

Until the 20th century, most cultures held that having too high an opinion of oneself was the root of most of the world’s troubles. Misbehavior — from drug addiction to cruelty to wars — resulted from hubris or pride, a haughtiness of spirit that needed to be deterred or disciplined. The idea that you were bigger or better, or more self-righteous, or somehow immune from the rules that govern others — the absence of humility, in other words, gave you license to do unto others what you would never allow them to do unto you.

These days, however, it’s a different story. Being humble rubs against what millions have been taught under the banner of “self-esteem.” Even as our schools fail to teach us elemental facts and skills, they teach us to feel good in our ignorance. We explain away bad behavior as the result of the guilty feeling bad about themselves. We manufacture excuses for them, form support groups for them, and resist making moral judgments, lest we hurt their feelings. We don’t demand repentance and self-discipline as much as we pump up their egos.

In an extraordinary 2002 article in the New York Times, “The Trouble With Self-Esteem,” psychologist Lauren Slater concluded that “people with high self-esteem pose a greater threat to those around them than people with low self-esteem, and feeling bad about yourself is not the cause of our country’s biggest, most expensive social problems.”

Augustine, who was quite familiar with the bloviating demagogues of the late Roman Empire, would surely agree.

In the second half of his life, Augustine was keenly focused on truth and wisdom. He knew that a humble person is a teachable person because he’s not so puffed up that his mind is closed. A humble person reforms himself before he attempts to reform the world. A humble person treats others with respect, and that includes other people’s lives, rights, and property. A humble person takes criticism or adversity as an opportunity to grow, to build character. A humble person knows that graduation from formal schooling is not the end of learning but only a noteworthy start of what ought to be a lifelong adventure. Augustine regarded the power-seeking know-it-alls of his day the same way that the Austrian economist and Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek saw “central planners” more than 15 centuries later: as dangerous fools armed with a “pretense of knowledge.”

Augustine deeply influenced leading figures in the world for centuries: men and women such as Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Soren Kierkegaard, Russell Kirk, Hannah Arendt, and a long list of popes, preachers, philosophers, and politicians.

But even in his day, Augustine inspired appreciation from unlikely quarters. Within weeks of his death in 430, the Vandals lifted their siege of Hippo but returned shortly thereafter to burn the city to the ground. They spared only two buildings: Augustine’s cathedral and his library.

For further information, see:

Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. (“Larry”) Reed became president of FEE in 2008 after serving as chairman of its board of trustees in the 1990s and both writing and speaking for FEE since the late 1970s. Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook.

Each week, Mr. Reed will relate the stories of people whose choices and actions make them heroes. See the table of contents for previous installments.

1964 VIDEO: The Truth About the Palestinians — The Truth about the Middle East

We often hear claims about the Palestinians being a 5,000 years ancient and indigenous people, including the claim that Jesus was a Palestinian. In a highly politicized public opinion war, it’s worth asking: what’s fact and what’s fiction?

RELATED ARTICLES:

MIGRATION TIMEBOMB: Europe Braced for ‘UNCOUNTABLE INFLUX’ as Turkey Gets VISA-FREE TRAVEL from EU

Court rules MTA’s BAN ON FREE SPEECH Ads on Subway is Legal BUT Muslim Ads are OK to Run

Shafia Sharia: NEW TRIAL for Mass Honor Murderer in Canada

Muslim Migrants Use BATTERING RAM to Storm Thru Border Fence in Greece: EU HANDS OVER $800 MILLION to Invaders to ‘Maintain Their Dignity’

“Palestinian” Broadcasting Company Being Sued for War Crimes, Incitement to Murder Jews

Blatant anti-Semitism: New wave of anti-Jewish hatred by Iranian regime [Video]

The Iranian American Forum, reports:

Thumnail.Englishjpg

The Iranian regime has started a widespread campaign to portray the Saudi royal family as Jewish and at the same time, calling Jews filthy anti-Islamic conspirators responsible for all the Middle Eastern crisis and blood shedding. This campaign is well illustrated in a speech by panahian, the most renowned preacher close to the Supreme Leader and tied to revolutionary guards during a state organized rally in defense of Yemeni rebels. He declared: “For the last hundred years, the Jews in the region have been committing atrocities and killing Muslims. We blame anti-Islam Jews and Zionists for the plight of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, and Yemen. We also blame the rich Jews and evil Zionists for all the troubles faced by people in Europe and America. Once we save the region from the evil oppression of the anti-Islam Jews, then we will have also saved the people of Europe and America from the oppression of the Zionists.”

