SlantRight 2.0: Multiculturalism

Showing posts with label Multiculturalism. Show all posts

Saturday, February 8, 2020

The Netherlands: The Geert Wilders Show Trial Continues

Most European Union (EU) nations operate under a Parliamentary political system rather than a Federal political system as in the USA. As such the Parliamentary system in the Netherlands is now being exposed in doing its version of a Trump-frame against Party for Freedom (Dutch acronym – PVV. Interesting irony on Wikipedia PVV info: the English Wikipedia listing is quite negative while the Dutch language Wikipedia [I used Google Translate] is more informational and balanced) leader Geert Wilders. WHY? Wilders is anti-Multiculturalist and anti-Muslim immigration all to preserve Western Culture.

It is extremely apparent Netherlands (and EU) power elites fear a drain-the-swamp avalanche if Wilders ever wins enough of a Parliamentary election to be the Netherlands Prime Minister.

The Gatestone Institute authored by Soeren Kern reports on exposé of Netherlands government corruption leveled against Wilders by Amsterdam-based newspaper De Volkskrant.

JRH 2/8/20

Your generosity is always appreciated - various credit, check

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account:

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business –

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee.

BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You're temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

****************************

The Netherlands: The Geert Wilders Show Trial Continues

By Soeren Kern

February 8, 2020 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

§ The emails indicate that Prime Minister Mark Rutte himself was involved in the decision to prosecute Wilders.

§ "Minister Van der Steur has deliberately withheld those documents, as is apparent from these documents. Moreover, it appears that another Justice Minister, Minister Opstelten, lied..." — Geert Wilders, February 5, 2020

§ "Mr. Presiding Judge, the Minister of Justice interfered in detail with my conviction. The documents even state that the Ministry of Justice instructed the public prosecutor — you will find the word 'instruct' in the documents...." -- Geert Wilders, February 5, 2020

§ "And every day that this trial continues and you do not punish the conspiring prosecution, and the Ministry of Justice for their lies and haggling with the principles of an independent, fair and balanced trial, by declaring them inadmissible, every day this trial continues is a black day in the history of Dutch justice." — Geert Wilders, February 5, 2020

§ "In the Wilders case, we certainly do not have to rely on the judge to agree with Wilders and to reach the conclusion that there has been a political trial, which is therefore not legally valid.... Wilders case appears to have been pre-cooked in the cabinet itself.... [Prime Minister] Rutte himself was involved.... The lying and spinning must stop somewhere.... This rule of law, in which judges and prosecutors receive instructions by the politicians on how to act, is rotten from within." – Joost Niemöller, Dutch Journalist, Ongehoordnederland.nl, February 5, 2020

Newly released documents show that senior members of the Dutch government — including the former prime minister and justice minister — applied political pressure on public prosecutors to indict Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom for "hate speech." Pictured: Wilders (left) sits next to current Prime Minister Mark Rutte at a meeting of political party leaders at the Dutch House of Representatives on March 16, 2017 in The Hague. (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)

Newly released documents show that senior members of the Dutch government — including the prime minister and two former justice ministers — applied political pressure on public prosecutors to indict Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV), for hate speech for comments he made about Islam and Moroccan immigrants.

The documents, which the government turned over to the Amsterdam-based newspaper De Volkskrant in compliance with a Freedom of Information request, appear to confirm long-standing allegations by Wilders that the government's decade-long legal war against him is far from a principled pursuit of justice, and instead politically motivated aimed at silencing his criticism of multiculturalism and mass migration from the Muslim world.

On February 3, De Volkskrant reported that the government documents — numbering nearly 500 pages — show that as early as 2008, then-Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin was "intensively involved" in the decision to prosecute Wilders.

According to De Volkskrant, the Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie, OM) found nothing illegal about Wilders statements, but Hirsch Ballin pressed the OM on three separate occasions to change its assessment.

In June 2008, the OM dismissed more than 40 criminal complaints against Wilders on the grounds that his statements were made "in the context of political debate" and therefore "not of a punishable nature."

In January 2009, the Amsterdam Appeals Court, the second-highest legal authority in the Netherlands, overturned the OM's decision and ruled that Wilders could be tried for inciting hatred. Wilders said that it was a "black day for myself and for freedom of speech."

The first trial against Wilders began on October 4, 2010. He was accused of insulting religious and ethnic groups and inciting hatred and discrimination for describing Islam as fascist and comparing the Koran to Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf. Wilders argued that his statements were directed at Islam as an ideology and not at individual Muslim believers.

The trial collapsed on October 22, 2010, after it emerged that Tom Schalken, one of the judges in the case, had tried to sway a potential witness.

The retrial began on February 6, 2011 with three new judges. Wilders said that his trial was about preserving freedom of expression in the West.

On June 23, 2011, Wilders was acquitted of all charges. Judge Marcel van Oosten ruled that the statements by Wilders, while "gross and denigrating," did not meet the standard of hate speech and as such were "acceptable within the context of public debate."

Despite the acquittal, the government's harassment of Wilders continued. Internal government emails recently published by RTL Nieuws show that Hirsch Ballin's successor, Justice Minister Ivo Opstelten, repeatedly pressured the OM to bring a new case against Wilders. Opstelten, his aides and the prosecutor repeatedly consulted with each other before the decision to prosecute Wilders a second time was made in the fall of 2014. The OM has always denied that it was subject to outside political interference; the emails show that the OM denials were untruthful. An email sent by the lead prosecutor, Wouter Bos, on October 8, 2014, warned: "This must not leak!"

Other government emails show that the decision to bring a new case against Wilders was discussed as early as March 2014 in the Council of Ministers, the executive council of Dutch government, formed by all the ministers, including the prime minister. The emails indicate that Prime Minister Mark Rutte himself was involved in the decision to prosecute Wilders.

On March 18, 2016, Wilders went on trial again for allegedly inciting hatred against Moroccan immigrants. Prosecutors said that in March 2014, Wilders, while campaigning in The Hague, asked a crowd of supporters if they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. The crowd said fewer. Wilders responded: "We'll take care of that."

Prosecution spokeswoman Ilse de Heer said that Wilders "targeted a specific race, which is considered a crime." Wilders countered that his comments referred to Moroccan criminals, not to Moroccans in general, and that, in any event, Moroccans are not a race.

On December 9, 2016, Wilders was found guilty of inciting discrimination. The court, however, imposed no form of punishment; it said that the verdict was sufficient penalty. The Public Prosecutor demanded a fine of €5,000 ($5,500). Both Wilders and the Prosecutor appealed.

Since then, Wilders has been entangled in a protracted legal process that shows no signs of ending anytime soon. In an appeal hearing on February 5, 2020, Wilders voiced his anger over the political nature of the case against him:

"Presiding Judge, members of the court: The shamelessness of the Public Prosecution Office knows no boundaries. In a report we received yesterday and heard about today, they claim — one-and-a-half days after they received the documents from the Ministry of Justice — that nothing is wrong, that nothing has been found that indicates political influence.

"Rarely have I seen attorney generals who are so damaging to the rule of law, who don't care about a fair trial. They are blinded by their hatred for me and the PPV. These kinds of people, like those two attorney generals, ensure that the trust of ordinary people, the common man and woman in the Netherlands, in the public prosecutor and the judiciary has fallen to a low point.

