“Islam Is Colonialism, Palestine Is Colonialism”

The Leftists/Progressives/Marxists always needs victims that they can stir into a frenzied rage against their powerful and/or cashed up enemies.

That’s why their attacks on colonialism have been like an endless goldmine – there were a lot of legitimate victims but the real jackpot lies in that there are now a never-ending series of faux victims.

But as with all Leftist narratives, their “colonialism is evil” narrative is filled with holes, double standards and blinding hypocrisy.

While you are evil for being a white Westerner who “invaded” any one of Western Europe’s colonies of old, the same standard does not apply to Islam, which has quite literally conquered one quarter of the land on our entire planet.

Read it: ONE QUARTER OF ALL LAND ON EARTH IS OCCUPIED BY ISLAM.

And make no mistake: every square inch was taken by murdering, raping, and thieving conquest.

And make no further mistake: unlike many Western nations, Islam harbours no empathy or sympathy for its victims. 

Daniel Greenfield’s recent article exposes this facet of the Progressive agenda:

At Israeli Apartheid Week, campus haters claim to be fighting “colonialism” by fighting Jews. Columbia University’s Center for Palestine Studies, dedicated to a country that doesn’t exist and which has produced nothing worth studying except terrorism, features diatribes such as Palestine Re-Covered: Reading a Settler Colonial Landscape”. This word salad is a toxic stew of historical revisionism being used to justify the Muslim settler colonization of the indigenous Jewish population.

You can’t colonize Palestine because you can’t colonize colonizers. The Muslim population in Israel is a foreign colonist population. The indigenous Jewish population can resettle its own country, but it can’t colonize it.

Muslims invaded, conquered and settled Israel. They forced their language and laws on the population. That’s the definition of colonialism. You can’t colonize and then complain that you’re being colonized when the natives take back the power that you stole from them.

There are Muslims in Israel for the same reason that there are Muslims in India. They are the remnants of a Muslim colonial regime that displaced and oppressed the indigenous non-Muslim population.

There are no serious historical arguments to be made against any of this.
The Muslim conquests and invasions are well-documented. The Muslim settlements fit every historical template of colonialism complete with importing a foreign population and social system that was imposed on the native population. Until they began losing wars to the indigenous Jewish population, the Muslim settlers were not ashamed of their colonial past, they gloried in it. Their historical legacy was based on seizing indigenous sites, appropriating them and renaming them after the new conquerors.

The only reason there’s a debate about the Temple Mount is because Caliph Omar conquered Jerusalem and ordered a mosque built on a holy Jewish site. The only reason there’s a debate about East Jerusalem is because invading Muslim armies seized half the city in 1948, bombed synagogues and ethnically cleansed the Jewish population to achieve an artificial Muslim settler majority.

The only Muslim claim to Jerusalem or to any other part of Israel is based purely on the enterprise of colonial violence. There is no Muslim claim to Israel based on anything other than colonialism, invasion and settlement.

Israel is littered with Omar mosques, including one built in the courtyard of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, because Islam is a colonial entity whose mosques testify to their invasive origins by celebrating colonialism as their true religion. The faith of Islam is the sworn religion of the sword.

Islam is a religion of colonialism that spread through invasion, settlement and conquest. Its caliphs, from the original invaders, including Omar, to the current Caliph of ISIS, wielded and wield religious authority in the service of the Islamic colonial enterprise.

Allah is the patron deity of colonialism. Jihad is just colonialism in Arabic. Islamic theology is nothing but the manifest destiny of the Muslim conquest of the world, colonial settler enterprises dressed up in the filmy trappings of religion appropriated from the culture of conquered Jewish and Christian minorities. Muslim terrorism is a reactionary colonial response to the liberation movements of the indigenous Jewish population.

Even “Allahu Akbar” did not originate as a religious sentiment. It does not mean “God is Great”, as it is often mistranslated. It was Mohammed’s taunt to the Jews he was ethnically cleansing. His purge of a minority group proved that “Allah was Greater”. Islamic colonialism is used to demonstrate the existence of Allah. And the best way to worship Allah is through the colonialism of the Jihad.