As the world marked International Holocaust Remembrance Day on January 27, 2016, Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei published a video titled “Are the Dark Ages Over,” on his official website that included one of his speeches from two years ago in which he questions the reality of the holocaust.

The publication of the video on such a day is a direct attempt to minimize Nazi crimes while clearly demonstrating the Iranian regime’s profound anti-Semitism.

Although the Iranian regime has consistently continued its anti-Semitic policies for the past 37 years, it has intensified it dramatically and become more blatant in the last few months.

Since the tensions between Iran and its regional rival Saudi Arabia has been mounting, the Iranian regime has started using the media, state-organized demonstrations and religious platforms to advance a widespread campaign to portray the Saudi royal family as Jewish and consequently calling Jews filthy anti-Islamic conspirators responsible for all the Middle Eastern crisis and blood shedding. Thus, the Iranian regime is inciting and exploiting anti-Jewish sentiments in order to weaken Saudi Arabia.

They claim that the Saudi royal family’s ancestors hail from the Khaybar tribe who were located near the city of Medina. The regime has also used its proxies in Iraq and several other countries to further the same campaign of portraying the Saudi royal family as Jewish.

According to the ruling mullahs in Iran, the Jews of Khaybar tribe conspired and started a war against Prophet Mohammad in the seventh century but justice was ultimately served when they were defeated by the army of Islam in battle of Khaybar. The regime is now attempting to portray its rivalry with the Saudis as a continuation of Prophet’s war against the Khaybari Jews.

Along with denouncing the Saudis as “Jewish, the Iranian regime has escalated its anti-Jewish hate campaign. The anti-Semitism being promoted by the Iranian regime combines both traditional Islamic prejudices such as regarding Jews as “wretched anti-Islamic conspirators” and the European – Nazi myth which depicts Jews as powerful , wealthy people who control Western governments and media, and who instigate crisis and wars to maintain their power.

The Iranian regime’s anti-Semitism is well demonstrated in an important speech given by Alireza Panahian, a well-known regime preacher during a rally staged by the security forces in Tehran in April 2015 in support of the Yemen Houthi rebels.

Alireza Panahian and Iran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei

Panahian is one of the most renowned preachers with close ties to the Iranian leader and revolutionary guards. He is a regular speaker at the revolutionary guards and Bassiji force ceremonies, conferences or demonstrations. He is a member of High Council of Qom seminary. below is part of Panahian’s April 2015 anti-Semitic speech. A speech that highlights the Iranian regime’s increasingly extreme anti-Semitism: (Here is the Farsi  audio file of Panahian’s speech)

1684529

Panahian: “When Prophet Mohammad arrived at Medina, his eminence traded the Jews with the utmost mercy and kindness. Although the Jews in Medina were certain that Mohammad was the last prophet to be sent by God, they did not convert to Islam and while their denial was punishable, the prophet of Islam treated them with mercy.

Read more.

64% Say Supreme Court Vacancy Important Factor in Voting

family research council logoWASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today, Family Research Council (FRC) released the results of a commissioned national survey conducted by WPA Opinion Research showing that 64 percent of likely voters agree the Supreme Court will be “an important factor in determining who you vote for in November’s elections.”

71% of Republican voters and 63% of Democratic voters rank the Supreme Court as an important factor.

The survey also found that 71 percent of those who frequently attend worship services (once a week or more) say the Supreme Court is an important factor in determining their vote.  Even 59 percent of those who never attend worship services consider the Supreme Court important to their vote.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments in response:

“This survey tells us that the American people have a sobering perspective following the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Reality is sinking in for voters in both parties that the next president will likely appoint two or three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will impact our nation for decades to come.