"The Public Prosecutor says that there is nothing wrong. Shame on you, attorney generals. What we all know now is enough to immediately end this political process, this charade....

"We already knew, Mr. Presiding Judge and members of the court, that officials from the Ministry of Justice, under the responsibility of former Justice Minister Ivo Opstelten, had adjusted press releases from the public prosecutor. That it was Minister Opstelten himself who wanted two press releases. That his officials had made a legal analysis of this case. And shared this with the public prosecutor.

"We already knew that they had helped the public prosecutor refute the defenses of the defense. That, for example, the phrase, 'we will arrange that' was brought to the attention of the public prosecutor by the Ministry of Justice. That they wanted to see the requisites in advance to provide comments.

"And now there are 475 pieces again. And indeed, we have not been able to read all of them, I mean, we could hardly read any of the pieces. But if I only look at what the media writes about it, such as Volkskrant or RTL journalist Pieter Klein, then only more shocking things have come to the surface.

"It even appears now that it [the case] has been discussed in the Council of Ministers, Mr. Presiding Judge. In the Council of Ministers. How much more political does it get?

"The documents show that a senior official of the Ministry of General Affairs of Prime Minister Rutte informed a senior official of Ministry of Justice of Minister Opstelten that the Prime Minister expects the Minister of Justice to be able to say something meaningful during the Council of Ministers of March 21, 2014 about whether the prosecution of Wilders is promising.

"How promising it is! Promising: according to the dictionary, I looked it up, that also means likely, successful. It has a positive connotation. The Council of Ministers, Mr. Presiding Judge. This concerns an opposition leader in the House of Representatives. That is shameful, but that is, unfortunately, not unique, because we also know from the documents that we received yesterday that it was — in relation to the Wilders 1 trial, but I still want to have mentioned it, to indicate what they are capable of — that it was then Justice Minister Hirsch Ballin who requested legal advice three times because he did not like the earlier advice that it was impossible to prosecute Wilders. He repeated his requests for advice until he received the advice he wanted.

"Back to this trial. Apart from the fact that it was discussed in the Council of Ministers — words cannot express, it does not become much more political and corrupt — former [Justice] Minister Van der Steur, the documents show, deliberately and personally stopped the publication, on the basis of the Dutch Freedom of Information Act (WOB), of an official message about my persecution. Minister Van der Steur stopped that.

"According to the documents, the decision on the WOB request was delayed until after the decision of the Court of First Instance. Until after my conviction. Imagine that. Mafia practices. Pure political influence of the worst kind. A minister who deliberately withholds relevant and possibly exculpatory documents until after the conviction. Words really cannot express...

"If we had received those documents earlier and also all the other documents requested on that basis, and now also obtained with the permission of your court, then perhaps it might not have come to a conviction at all...then the court might not have decided on a conviction in the first instance.

"Minister Van der Steur has deliberately withheld those documents, as is apparent from these documents. Moreover, it appears that another Justice Minister, Minister Opstelten, lied when he said during his interrogation by the commissioner, that outside the Council of Ministers — you can find it literally in the reports — he never spoke about this matter with other ministers.

"The documents that we received yesterday show that he did indeed talk to other ministers about this outside the Council of Ministers, namely with Interior Minister Ronald Plasterk.

"Mr. Presiding Judge, the Minister of Justice interfered in detail with my conviction. The documents even state that the Ministry of Justice instructed the public prosecutor — you will find the word 'instruct' in the documents — when and at what time they had to call me on October 9, 2014, to say that I was a suspect. For a phone call to me, saying that I was a suspect, the Public Prosecutor's Office was instructed by the Ministry of Justice when and at what time and on what day that had to happen.

"My case has been dealt with in detail. And this whole trial, just like the Wilders 1 trial, is permeated with political influence. From phone calls, up to the Council of Ministers, and to ministers who withheld or delayed documents, an opposition leader from the national parliament has been prosecuted for ten years that way.

"Politics have always been involved, from civil servants to ministers and the Council of Ministers. Every day that this trial continues and you do not punish the conspiring prosecution, and the Ministry of Justice for their lies and haggling with the principles of an independent, fair and balanced trial, by declaring them inadmissible, every day this trial continues is a black day in the history of Dutch justice.

"This trial will have to stop today. I have said it many times. To be honest, I find it incomprehensible that this has not been decided long ago by declaring the prosecution inadmissible. If in the unfortunate event, even after today, you want to continue with this trial again, then indeed, and you have just said that, Mr. Presiding Judge, we need ample time to read all those documents and possibly based on those documents, also call new witnesses, like Minister Van der Steur. Like the prime minister. Like all the people involved.

"It is clear from these documents that they are more involved than we already knew. And see the minutes, the records, of the Council of Ministers as well. It appears to have been discussed. It has been said by the General Affairs official against the Justice official: '[Prime Minister Mark] Rutte wants to say something about the chances of this trial, Ivo [Opstelten].' And Ivo went to the Council of Ministers on March 21. This has always been denied. Denied during the interrogations. Now it appears to have just happened. I want to see those documents from the Council of Ministers. I want to talk to people about it. It is not just about someone who steals a roll of licorice. It is about the opposition leader in the Dutch parliament whose persecution has been influenced up to the Council of Ministers.

"I want to hear the truth. I want to hear more than the truth about the political influence in this trial so that this trial is taken off the table as quickly as possible.

Veteran Dutch journalist Joost Niemöller wrote:

"On February 3, just before another hearing in the endless criminal case against Wilders, a bulk of internal documents were dropped by Justice Minister Ferdinand Grapperhaus which relate to the official and political involvement in this trial. These documents were intended for the House of Representatives and are now public.

"If the Chamber takes its task seriously, it must investigate the political nature of this lawsuit. That is emphatically not an investigation into the trial itself — after all, we have a separation of powers here — but an investigation into the political role behind the continuation of this trial....

"In the Wilders case, we certainly do not have to rely on the judge to agree with Wilders and to reach the conclusion that there has been a political trial, which is therefore not legally valid.... After the internal documents released, the issue has become even more flammable.

"The Wilders case appears to have been pre-cooked in the cabinet itself.... [Prime Minister] Rutte himself was involved.... The lying and spinning must stop somewhere.

"The anger of Wilders in court was only too understandable, and all too justified. It is the anger of more and more Dutch people. Even in the mainstream media it is now recognized that this political pre-cooking goes beyond all limits.

"This is the umpteenth example in which democracy is excluded by the judiciary, because the judiciary and the OM have become an extension of politics.

"This point is increasingly emphasized by, among others, Forum for Democracy leader Thierry Baudet, whose hypocritical opponents accuse him of rejecting the rule of law.

"This rule of law, in which judges and prosecutors receive instructions by the politicians on how to act, is rotten from within."

Wilders' trial will continue on March 23. Four additional hearings are scheduled for April. It remains unclear when his trial will end.

+++++++++++++++++

______________________

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. Follow Soeren Kern on Twitter and Facebook

© 2020 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor: Full disclosure – I did not seek permission and post will be removed if Gatestone Institute requests so.]