Islam would not have existed without colonialism. It still can’t exist without it. That is why the violence continues. The only way to end the violence is for Muslims to reject their theology of colonialism.

But instead of taking ownership of their real history, the Muslim settler population evades its guilt through propaganda by claiming to be the victims of colonialism by the indigenous Jewish population. This twisted historical revisionism is backed by bizarre nonsense such as claiming that Jesus was a Palestinian or that the Arabs are descended from the Philistines. The Muslim settlers insist on continuing to celebrate colonialism while claiming to be an indigenous population that was always living in Israel.

You can have one or the other. You can have your mosques celebrating the conquest and suppression of the indigenous population or your claims of being the indigenous population. But you can’t switch from being the indigenous population to being its conquerors whenever it suits your pseudo-historical narrative. You can’t claim to be the Philistines, the Jews and their Islamic conquerors at the same time.

From its Roman origins, Palestine has always been a colonial fantasy of remaking Israel by erasing its original Jewish identity. The Arab mercenaries who were deployed by the Romans in that original colonial enterprise continued it by becoming self-employed conquerors for their own colonial empire. The name Palestine remains a linguistic settlement for reimagining a country without a people and a past as a blank slate on which the colonial identity of the invaders can be written anew. That is still the role that the Palestine myth and mythology serves.

Abdul Rahim al-Shaikh complains about “linguistic colonialism”. When Muslims rename the Spring of Elisha, a Jewish biblical figure, Ein as-Sultan in honor of an Islamic colonial ruler, that’s linguistic colonialism. When Jews restore the original indigenous names that Jewish sites held before Muslim colonialism, that’s not colonization. It’s the exact opposite. It’s decolonization.

Promoting mythical claims of a Palestinian state isn’t decolonization, it’s colonization. Or recolonization. Advocates for “Palestine” are not fighting colonialism, but promoting it. They are advocating for a discredited Muslim settler fantasy and against the indigenous Jewish population of Israel.

Abdul Rahim al-Shaikh complains about “geographic amnesia” among “Palestinians”. There’s no geographic amnesia because you can’t remember what never existed. There’s only paramnesia because there was never a country named Palestine.

Palestine has no history. It has no people. It has no borders. It has never been anything except a colonial invention. It is a name used by a variety of foreign settlers operating on behalf of colonial empires.

You can’t colonize Palestine. How can you colonize a colonial myth? You can only decolonize it.

Every Jewish home built on land formerly under the control of the Caliphs is decolonization and decaliphization.

When Jews ascend the Temple Mount, they are also engaging in decolonization and decaliphization.

When the liberation forces of the Jewish indigenous population shoot a Jihadist colonist fighting to impose yet another Islamic State on Israel, that too is decolonization and decaliphization.

Resistance to Islamic terrorism is resistance to colonialism. And Jews have the longest history of resisting the Islamic State under its various Caliphs throughout history. Israel is still resisting the colonialist Jihadist plans for the restorations of the Caliphate.
Zionism is a machine that kills Islamic colonialism.

The existence of Israel not only means the decolonization of Abdul Rahim al-Shaikh’s imaginary colonial fantasies of “Palestine”, but inspires resistance in peoples struggling against Islamic colonialism throughout the region, from the Copts to the Berbers to secular intellectuals fighting for freedom.

Islamic colonialism has always been defeated, whether at the Gates of Vienna or in the Sinai Desert. Its colonial fantasies are false and will be defeated as many times as it takes, whether in the form of Palestine or ISIS.

http://barbwire.com/2016/04/11/islam-colonialism-palestine-colonialism/

Hypocrisy In A Highly Politicised Australian Football League

“Leftist” and “hypocrisy” are synonymous.

OK, this will be a very brief article. I have written often now about the Australian Football League and its lousy politicisation of a once enjoyable game. We used to be able to go to the footy and forget about politics and controversial social issues. Not too long ago we could enjoy a couple of carefree hours watching some sport.