“By an 8 point margin, Republican voters are more concerned than Democrats about the future of the Supreme Court. I believe this is in part due to previous Republican presidents who have either been unable to identify liberal jurists in conservative clothing or have been unwilling to fight for nominees who were true constitutionalists.

“The survey also shows that frequent churchgoers are even more concerned than non-churchgoers about the direction of the Court. This higher level of concern is no doubt due to the Supreme Court preempting social consensus by imposing its abortion and marriage views on all 50 states.

“While the country is divided over whether the Supreme Court vacancy should be filled now or after the November elections, it’s clear that the Court is a greater motivating factor for Republican voters and frequent churchgoers than it is for Democrats and those who attend worship services less frequently.

Justice Scalia’s replacement may very well be the deciding vote on major cases involving religious liberty, state abortion laws, gun control, and immigration. With so much at stake, the American people should be allowed to decide in November who picks the next Supreme Court justice,” concluded Perkins.

Click here to download the full survey results.

ABOUT THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL

Our vision is a culture in which human life is valued, families flourish, and religious liberty thrives.

Some still Believe This Is the Land Of Free Speech, Hmm…

Article One of the Bill of Rights plainly states Congress shall make no respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So one has to wonder, why oh! why are the mad, mad political correct speech police are allowed so much unlawful authority in our republic turned mob ruled democracy?  Growing up, I always thought of southern society to be where a man or a woman could speak their mind and would be respected for their own opinion.  On the other hand, if someone says something a little off key they may be reprimanded if need be.

But I have a serious problem with a society that places the sensibilities of thugs above those of police officers and sheriffs, who are by the nature of their jobs are placed in constant mortal danger.  Throughout America, thugs are becoming more brutal in their actions of being an extreme displeasure to homeowners, drivers (via car jackings) people walking down the street etc. etc.

A day in the life of a typical American sheriff or police officer is often emotionally charged by numerous horrific crime scenes and criminal acts. As a result, officers may be affected by the shear madness and barbaric nature of the thugs of today.

What happened to one sheriff who had the audacity not to speak in glowing terms about brutish thugs is in itself, criminal.

Sheriff Clay Higgins is outspoken and sometimes known to be a bit brash, (big deal) was captain of the St. Landry Parish office in Opelousa, La.  He is known to be a tough but fair outspoken critic of those who seek to wreak havoc through criminal activity.  In today’s politically correct environment, the fact that the good sheriff is a Christian probably didn’t bode well for him when he was recently shown in a video circulated on line through Acadiana, La., ABC affiliate KATC in which he called for wanted members of the Gremlins gang to turn themselves in.

Addressing the thugs, Sheriff Higgins called the alleged gang members “thugs” “heathens” and “animals.”  (Oh the horror of it all) Whew!  Of course, the brash sentiments drew the ire of the most anti unalienable rights, anti-authentic American organizations throughout the republic.  The deplorable Southern Poverty Law Center and the A.C.L.U. which I have dubbed in my syndicated radio commentary (The Edwards Notebook) the Anti-Christian Liberal Union.

“We live in a system of laws, and there are legal rights that apply to everyone,” the ACLU said in a statement sent to KATC TV.  “It is the job of law enforcement to protect those rights, while also keeping our communities safe.  The ACLU statement lingered on stating “Nothing that Mr. Higgins said will make his community safer, but there is much to suggest violations of fundamental rights of all…  In doing so he must honor the laws of this country, or he is unfit to serve.”

I have never ever read or heard a reaction of any worthwhile significance from either the ACLU or the Southern Poverty that Law Center progressives when thugs burned up Baltimore and Ferguson, MS.  Not a whimper was heard from either the ACLU or the Southern Poverty Law Center when a mad muslim broke United States Laws by going on a murderous shooting campaign at Fort Hood in Texas.

So, I guess it is more about who did whatever it is the progressives don’t like as oppose to actual U.S. laws.  I find it disingenuous that progressives would seek to punish a human being for calling criminal humans animals.  So if the illogical thinking of progressives would be carried to conclusion, one would think they would commend the sheriff for being kind enough to call thugs animals.

I am increasingly agitated by the fact that the progressive, don’t know it-all gumps as usual make excuses for and want to treat thugs who harm people and private property as if they are privileged characters.  Yet, they ae quick to condemn a man like Sheriff Higgins who should be honored for an overall job well done.