Donate to Gatestone Institute

Tuesday, December 31, 2019

The Unacceptable Cost of Refugee Resettlement

Justin Smith tackles the issue of settling refugees from cultures that have zero allegiance to American culture and heritage and idiocy of the American Left complicit in destroying our American heritage. Essentially making the Many eradicate the One - ending E Pluribus Unum.

JRH 12/31/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business –

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee.

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

******************************

The Unacceptable Cost of Refugee Resettlement

Refugee Resettlement Is Not America's Obligation

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 12/28/2019 8:19 PM

Americans absolutely have the right to determine who, if anyone, enters the country, and it doesn't violate any law or the Constitution to reject anyone claiming refugee status. So-called refugees do not have any automatic right to be granted entry, despite many leftist assertions to the contrary, and many of us are sick and tired of hearing our leaders' cliched platitudes that suggest they have a "Big Heart", much like Governor Bill Lee (R-TN), while they allow people into the country, who come to America to avoid fighting for their own countries; and, usually, of late, these refugees hold ideas and views so anti-American and so antithetical to the Constitution, that they eventually become a great disruptive factor to any community, as they work to undermine the nation.

On December 18th 2019, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee announced his decision to send a letter of consent to the Trump administration, in order to accept more refugees for resettlement next year. His decision coincides with those of other Republican governors who have also stated their intent to admit more refugees, such as Kim Reynolds of Iowa, Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, Doug Ducey of Arizona, Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, Gary Herbert of Utah and Doug Burgum of North Dakota.

And of course, numerous Democratic led states, such as California, New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, Virginia and others have already submitted letters of consent or are making preparations to do so. According to U.S. State Department arrival records, resettlement has occurred in the District of Columbia, every U.S. territory and state since 2003.

The state of Tennessee still has a high-profile Tenth Amendment lawsuit in the works, that Governor Lee has essentially undermined through his consent letter, effectively infuriating legislative leaders who had sued the federal government. The lawsuit questions the constitutionality of the refugee resettlement program.

House Speaker Cameron Sexton and Lt Governor Randy McNally (TN) issued a joint statement: "Our personal preference would have been to exercise the option to hit the pause button on accepting additional refugees in our state."

While more than a third of Tennessee's 95 counties are preparing to challenge any refugee resettlement, so too are other counties around America, from North Dakota to Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Indiana to Vermont, New Hampshire and Wyoming. Burleigh County North Dakota heard its chairman, Brian Bitner, voice citizens' concerns, stating: "North Dakota is already the highest per capita state for refugee resettlement in terms of number of citizens, so in the absence of any sort of number, there's no way we could know the cost to the state or the county, and I simply can't support that."

President Trump signed an executive order that allowed all fifty states to decide whether to accept refugees or not, in September of this year, and it requires a written letter of consent. This isn't any guarantee that refugees won't settle in an area that initially rejected the refugee resettlement program, since they can travel from state to state and county to county; and regardless of this, many Americans simply don't want any more anti-American refugees, such as Somalia born Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN), or Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) -- American born but raised to hate America by her "palestinian" Muslim mother, given entry to our nation, since they sound and act more like agents of Hamas, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Hezbollah and Al Shabaab than someone interested in keeping America strong and free.

On August 26th 2019, Representative Ilhan Omar called for the government of Somalia to protect Hormuud Telecom Company, from United Nation peace-keepers, even though HTC has been financing the Al Shabaab terrorist organization for years. This link between Hormuud and Al Shabaab is well documented in the October 19th 2019 report compiled by the International Policy Group, entitled 'Reaping the Whirlwind -- Hormuud Entrepreneurs and the Resurgence of Al Shabaab'.

One should note that 45 Somali Muslims left their homes in Minneapolis to join the Somali based Al Shabaab Islamic terror group or ISIS, in 2007, as documented by FBI statistics. And as of 2018, a dozen more were arrested as they attempted to leave the U.S. for their expressed purpose of fighting for ISIS.

According to Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project, Representative Rashida Tlaib was photographed, in January 2019, with Abbas Hamideh, a Hezbollah supporter, and again in March with Nader Jalajel, a Palestinian activist who mourned the death of a Palestinian terrorist who had murdered a Jewish rabbi the previous year.

America has far too many natural born citizens who seemingly hate Her to be bringing in foreign nationals who hate America too, doesn't She?

Refugees come from many countries across the globe, fleeing specific danger in their homelands, although the bulk of refugees have been from Iraq, Syria and Somalia since 2015; and a large number is comprised of people who simply wouldn't fight for their war-torn countries. They come here too often simply from necessity, in their eyes, and safety, and not out of any sense of kindred spirit or love for the American way of life, our freedom and our liberty. And so, they set about life in their own tradition, with the same associated flaws that created the troubles in their country, regardless of its unseemly and foreign nature and cloistered within an American community.

Americans don't want to see their neighborhoods permanently transformed into United Nations refugee camps filled with welfare dependents, as they now find in Minneapolis where the crime rate has soared exponentially, largely due to the rapid and massive influx of Somali Muslim refugees. According to Steven Camarota's 2015 study (The High Cost of Resettling {Muslim} Middle Eastern Refugees), it costs taxpayers $64,370 for each Muslim refugee, which is twelve times UN estimates to care for one refugee in surrounding Middle Eastern nations. Even worse, the crime rate rose by fifty-six percent in Minneapolis, between 2010 and 2018, due to criminal activity by Somali Muslim gangs.

For God's sake, what is wrong with being a bit more discerning in regards of the refugees America accepts? Why can't we accept more like Ayn Rand, staunch anti-communist defender of liberty, Dith Pran, Pulitzer prize winning photo-journalist and translator for U.S. Military Assistance Command (Cambodia) and Albert Einstein, a genius physicist and Nobel Laureate?

The United States granted an astronomical number of asylum requests in September 2019 to a combined 70,246 Afghan refugees and Special Immigration Visas (Afghan "allies") and 161,665 Iraqi refugees and SIVs. The war in Iraq ended in 2011, so there really isn't any excuse for U.S. taxpayers to be funding new lives in America for anyone from Iraq, other than the truly persecuted Christians who are still trapped in the region.

America spent enormous sums of money and lost thousands of fine men and women to give Iraqis a better path forward and a new chance to govern themselves as free men and women. Is there any good reason that justifies moving tens of thousands of Iraqis, or Syrians or Somalians for that matter, to any American town?

President Trump is only willing to give 18,000 refugees entry to America this year, which is the lowest number authorized since the program's inception in 1980. In contrast, President Barack Obama was willing to accept 110,000 refugees in 2017.

Amid the current anti-open borders sentiment in America, the open borders crowd, the Leftists of America always seem to manage to move U.S. policy in the opposite direction, just as they are currently attempting through a lawsuit filed against President Trump's executive order on November 21st 2019. Although public support for deceasing the numbers of legal immigration of all kinds is significant, the supporters are not well organized, unlike the Leftist coalition of ethnic churches and organizations that skillfully navigates the political arena in strong opposition to any proposal restricting any segment of legal immigration, including asylum seekers.

The lawsuit was filed in a Maryland federal court by lawyers representing the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and Church World Service. Shortly afterwards, Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president of LIRS, stated: "This executive order is unconstitutional and compassionless, and reflects a complete misunderstanding of the refugee resettlement process in this country."

Over the past decade, Ann Corcoran, a refugee law and policy expert, has given America outstanding briefings on the issue. She outlines in great detail the ultimate conflict of interest, by which refugee contractors' entire budgets grow commensurate to the number of refugees they resettle. The more communities they get on board with refugee resettlement, the more money they receive, and so their is nearly a knock down dragged out fight over all 3007 counties across America, with the goal of moving them to send letters of consent to the State Department.

Unbelievable as it seems, most Republican politicians are somewhat amenable to the one-sided pressure for all the wrong reasons, and in some cases, they [Blog Editor: i.e. (alleged) Conservative] are absolutely in the pockets of Open Borders Inc. And although conservatives have ceded a great deal of America to the Left, the refugee coalition has not ceded a single county; and so, thanks to many complacent and corrupt GOP politicians, refugee resettlement has thrived in the most conservative areas of the nation. The financial and cultural costs of refugee resettlement have been unacceptable and enormous.

On July 5th 2017, a report, entitled 'The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program: A Roadmap for Reform', written by policy analyst David Inserra noted that at least sixty-one people who came to the United States as refugees engaged in terrorist activities between 2002 and 2016. The report detailed scores of other refugees who lied or took part in terror plots, as part of a study aimed at reforming the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. The report concluded there was a need to place strict limits on refugee numbers and restrictions on the refugees themselves.

Surely every knowledgeable American understands full well that there isn't any universal right to migrate, and resettlement isn't the solution to mass displacement. Our policymakers have a duty and a responsibility to make certain our nation only accepts as many refugees as can be safely scrutinized, investigated and assimilated. More importantly, America is not obligated to resettle refugees, and the ones we do resettle, America does so from a humane perspective and in hopes that such actions will also benefit our national interests.

So, to all the naive shmucks and corrupt, complicit liars out in Fly-Over-Country, who are playing a dangerous game with American lives, place your "Big Heart" on full display, but ignoring a moral and constitutional duty to place American interests and American lives above those of foreign nationals' needs is unconscionable and treasonous, at its best. Pressure Saudi Arabia, the United Emirates and Qatar to utilize their millions of dollars to resettle Muslim refugees in their own nations, as America works to facilitate the integration and assimilation of refugees it already has accepted, if and when such a feat is possible. Don't let your "Big Heart" drive all common sense from between your ears, while your platitudes set the further destruction of America in motion, since the perpetrators of future Islamic terror attacks are already here: And as such, America would be most wise to, at the very least, halt any more Muslims from coming to America.

By Justin O. Smith

++++++++++++++++++++

_______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

Friday, July 12, 2019

Introducing the Tolerance of the Intolerable:

What Happens When Mixing Multiculturalism, Islam & Multiculturalism?

John R. Houk

© July 12, 2019

On July 10 I posted about Tommy Robinson being a “Rebel Against UK Multiculturalism” pleading for his support even after his unjust conviction criminalizing telling the truth about Muslim pedophilia rapists in the United Kingdom.

On July 11 I posted “The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism” being an agenda leading toward the end of National Sovereignty and Liberty in Western Culture but especially as we Americans have known in the U.S. of A.

Today’s post somewhat combines the themes of the last two posts about how elitist Multiculturalists are creating New Speak terminology to force a brainwashed population to tolerate what common sense would tell you is intolerable.

It’s time for an English vocabulary lesson. Noisy Room has picked up a Linda Goudsmit post at Pundicity introducing the word “Tolerism” describing Tommy Robinson’s political persecution by the UK judicial system ending Free Speech while submitting to Islamic dhimmitude in the name of culture destroying Multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism Destroying Cultures:

o Multiculturalism - An Evil Ideology Designed To Destroy The West; By Paul Weston; PaulWeston101; 7/29/16

o Multiculturalism Is The Problem, Not The Solution; By Caleb Stephen, Daily Caller; 1/18/17 12:00 PM ET

o DISEASE OF MULTICULTURALISM IS KILLING AMERICA; By Ted Baehr and David Outten; WND; 7/12/15 4:36 PM

o Multiculturalism Is Splintering the West; By Giulio Meotti; Gatestone Institute; 10/9/17 5:00 am

o Pakistani Paedophile rings in the UK – WHY & HOW; The UK & Ireland Database

o Muslim Rapists Prefer Blondes; By Raymond Ibrahim; MEFORUM.org (originally FrontPageMag); 7/30/15

o Muslim rape gangs and the inconvenient truth; By
Niall McCrae and Karen Harradine; JulesGomes.com (aka Rebel Priest); 6/3/18

JRH 7/12/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

****************************

The Humanitarian Hoax Of Tommy Robinson’s Conviction: The Death Of Free Speech – Hoax 38

By Linda Goudsmit | Pundicity

July 11, 2019 11:29 AM

Noisy Room

Tommy Robinson surrounded by police

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

The conviction of journalist Tommy Robinson is a humanitarian hoax that has destroyed free speech in England and threatens free speech worldwide. What does this have to do with America?

Tommy Robinson is a British journalist who has been reporting on Muslim rape gangs throughout England that have been raping little English school girls with impunity for decades. The savagery of their acts, and that British authorities are covering up this massive atrocity against the innocent, is extremely destabilizing to British society. Civilized people reject the protection of perpetrators at the expense of victims.

For civilized people, Tommy Robinson is the heroic whistleblower who exposed the horror of Muslim rape gangs and their unspeakable acts of barbarity in England. British society experiences enormous confusion and cognitive dissonance because British authorities protect Muslim rape gangs and embolden them by prohibiting the reporting of their heinous acts of savagery. Why is this happening?

Let’s sort this out by examining the reasons in numerical order.

1. Tolerism

Tolerism is defined by Howard Rotberg in his 2014 book, Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed, [Blog Editor: The GoodReads.com added by me. Book Review] as “excessive leniency to opinions of certain groups, and excessive intolerance to the opinions of other groups.” Rotberg explains that the breakdown of Western society is a direct result of Leftist tolerists who insist that tolerance is more valuable than justice.

The once free Britain has reduced itself to a dhimmi nation by tolerating its sharia-compliant Muslim population at the expense of its native Christian population. Make no mistake, there is an Islamic religious war being waged worldwide that seeks to eliminate competing religions and establish a global Islamic caliphate ruled by religious sharia law. Britain’s leaders are tolerists insisting that tolerating Muslim rape gangs in the name of cultural diversity is more important than justice for its victims. Tolerism is Britain’s fatally flawed political ideology providing victory to the Muslim Brotherhood, the multi-national organization that has declared Islamic religious war on the West.

Anyone who still questions the global intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood should read its 1991 An Explanatory Memorandum: From the Archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America the general strategic goals for the group in North America.

Populism rejects the twisted logic of political tolerism and embraces the common sense warning of Austrian/British 20th-century philosopher Sir Karl Popper:

“If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. . . . We should, therefore, claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

The British court’s decision values tolerance over justice. Why would they do that?

2. Leftist/Islamist Alliance

In America, the Leftist/Islamist alliance is trying to destabilize and overthrow duly elected populist President Donald Trump. POTUS is the consummate whistleblower in America, exposing the staggering malfeasance of the Washington swamp and the Leftists, Islamists, and globalists who live there.