I have a simple, yet great idea. Since the progressives of the A.C.L.U. and Southern Poverty Law Center think they know so much about how to enforce the law and protect the people from thugs let them do it.  Deputies sheriffs and the thin blue line should stand by and let the “non” animals do what they desire until the A.C.L.U. and Southern Poverty Center cone heads figure out how to talk to and respect and coax the cretins into being law abiding citizens.

Oh wait a minute, the mission of both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the A.C.L.U. is to help break down the good and stable norms and elements of American society so they may further permeate our republic with their dogmatic anti Bill of Rights agenda. Unfortunately, I am only scratching the surface here.  With Providential guidance and God’s grace America will be soon restored to her rightful place of greatness.  But We the People who love and appreciate America will have to work together and get the job done.  Remember, this is supposed to be a government of, by and for the people.

Lutheran Social Services booklet on Muslims called ‘fantasy Islam’

Dr. Stephen Kirby writing at Frontpage Magazine analyzed the 61-page booklet prepared by one of the major federal refugee resettlement contractors, ‘My Neighbor is Muslim, Exploring the Muslim Faith,’ and tells us the shocking news that they relied on an Imam with highly questionable ties for the ‘enlightenment’ of naive Minnesotans about the goals of their “new neighbors.”

Jodi Harpstead is the CEO of Lutheran Social Services of Minnesota and as such is responsible for the deceptive booklet. She is making over $300,000 a year to seed St. Cloud and other Minnesota towns with Somali Muslims.

Frontpage:

Jodi Harpstead

Jodi Harpstead

In 2015 the Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota produced a 61 page booklet titled My Neighbor is Muslim, Exploring the Muslim Faith. The purpose of the booklet was to enable Lutherans to learn about Islam in order to better understand their “new neighbors” who were arriving as refugees.

Kirby then lays out his argument in great specificity (read it all!) and wraps up with this:

Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota created a booklet seeking to educate non-Muslims about Islam and encouraging them to have a welcoming attitude toward Muslim refugees coming into their neighborhoods. Ironically, the Muslim imam selected to endorse this booklet appears to be a Hamas supporter, believes that Shariah Law should be enforced in American communities where Muslims are the majority, heads one of two mosques that have been the focus of articles about Somali youth leaving Minneapolis to fight for a terrorist organization, and was recently refused a government security clearance. Welcome to the neighborhood!

Part 2 will look at how Islam is presented in this booklet.  [watch for it!—ed]

See our many many posts on Minnesota by clicking here.   Lutheran Social Service has been resettling Somalis in that state for three decades.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Sen. Ben Sasse: Obama Has ‘Wreaked Havoc’ on America

US Refugee Admissions Program is secretive, elected officials are not given information

Refugees by the numbers

VIDEO: Removing the membrane of deceit which covers all things Islamic

Introduction to Robert Spencer’s address at the David Horowitz Freedom Center event at the LUXE Hotel, Brentwood, CA, September 17, 2015:

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and salam alaikum, as they say in Dearborn.

Driving here this evening, I was reminded of the story about a 6th grade teacher who gave her class an art assignment to draw a picture of anyone they wished. As she circulated the class she came across little Johnny. “Johnny”, she said, “of whom are you drawing a picture?” “I’m drawing a picture of God,” replied Johnny. “But Johnny, nobody knows what God looks like,” said the teacher. “Well”, replied Johnny in a flash, “they will in a minute!”

In a minute we will have the pleasure of listening to Robert Spencer, but before that, I would like to take you all the way back to December of 1936, when King Edward VIII abdicated the throne of Great Britain so he could marry the dismal and socially ambitious Mrs. Simpson. This finally ended a great constitutional crisis which had shaken the Empire and rocked the foundations of the ancient British Monarchy. At that moment, his younger brother Albert became George VI by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of its Dominions across the seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India.

A few weeks later, somebody asked the reluctant monarch how he was enjoying being king. “It’s quite a good job”, he said, “but there’s no room for advancement!”