Leftists in America ignore, “Islamic tenets of misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, pedophilia, gang-raping non-Muslim little girls, female genital mutilation, and wife-beating as long as these sharia-compliant Muslims are anti-American anti-Trumpers. Any anti-American anti-Trump Islamist is welcomed into the Leftist tribe because they are all warriors in the Culture War against America. America-first President Donald Trump is the existential enemy of the Culture War and the target of the Leftist/Islamist alliance.”

In England, the Labor party is equivalent to the Leftist Democrat party in America, both prefer globalism to national sovereignty. In England, the Labor/Islamist alliance is trying to destabilize England and create chaos to subvert the will of the people and stop the implementation of BREXIT.

So, what do President Trump and Tommy Robinson have in common? Tommy Robinson is the whistleblower in England and the existential enemy of the leftist Labor party that prefers tolerism to justice. Why?

Tommy Robinson and President Trump are claiming, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

3. Tolerism vs Justice

What is the goal of tolerism in England and America? Why do Leftists in America and Labor in England ignore the obvious violations of the laws and norms in their Judeo-Christian countries and surrender their culture to the savagery and barbarism of Islamic sharia norms?

Tolerism is a paradox because tolerists selectively decide what to tolerate. Whistleblowing and truth-telling about Muslim rape gangs is not tolerated – it is criminalized. So, a two-tier system of justice is established that prohibits anti-Muslim speech and protects anti-Christian and antisemitic speech. Why?

If you want to know the motive, look at the result. The effects of this egregious double standard is that anti-Christian burning of churches, and antisemitism including defacing synagogues is rampant and unpunished in England. If the British courts continue to protect sharia-compliant Muslim perpetrators and their criminal acts at the expense of native Britains, social chaos will result. Remember, seismic social change requires social chaos.

Tommy Robinson and President Trump, each in his own way, is exposing the truth of tolerism and its global anti-American, anti-British attacks on our sovereignty and shared Judeo-Christian norms. Their separate efforts continue to unravel the ongoing deceitful multi-national efforts fomenting the social chaos necessary to impose a globalized New World Order.

Sir Karl Popper warned us about tolerism. George Orwell warned us that, “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

4. Freedom of Speech

Every tyrannical regime the world has ever known begins its reign of terror by eliminating freedom of speech. Lenin did it, Trotsky did it, Hitler did it, now Leftists in England and in America are doing it by disingenuously relabeling free speech as hate speech. There is no freedom without freedom of speech which is why speech is universally the first freedom eliminated by despots.

The same tolerist Culture War being waged against America by the Leftist/Islamist alliance is attacking England. Leftism and Islamism have a common cause to destroy the status quo even though their ultimate objectives will make them inevitable enemies. The Islamists are fighting for a global religious Islamic caliphate. The Leftists/Labor are fighting to destroy the national sovereignty and cultural identities of their respective countries in preparation for socialism in America, and a unified European State in England.

The irony, of course, is that members of the Leftist/Labor/Islamist alliance are all useful idiots for the globalist elite who finance and foment their lawlessness. The alliance members are just too arrogant to realize they are participating in their own destruction.

Seismic social change requires social chaos. The Leftist/Labor/Islamic alliances in the United States and England are providing the necessary social chaos for the globalists who fully intend to impose a New World Order – an internationalized world ruled by themselves under the corrupt auspices of the United Nations. There is no humanitarianism in the conviction of whistleblower Tommy Robinson. His conviction is part of the coordinated attack on free speech and a free and sovereign England imposed by the globalist elite using tolerism and the unholy Labor/Islamist alliance.

July 8, 2019, will be recorded as the day free speech died in Britain, the day Tommy Robinson was convicted for reporting the crime of Muslim rape gangs in England. The only law that Tommy Robinson broke was the Islamic supremacist sharia law forbidding criticism of Islam. Islamic sharia law does not consider the raping of little English school girls to be a crime – the prohibition is against criticizing and reporting it. England has reduced itself to a grotesque dhimmi nation willing to sacrifice its own little girls in a globalist power grab that requires social chaos.

The humanitarian hoax of tolerism that convicted Tommy Robinson must not be allowed to silence him permanently. Hopefully, populist President Donald Trump will grant Tommy Robinson humanitarian asylum in the United States where he can still expose the realities of an Islamicized England. Britain is, after all, the proverbial canary in the expansionist Islamist coal mine.

________________________

Introducing the Tolerance of the Intolerable:

What Happens When Mixing Multiculturalism, Islam & Multiculturalism?

John R. Houk

© July 12, 2019

____________________

The Humanitarian Hoax Of Tommy Robinson’s Conviction: The Death Of Free Speech – Hoax 38

Thursday, July 11, 2019

The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism

John R. Houk

© July 11, 2019

After WWII the image of the United Nations was an international organization that the Allied victors would utilize to prevent another nation to pull any conquest objectives ala Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. After the war and the public emerging of atrocities committed by Nazis and the Japanese war machine populations of Western nations breathed a sigh of relief that a UN would prevent global despotic atrocities.

The first dent in this relief was the Communist international revolutionary agenda of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR – essentially Russia) and Communist (Red) China. Those Communist giants used their satellite vassal yet officially independent nations to fill the UN with Marxist opposition to everything Western especially to the USA.

The USSR and Red China in their efforts to woo global Communism began to assist Third World nations willing to be anti-Western (with anti-Americanism as the focus) in their development. Hence Communist revolutionaries began to emerge in newly independent nations formerly dominated as Western Colonies primarily of European nations.

The Muslim world advanced despots as monarchs and dictators who nationalized the Western control of the oil industries managed by Multinational Corporations (MNC). Islam is inherently antagonistic to all things non-Muslim inspired by Islamic revered writings.

The USSR tried to use this Islamic antipathy to export Communist principles to the Muslim world. However, Islam-alone brainwashing ultimately meant the Muslim despots used the USSR support to offset the power of Western supported MNCs. Essentially Muslim despots played an international game of pitting the USA and the USSR against each other to shore up their own Islamic authoritarian regimes.

THEN the unthinkable according to Islamic doctrine occurred. Jews abused for centuries in the West gained sympathy due to Nazi genocide resulting in a gradual reclamation of the Jewish Homeland. A homeland that had been under one form or another of Islamic control due to conquest since the mid-600s AD.

A Jewish Homeland is unthinkable because in intolerant doctrine, once conquered by Islam a land must remain Islamic forever. The Islamic vision of conquest domination in three opinions:

o The Main Reason for the Present Middle East Conflict: ISLAM and not "The Territories"; By Jan Willem van der Hoeven - Director International Christian Zionist Center; EretzYisroel.org; Portions Copyright © 2000 International Christian Zionist Center, Portions Copyright © 2001 Joseph Katz All Rights Reserved

o Why Islam is a totalitarian system and a threat for every non-Muslim civilization; By Dr. Bill Warner; FaithFreedom.org; 12/10/17 UPDATED 12/17/17

o Islam from First Muslim to Total Control, Five Stages of Islamic Conquest; Beyond the Cusp; 8/17/17

Five Stages of Islamic Conquest

The absence of Communist satellite nations due to the collapse of the USSR led to the domination of two groups in the UN: Nations dominated by Leftist Globalist Multiculturalism and Nations dominated by Islamic Thought.