I suspect that Robert Spencer might now be in a similar position. He has become so well-known warning us against the Islamization of America and the West, while expertly removing the membrane of deceit which covers all things Islamic, that he has become such a sovereign figure against regnant Islam that for him too there is now no room for advancement.

Indeed, if he never spoke another word or wrote another sentence on these matters, we would still owe him a debt of gratitude that can never be fully repaid.

When he is not being denied entry to England by a British government paralyzed by a tragically consuming political correctness that it is unable to distinguish its friends from its enemies, and when he is not narrowly escaping assassination at the hands of two Islamic terrorists, neatly and permanently dispatched by the police in Garland, Texas, Robert Spencer has been busy writing two New York Times bestsellers, The Truth About Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, as well as 13 other books and some six pamphlets illuminating the destructive intentions, the corrosive effects, and the boundless determination of the “religion of peace”, the instincts of which are so fraternal that it seeks to provide us all with a one-way ticket back to the 7th Century.

His articles have appeared in hundreds of newspapers and periodicals around the world; he has spoken on scores of campuses throughout America; and he has appeared many times on every major news channel in the United States. He has led seminars on Islam and Jihad for the United States Central Command, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the U.S. Intelligence Community.

With his recent book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS, Robert Spencer has now turned his perceptive and analytical mind to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Not long ago, Barack Obama, beaming his wisdom towards us, told us that ISIS is neither Islamic nor a state…yet it has been beheading its way to Baghdad and Syria in an orgy of violence the warrant for which, it never tires of telling us, is the Quran itself. It now occupies an area larger than the United Kingdom, has its own currency, its own highly solvent bank and, remarkably, has devised a national budget which would seem to put it far ahead of the Obama Administration!

One of Robert Spencer’s books, available at fine book stores everywhere, was titled, Did Muhammad Exist? Like other legendary figures from centuries ago, we cannot be absolutely certain, but due to his faultless service, his dedication and his courage in speaking the truth which has become manifest to us all, we know and are delighted that Robert Spencer exists. He joins us here tonight. Please give a warm California welcome to Mr. Robert Spencer.

Paul Schnee has served as Executive Director of the Los Angeles chapter of the Zionist Organization of America.

RELATED ARTICLE: “Robert Spencer will be DEAD before August 2016 it will be brutal”

Muslim facing deportation after threating to execute Donald Trump

Now he is playing the victim: “It’s just a stupid post. You can find thousands of these every hour on Facebook and the media. I don’t know why would they think I am a threat to the national security of the United States just because of a stupid post.”

The thing is, a death threat is serious business. Or it ought to be.

Anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, who utters such a specific threat to kill anyone should be prosecuted. There shouldn’t be any leeway on this because Elsayed wrote the threat on Facebook, or because such threats are common.

Incidentally, in pilot class did he express any interest in learning how to take off and to land, or just in learning how to fly the plane? Just wondering.

“A flight student from Egypt is facing deportation from the United States after being investigated by federal agents for posting on his Facebook page that he was willing to serve a life sentence for killing Donald Trump and that the world would thank him,” by Amy Taxin and Brian Rohan, Associated Press, March 3, 2016:

Ohoud Ali Mohamed Nasr El Sayed

Ohoud Ali Mohamed Nasr El Sayed

ORANGE, Calif. (AP) — A flight student from Egypt is facing deportation from the United States after being investigated by federal agents for posting on his Facebook page that he was willing to kill Donald Trump and the world would thank him.

While U.S. prosecutors have not charged 23-year-old Emadeldin Elsayed with a crime, immigration authorities arrested him last month at the Los Angeles-area flight school he attended and now are trying to deport him, attorney Hani Bushra said Wednesday.

Elsayed, who is being held in a jail in Orange, California, is devastated at seeing his dreams of becoming a pilot dashed over what Bushra acknowledged was a foolish social media post. An immigration court hearing will determine whether Elsayed will be deported.

“It seems like the government was not able to get a criminal charge to stick on him, so they used the immigration process to have him leave the country,” Bushra said. “The rhetoric is particularly high in this election, and I just feel he got caught up in the middle.”

Trump is leading the Republican presidential contenders and has used especially tough talk on immigration to win over many voters. He has vowed to build a wall along the entire Mexican border and has called for temporarily banning Muslims from entering the country.