Since I’m not really an erudite writer let’s look at some quotes relating to Leftist (perhaps Marxist) Globalist Multiculturalism (all from essays or opinions that should be read in full at your leisure):

The Pox of Multiculturalism; By Bruce Walker; American Thinker; 5/19/18:

What the left calls "multiculturalism" is actually the systematic destruction of cultures and the replacement of these cultures by a synthetic, artificial, and meaningless global culture. When the left talks about "diversity," it really means the crushing of differences in thought, values, and art into a sort of baby food which neither nourishes the soul or elevates the mind.

…

Multiculturalism is an effort to destroy culture in the name of harmonizing cultures. It is, at best, gross globalist imperialism. It is, at worst, the Orwellian deconstruction of all societal values and beliefs.

Multiculturalism: As A Tool To Divide And Conquer - The Layman's Primer; By Louis Beam; LouisBeam.com:

No nation is born multicultured. Multiculturalism is an unnatural as well as unhealthy condition that can only afflict states in national decline. A multicultural state carries in it's [sic] geneses the seeds of eventual national destruction.

All multicultural nations will be found to be in a state of political, moral, economic and social decay. Greed and corruption will characterize the government coupled with oppressive measures directed against citizens. Lies and deceit will be stock and trade of media, politicians, and educational institutions. Such are the bellwethers of a multiculturalist advent.

In modern times multiculturalism is instituted from the top down as an elitist ruling class tool used to play one or more racial or ethnic groups against another. The ensuing cultural melee serves the political designs, economic goals and power needs of elitist rulers and their sponsors. This technique was developed by Marxist ideologues who used multiculturalism in Russia to divide and conquer resistance to the institution of a communist state. The end result of their successful takeover was the murder of thirty million humans in the Soviet Union alone. Many more elsewhere.

The same internationalist cabals who sponsored Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin as the multicultural leaders of the Soviet state from their banking houses in New York, similarly sponsor the multicultural leaders of the United States, Canada, and Europe today. An interlocking network of foundations such as Ford and Carnegie, international banking empires such as Rockefeller and Rothschild, and government agencies firmly in their control work in tandem with controlled propaganda outlets such as the New York Times, CBS, and Hollywood, to promote, foster, and institute multiculturalism today. While the examples used in this essay deal primarily with the United States the same process with the same methods is being employed elsewhere. This of itself is prima facie evidence of a cabal which promotes multiculturalism as a tool to achieve its objectives.

Multiculturalism is being used as a hammer to forge the compliant people who will compose the obedient states of the New World Order. As a weapon of post modern political warfare multiculturalism has few equals, which, thus explains its use currently against all of Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Deliberate fragmentation of these nations and the resultant loss of national identity and purpose into politically disharmonious units, serves as a stepping stone to world government. And who will compose that world government? A ruling class consisting of an "economic hierarchy" that replaces the philosophy of the nineteenth century "natural hierarchy." A force that views countries and the people that live in them first as economic targets to be exploited, and second as military targets to be defeated if they resist.

…

Social instability, caused by a steady erosion of standards and values, coupled with a scramble over dwindling economic opportunities by conflicting ethnic groups, produces precisely the alienation and conflict needed to implement a multicultural state. Further, the lack of common standards and values leads to personal disorganization, resulting in unsociable behavior. This is the life support system of a multicultural state. In a word: anomie.

As a political tool multiculturalism has several applications. It is used to prevent a national consensus among the electorate. The confluence of divergent life views, cultures, beliefs, religions, ethnic habits, etc. insures a swirling river of discontent upon which the multiculturalist rides. It is a perfect method of ensuring that there can never in the future be accord, unity, and a common agreed upon destiny among those ruled. Multiculturalism represents a basic form of divide and conquer, to the benefit of corrupt government and its sponsors.

Multiculturalism is likewise a financial tool used to socially and economically level a targeted population. When implemented, it becomes in fact a battle over scarce resources and shrinking economic opportunities, with government weighing in on the side of cheap labour. A continual flow of impoverished workers is insured through immigration (both legal and illegal), who by working for less compensation continually drive wages down. For the vast majority of citizens the standard of living will not increase, but rather constantly decrease.

As a general rule:

The amount of multiculturalism in any society is directly proportional to the corruption at the top of a political system and inversely proportional to national unity.

This means: multiculturalism will have succeeded in so much as the country has failed.

Multiculturalism can further be used as "transitional tool" to take a targeted population from one form of government to another. When a political condition of greed, massive corruption, and diversity of objective is coupled to a social condition of drugs, violence, and discontent, therein exists the perfect environment for governmental change to a system that more closely serves long term interests of ruling elitists. Seeing that both the problem and solution are provided by the same people makes the CIA's importation of some one hundred billion dollars worth of cocaine and other drugs into the United States understandable. While at the same time explaining FBI, ATF, and other, more secretive federal government agencies involvement in domestic terrorism or its cover-up. Suddenly, that which erroneously was previously thought to be unrelated events show their common thread and purpose.

Within the deleterious milieu of multiculturalism exists the propaganda opportunity for re-education of the people into a more malleable entity. A targeted population will be shaped mentally by new forms of public education in the schools, media indoctrination, and by elitist pronouncements. Thus placed in a crucible of economic necessity and social pressure, once free citizens become despondent masses, adjusting to and accepting fundamentally changing national circumstances as a matter of expedient survival. For the reticent, conformity by force will ensue in the form of legal penalties disguised as ant-drug, anti-terrorism, or anti-hate laws. All of this leading toward what George Orwell so aptly predicted in his book 1984:

"Almost certainly we are moving into an age of totalitarian dictatorships. An age in which freedom of thought will be at first a deadly sin and later on a meaningless abstraction."

A society is being spawned where those with the most unsociable behavior, deviant lifestyle, or personal failures are given the most by government. This is … TRUST ME READ ENTIRE ESSAY

The Globalism Threat – Socialism’s New World Order; By Jeff Carlson, CFA; TheMarketsWork.com; 2/24/17:

…

Globalism is often clad in free trade garb but in fact there is a hindrance of free trade with globalism. Globalism, through its attempt to erase national borders (and identities), applies a broad economic brush to varying problems and economic conditions of differing regions and as a result fails by definition. Globalism tends to exacerbate economic problems rather than fixing them, and hinders free trade by distorting market responses.

Globalism initiates with talk of open borders and free trade but inevitably leads to concentrated government and centralized planning. …

…

Although the terms are often used interchangeably, Globalization is NOT the same as Globalism. They are very different things. Globalization is a natural economic outgrowth of trade. Globalism is a political goal – plain and simple.

…

Globalism differs from Capitalism in several distinct aspects. Globalism promotes globally centralized control of laws, foreign policy and monetary policy. Unlike Capitalism, Globalism inherently blends rule of law with rule of man. Globalism comes into existence through the ownership of laws. And through the ownership of law, Globalism gains ownership of nations.

If you refer back to Gramsci, Alinsky and the Left, you will recall I introduced several concepts – Counter Hegemony, Critical Theory and Gradualism. Antonio Gramsci created the Theory of Cultural Hegemony – the way in which nations use cultural institutions to maintain power in capitalist societies. Gramsci felt that in order to change society, the entire value systems of Societal Institutions must be overturned. This would require the introduction of an entirely new set of values and beliefs – Counter Hegemony. Gradualism – along with Critical Theory – were the processes used to achieve Counter Hegemony. Marxist/Socialist philosophers – led by the Frankfurt School – picked up where Gramsci left off and brought these ideas to America. They refined Gramsci’s Marxist ideas – they reshaped them.

…

If Culture is the true source of Capitalism – how do you truly change Culture? You change it by removing the identities of Culture. As Theodor Adorno stated, you create a “genuine liberal” – an individual “free of all groups, including race, family and institutions”. A Global Citizen.

The tool used to accomplish this goal? Political Correctness – or “same thinking”. Raymond V. Raehn put it this way; “Political Correctness seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature”. Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism – also known as multiculturalism. Political Correctness is the translation of Marxism from economic to cultural terms. And once you’ve changed the culture you can change the laws.

The end game of Political Correctness – its ultimate goal – is Globalism.

And it is here we must be careful. For Globalization has opened a pathway to Globalism. This is the very reason the two are so often presented as the same. An economic process – Globalization – has been altered and repackaged to further a goal of societal change. This is why Globalists so often dress Globalization as Globalism. Globalization is required for Globalism to become a reality. But Globalism is NOT a necessary prerequisite for Globalization.

…

… Just as Communists first seek to impose Socialism on their way to Communism, so do Globalists seek to turn Globalization into a stepping stone towards Globalism. Their goal is to convince citizens they are one and the same. Using Gradualism.

But there is a distinct difference – and an obstacle. Globalization can lead to benefits for all while still preserving the nation-state. Which means the concept of national identity stands firmly in the way of Globalism. In order to maintain national identity you must first maintain self-governance and full sovereignty. Globalism seeks to break national identity by subsuming national laws. Ultimately, preservation of national or sovereign law is the key to preventing Globalism.

In 1995, the Commission on Global Governance issued a report titled Our Global Neighborhood. The report advanced the view that nations are interdependent and called for a strengthened United Nations. The Commission made a standard definition of global governance stating that;

“Governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest…It is our firm conclusion that the United Nations must continue to play a central role in global governance.”

It was the U.N.’s first real published step towards World Governance. Towards Globalism.

…

… Of particular note is the UN’s focus and treatment of Israel. Since the creation of the UN’s Human Rights Council in 2006, there have been 121 condemnations of nations for human rights violations. Of these, 62 condemnations were of Israel. Condemnations for the rest of the world’s nations combined equaled 59.

Corruption, fraud and mismanagement in U.N. procurement have been ongoing since the organization’s creation.

…

How is “piercing the shell of state sovereignty” accomplished? It is done slowly and incrementally. It is done through division – by undermining society through created rifts. It is accomplished through the application of Political Correctness. Society is slowly fractured into divisions of class, race and gender. Sub-groups are created within these divisions to further enhance societal stress. By lessening national identity the process of usurping national sovereignty becomes easier. There is a reason why George Soros, the self-avowed billionaire globalist, funds 150 different progressive organizations through his Open Society Foundation. Groups like the ACLU, Black Lives Matter, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), Human Rights Campaign, La Raza and the Women’s March. More importantly, this is why Globalists are in favor of unlimited immigration – and the national strife and divisions it creates.

… THIS MAY SEEM A LONG QUOTE BUT THE ESSAY IS MUCH LONGER AND WORTHY TO BE READ

I used a lot of posting space to understand the influence of Leftist Globalist Multiculturalism in the United Nations. The other influence in the UN is from Muslim dominated nations committed to Islamic Thought.

A rational person would think or wonder: How in the world can Marxist oriented Globalist Multiculturalism and those committed to Islamic thought be on the same page?

The simplistic answer is both concepts seek a global New World Order by dismantling the Old World Order.

The Old World Order is currently dominated a Western Christian Heritage that has developed governing institutions related to various forms of Representative Democracy. For clarity: Not absolute Democracy which degenerates into mob rule which is its own form of despotism. At present, the American Republic form of governance is the best paradigm of Representative Democracy.

The American Republic is the ideological enemy Globalist Multiculturalism and Islamic Thought.

What in the essence of the traditional sovereign American Republic bugs the crap out of Islamic Thought? For brevity’s sake here is a quick (meaning not exhaustive) comparison between Islam and guarantees in the U.S. Constitution courtesy of Bill Federer at WND:

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion, yet Mohammad said “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57). The Quran also states in Sura 4:89 “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.”

The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer, ringing church bells or say anything considered “insulting to Islam.” Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs among Muslims and cannot display a cross, Christmas decorations, or the Star of David.

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot repair places of worship or build new ones, they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings, they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility towards the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

The Second Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.

The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill, and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.

The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime … without due process of law,” yet Mohammad said “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury” and the Seventh Amendment states “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting them from testifying in court against Muslims.

The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Quran states: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” (Sura 5:38) A woman who has been raped is also punished “with a hundred stripes.” (Sura 24:2) Women can be beaten: “If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them” (Sura 4:34). Honor killings of wives and daughters who have embarrassed their families have been reported by the United Nations in Muslim populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and increasing in Western nations.

The 13th Amendment states there shall be no “slavery or involuntary servitude,” yet the Quran accommodates slavery as Mohammad owned slaves.

The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens “equal protection of the laws,” yet the Quran does not consider Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims as equal to Muslims before the law. Referring to Jews as “the People of the Book,” Mohammad said: “They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine” (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65).

The 15th Amendment guarantees “the right of the citizens … to vote shall not be denied … on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” yet strict interpretation of Islamic law does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves in the place of Allah by making the laws.

The 16th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.” Mohammad said “Fight those who believe not in Allah … until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Sura 9:29)

The 18th Amendment [Blog Editor: Repealed by 21^st Amendment] has some similarities with Islamic law, as “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors … for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”

The 19th Amendment allows women to vote, yet in strict Islamic countries women cannot vote.

The 21st Amendment allows for the sale of liquor, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to sell or drink wine and liquor openly. [Bold text by Blog Editor]

It is my humble opinion if the Globalist Multiculturalist Left and the Muslim World ended sovereignty nations, eradicated effective Representative Democracy and/or caused the demise of the American Republic; the Globalists and some kind of Muslim coalition would engage in a bloody war for global domination. You could count on genocides from both sides.

NOW! To the inspiration of these thoughts leading to global strife with unpredictable winners and losers. The Gatestone Institute has posted some news about how the United Nations intends to “War” on Free Speech at least as America knows it. Many UN speech restrictions have already affected Free Speech in the rest of the so-called Free World.

JRH 7/11/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

*************************

UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

By Judith Bergman

July 10, 2019 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

§ In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its 'values' are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down.

§ Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, "Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law".

§ Except the UN most definitely seeks to prohibit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN's agendas. This was evident with regard to the UN Global Compact on Migration, in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to "media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants" should be stopped.

§ In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN's action plan against hate speech does contain a definition of what the UN considers to be "hate" and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible: "Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor". With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled "hate".