U.S. Secret Service agents interviewed Elsayed in early February after he posted a photo of Trump on Facebook and wrote he was willing to serve a life sentence for killing the billionaire and the world would thank him, Bushra said. The agents returned eight days later and told him federal prosecutors had declined to charge him but said his visa to attend flight school had been revoked. He was arrested by immigration authorities.

Elsayed said he wrote the message because he was angered by Trump’s comments about Muslims. He said he immediately regretted it, and he never intended to harm anyone.

“It’s just a stupid post. You can find thousands of these every hour on Facebook and the media,” he told The Associated Press in a phone interview from jail. “I don’t know why would they think I am a threat to the national security of the United States just because of a stupid post.”

Elsayed said the agent who interviewed him mentioned last year’s shooting rampage by a Muslim husband-and-wife couple in San Bernardino and the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, which were carried out by Muslims who had sought flight training in the United States.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a statement that Elsayed was arrested because he violated “the terms of his admission to the United States.” The agency did not provide further details.

The State Department and Secret Service declined to discuss the case. A Trump campaign spokeswoman also declined to comment.

Elsayed is from Cairo, but he said he spent much of his life in Saudi Arabia, where his father worked as a civil engineer. He came to the United States for the first time last September to attend Universal Air Academy with the hope of returning to Egypt and getting a job at an airline, he said….

RELATED ARTICLE: “Robert spencer will be DEAD before August 2016 it will be brutal”

PODCAST: Former DHS Agent Philip Haney — ‘Words have Meaning’

359-haney-kelly-940

Philip Haney on the Kelly File, Fox News. Photo: Fox News.

On the latest edition of TRUNEWS, Rick Wiles interviews DHS Whistleblower Philip Haney to discuss the insidious Islamic infiltration of the United States, which he tirelessly sought to expose before being shut down by the Obama administration.

When does ignorance become complicity?

Do the words peace and submit in western context mean the same to the delusional believers of the false prophet Allah?

Rick and Mr. Haney delve into the underbelly of what could very well be the biggest conspiracy in the history our nation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Media, Security Watchdogs: Radical Islam Remains a Global and National Threat to Christians

Judicial Watch: Homeland Security Records Reveal Officials Ordered Terrorist Watch List Scrubbed – Judicial Watch

DHS Secretly Scrubbed 1,000 Names From U.S. Terror Watch Lists

JW v DHS documents 00222 – Judicial Watch

12-Year-Old Girl Latest Executioner for Islamic State

She executed five women including a doctor who refused to take care of ISIS fighters who were injured during an coalition air strike.

A 12-year old girl who is under the control of the Islamic State is the brutal terror group’s latest executioner.

Speaking on Wednesday, March 2, a local source in Ninveh who requested anonymity told Alsumaria News, “On the evening of March 2, a 12-year-old Islamic State girl executed five women including a doctor who refused to take care of ISIS fighters who were injured during an air strike conducted by the international coalition. She shot the victims in the El-Razalani (Ghazlani) camp [in Mosul, Iraq]. This was considered to be the first time ISIS used a young girl as an executioner.”

Mosul has been under the control of the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) since June 2014. Since the takeover, residents of the city have been suffering from a security and humanitarian crisis under the extreme strictures of the group.

This video shows another of ISIS’ child executioners in action. WARNING: Graphic footage:

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE VIDEO

RELATED ARTICLES:

ISIS Wages Brutal War in Egyptian Sinai

U.S. Air Force Vet Goes to Trial for Trying to Join Islamic State

Kuwaiti Writer: Islamist Should Stop Trying to Dominate the World

ISIS Leader’s German Wife on the Run

EDITORS NOTE: The features photo is a screenshot from an Islamic State propaganda video of a child pointing a gun at the camera.

Pope Francis: ‘We can speak today of an Arab invasion’ of Europe

One that he and his minions have aided and abetted. “If Europe wants to rejuvenate, it is necessary for it to find anew its cultural roots” — yet Catholic bishops in Europe wouldn’t dream of standing for Christianity, or trying to preach it among the Muslim migrants. That might harm the “dialogue.”