§ The new action plan plays straight into the OIC's decades-long attempts to ban criticism of Islam as 'hate speech'. In the wake of the launch of Guterres' action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan "to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia" at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See and the UN.

In January, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres commissioned "a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis," and said that governments and institutions need "to mobilize solutions that respond to people's fears and anxieties with answers..." One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech. Pictured: Antonio Guterres. (Image source: Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)

In January, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, tasked his Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, to "present a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis". Speaking at a press conference about the UN's challenges for 2019, Guterres maintained, "The biggest challenge that governments and institutions face today is to show that we care -- and to mobilize solutions that respond to people's fears and anxieties with answers..."

One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech.

"We need to enlist every segment of society in the battle for values that our world faces today – and, in particular, to tackle the rise of hate speech, xenophobia and intolerance. We hear troubling, hateful echoes of eras long past" Guterres said, "Poisonous views are penetrating political debates and polluting the mainstream. Let's never forget the lessons of the 1930s. Hate speech and hate crimes are direct threats to human rights..."

Guterres added, "Words are not enough. We need to be effective in both asserting our universal values and in addressing the root causes of fear, mistrust, anxiety and anger. That is the key to bring people along in defence of those values that are under such grave threat today".

In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its 'values' are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down. Not only that, but -- disingenuously -- the UN is comparing dissent from its agendas with the rise of fascism and Nazism in the 1930s.

Now the action plan that Guterres spoke of in January is ready. On June 18, Guterres presented the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech:

"Hate speech is...an attack on tolerance, inclusion, diversity and the very essence of our human rights norms and principles," Guterres said. He also wrote in an article on the subject, "To those who insist on using fear to divide communities, we must say: diversity is a richness, never a threat...We must never forget, after all, that each of us is an "other" to someone, somewhere".

According to the action plan, "Hate is moving into the mainstream – in liberal democracies and authoritarian systems alike. And with each broken norm, the pillars of our common humanity are weakened". The UN sees for itself a crucial role: "As a matter of principle, the United Nations must confront hate speech at every turn. Silence can signal indifference to bigotry and intolerance...".

Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, "Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law".

Except the UN most definitely seeks to limit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN's agendas. This was evident with regard to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to "media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants" should be stopped.

Whatever constitutes intolerance, xenophobia, racism or discrimination was naturally left undefined, making the provision a convenient catchall for governments who wish to defund media that dissent from current political orthodoxy on migration.[1]

In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN's action plan against hate speech does contain a definition of what the UN considers to be "hate" and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible:

"Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor". With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled "hate".

The action plan, "aims to give to the United Nations the room and the resources to address hate speech, which poses a threat to United Nations principles, values and programmes. Measures taken will be in line with international human rights norms and standards, in particular the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The objectives are twofold: Enhance UN efforts to address root causes and drivers of hate speech [and] enable effective UN responses to the impact of hate speech on societies".

The UN makes it clear in the plan that it "will implement actions at global and country level, as well as enhance internal cooperation among relevant UN entities" to fight hate speech. It considers that "Tackling hate speech is the responsibility of all – governments, societies, the private sector" and it envisages "a new generation of digital citizens, empowered to recognize, reject and stand up to hate speech". What a brave new world.

In the plan, the UN sets up a number of areas of priority. Initially, the UN will "need to know more to act effectively" and it will therefore let "relevant UN entities... recognize, monitor, collect data and analyze hate speech trends". It will also seek to "adopt a common understanding of the root causes and drivers of hate speech in order to take relevant action to best address and/or mitigate its impact". In addition, the UN will "identify and support actors who challenge hate speech".

UN entities will also "implement human rights-centred measures which aim at countering retaliatory hate speech and escalation of violence" and "promote measures to ensure that the rights of victims are upheld, and their needs addressed, including through advocacy for remedies, access to justice and psychological counselling".

Disturbingly, the UN plans to put pressure directly on media and influence children through education:

"The UN system should establish and strengthen partnerships with new and traditional media to address hate speech narratives and promote the values of tolerance, non-discrimination, pluralism, and freedom of opinion and expression" and "take action in formal and informal education to ... promote the values and skills of Global Citizenship Education, and enhance Media and Information Literacy".

The UN is acutely aware that it needs to leverage strategic partnerships with an array of global and local, governmental and private actors in order to reach its goal. "The UN should establish/strengthen partnerships with relevant stakeholders, including those working in the tech industry. Most of the meaningful action against hate speech will not be taken by the UN alone, but by governments, regional and multilateral organizations, private companies, media, religious and other civil society actors" the action plan notes. "UN entities," it adds, "should also engage private sector actors, including social media companies, on steps they can take to support UN principles and action to address and counter hate speech, encouraging partnerships between government, industry and civil society". The UN also says that, "upon request" it will "provide support to Member States in the field of capacity building and policy development to address hate speech."

The action plan also reveals that the first concrete initiative is already planned. It is an "international conference on Education for Prevention with focus on addressing and countering Hate Speech which would involve Ministers of Education".

The new action plan plays straight into the decades-long attempts of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to ban criticism of Islam. In the wake of the launch of Guterres' action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan "to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia" at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See and the UN.

According to news reports, the plan was proposed by Pakistan's Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi at a session titled "Countering terrorism and other acts of violence based on religion or belief".

"A particularly alarming development is the rise of Islamophobia which represents the recent manifestation of the age-old hatred that spawned anti-Semitism, racism, apartheid and many other forms of discrimination," the ambassador said in her speech. She added, "My Prime Minister Imran Khan has recently again called for urgent action to counter Islamophobia, which is today the most prevalent expression of racism and hatred against 'the other'".

"We are fully committed to support the UN's strategy on hate speech," said the Pakistani ambassador, "This is a moment for all of us to come together to reverse the tide of hate and bigotry that threatens to undermine social solidarity and peaceful co-existence."

In 2017, Facebook's Vice President of Public Policy, Joel Kaplan, reportedly agreed to requests from Pakistan's Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan, to "remove fake accounts and explicit, hateful and provocative material that incites violence and terrorism" because "the entire Muslim Ummah was greatly disturbed and has serious concerns over the misuse of social media platforms to propagate blasphemous content".

At the UN, Pakistan's Ambassador Lodhi called for government interventions to fight hate speech, including national legislation, and reportedly "called for framing a more focused strategy to deal with the various expressions of Islamophobia. A 'whole of government' and a 'whole of society' approach was needed. In this regard, the Pakistani envoy urged the secretary-general to engage with a wide range of actors, including governments, civil society and social media companies to take action and stop social media users being funneled into online sources of radicalization".

The UN's all-out war on free speech is on.

Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

NOTES:

[1] According to Objective 17 of the UN Global Compact on migration, member states commit to: "Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media." [Emphasis added.]

____________________

The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism

John R. Houk

___________________

UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor: Permission was not acquired to cross post. Upon request the cross post will be removed.]

DONATE

Saturday, February 8, 2020

The Netherlands: The Geert Wilders Show Trial Continues

Tuesday, December 31, 2019

The Unacceptable Cost of Refugee Resettlement

Friday, July 12, 2019

Introducing the Tolerance of the Intolerable:

Thursday, July 11, 2019

The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism

Drink-Make $$$ Healthy Coffee

COUNTER