In any case, the problem is not Arabs coming into Europe. The problem is Muslims coming into Europe believing that Sharia is superior to Constitutional government and determined to impose it in their new countries.

“Pope: ‘Yes, we can speak today of an Arab invasion [of Europe],’” Rorate Caeli, March 2, 2016 (thanks to David):

In his interview with French religious periodical La Vie, Pope Francis was asked about the current situation in Europe, and this was his response:

“The only continent that can bring about a certain unity to the world is Europe,” the Pope adds. “China has perhaps a more ancient, deeper, culture. But only Europe has a vocation towards universality and service.” … “If Europe wants to rejuvenate, it is necessary for it to find anew its cultural roots. Of all Western countries, the European roots are the strongest and deepest. By the way of colonization, these roots even reached the New World. But, by forgetting its history, Europe weakens itself. It is then that it risks becoming an empty place.”

[La Vie:] Europe, an empty place? The expression is strong. … Because in the history of civilizations, emptiness always calls fullness to itself. Incidentally, the Pope becomes clinical [in his diagnosis]:

“We can speak today of an Arab invasion. It is a social fact.” … “How many invasions Europe has known throughout its history! It has always known how to overcome itself, moving forward to find itself as if made greater by the exchange between cultures.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rep. Mark Meadows: House Panel Demands Accurate Numbers on Visa Overstays

Council of Islamic Ideology: Women protection law against Islamic Sharia

Muslima who beheaded toddler recently became religious, started wearing hijab

Muslim Voters Overwhelmingly Support Hillary Clinton

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim Brotherhood linked organization, today released the results of a six-state “Super Tuesday” poll of almost 2000 Muslim voters indicating that almost half of those voters (46 percent) support Hillary Clinton, followed by Bernie Sanders at 25 percent and 11 percent support for Donald Trump.

CAIR’s poll also showed that growing Islamophobia is the top issue for Muslim voters.

According to Discover the Networks:

The term “Islamophobia” was invented and promoted in the early 1990s by the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), a front group of the Muslim Brotherhood. Former IIIT member Abdur-Rahman Muhammad — who was with that organization when the word was formally created, and who has since rejected IIIT’s ideology — now reveals the original intent behind the concept of Islamophobia: “This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” In short, in its very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term designed as a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing them.

NIHAD AWAD

Nihad Awad

“American Muslim voters are worried about the unprecedented anti-Muslim rhetoric being used by presidential candidates and are going to the polls in increasing numbers at both the state and national levels to make their voices heard by the candidates,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.

Awad publicly declared “I am in support of the Hamas movement,” during a March 1994 symposium at Barry University.

An exit poll of Muslim voters in Texas and Virginia indicated that Sanders narrowed Clinton’s lead in those states – 34 to 40 percent in Virginia and 29 to 37 percent in Texas.

In upcoming primary elections in California, Illinois, New York, and Florida Clinton’s lead over Sanders ranged from 22 percent (California) to 40 percent (New York).

The survey indicated that older Muslim voters – 65 percent of those 45 to 64 and 80 percent of those 65 and older – backed Clinton, while younger Muslim voters (18 to 24) supported Sanders (78 percent). In the 25 to 44 age group, support for Clinton and Sanders was more evenly distributed at 44 percent for Sanders and 56 percent for Clinton.

CAIR noted that Muslim support for Sanders may actually be higher because its poll surveyed more voters over the age of 45.

Nationwide, Islamophobia continued to rank as the most important issue of concern for all Muslim voters (24 percent), a partisan divide was evident with Muslim Democrats ranking Islamophobia highest (27 percent) and then the economy (19 percent), while Muslim Republicans ranked the economy (38 percent) highest followed by Islamophobia (14 percent).

Support for the Democratic and Republican Parties mostly remained constant from previous surveys with 67 percent of Muslim voters supporting the Democratic Party and 18 percent supporting the Republican Party. CAIR’s February 1 poll of Muslim voters showed 67 and 15 percent respectively voiced support for the Democratic and Republican Parties.

RELATED ARTICLE: Were Muslim Voters Behind Sanders’ Surprising Upset in Michigan?