But not any more: the AFL has lately been pushing one wretched PC political cause after another. It has pushed multiculturalism rounds and Islamic rounds and homosexual rounds, etc. Instead of just promoting a game, it has decided it will stand on the hot potato issues of the day.

Plenty of people are already fed up with this. I certainly am. And we have had another example of this just this weekend. At one match a banner was unfurled saying no to a mosque. This got the AFL all bent out of shape:

AFL boss Gillon McLachlan says he will not tolerate the game “being used to vilify” sections of the community after an anti-Muslim banner was unfurled during Friday night’s match between Richmond and Collingwood. McLachlan said the league would work with police and the Melbourne Cricket Club to identify those behind the sign, which said “Go Pies! Stop the mosques”. He said if those involved with the banner were club members they would be banned from attending games.

The AFL also issued a statement after the game: “The AFL condemns the behaviour in the strongest terms and such actions have no place in society and not in our game. Match day security removed the banner when they became aware of it and evicted the patrons responsible.”

Not to be outdone, Collingwood president Eddie McGuire said that those people responsible should be banned from football for life: “I hope the police got their names and numbers, if they’ve got anything to do with our club they’ll be banned. Get these people and make an example of them. They should be banned for life.”

Good grief. Now it is one thing if the AFL wants no controversial political topics promoted at their games. But I just mentioned that it is up to its ears in pushing various radical causes. Thus we have gross hypocrisy going on here, as well as rabid leftist politics being rammed down our throats.

As an example of this hypocrisy, consider this banner which was allowed to go ahead last September with not a peep out the AFL. Given that so many refugees coming here are in fact Muslims, this is a very political and controversial issue. But it seems the AFL is just fine with it.afl 6

As long as it is a leftist cause, then it is full steam ahead. But dare to take a different point of view, and the AFL will crack down on you like you were a child molester. Hey AFL, I got news for you: either get out of the game of pushing radical leftist causes altogether, or spare us this blatant set of double standards.

Regardless of what you think of either banner, it’s gotta be one or the other: no political banners, or a range of political banners.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-02/afl-will-not-tolerate-deeply-offensive-anti-muslim-banner/7294430

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/mcg-security-remove-racist-stop-the-mosques-banner-from-scoreboard/news-story/b91dd5e28719a4c85f92911178680bf1

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/04/02/01/51/stop-the-mosques-collingwood-banner-mcg-eddie-mcguire-ban-for-life#MrhP5iIhDYIlQcrK.99

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/sep/14/football-and-refugees-in-australia-the-important-role-the-game-can-still-play

A Few Nazi Extremists Ruined It For All The Good Nazis Out There

No one believes that (even though there is actually some truth to it) so why have so many people been suckered into the Muslim version to the extreme extent that every act of Muslim violence and terrorism is perceived as unrelated to Islam?

I regularly receive a newsletter written by a female friend who is a professor of philosophy in Canada. Her most recent newsletter dealt with the apparent discrepancy between how “Joe Public” viewed Muslims versus how Nazis were perceived, and what it revealed about the nature of the modern psyche.

The case of the Nazis

In the mind of the overwhelming majority of people today, all Nazis without exception are directly linked to the Final Solution, to the slaughter of the Jews, the Gypsies and of homosexuals and ultimately to the extermination camps. Nobody in their right mind would dare to suggest it might have been the fault of a few Nazi extremists whose actions gave a bad name to a political set of ideas which might have otherwise been viewed as quite respectable. All Nazis are tarred with the same brush: all shared the same ideology, the same set of beliefs, all had a hand in it and all were guilty of a horrendous crime.

My friend rightly reminded her readers that the Final Solution was only fully conceptualised and implemented in the year 1942, that the Nazi regime kept a tight lid on their plans, and that the existence of a police state made it very difficult for information to be circulated. There was at that time no Facebook on which to post video-clips of SS soldiers herding the inmates into the death camps, and no Internet to publish photos of grinning torturers in the process of putting their victims to death.

It is therefore perfectly plausible that a good number of Nazis weren’t in the know and remained ignorant of what was happening in the extermination camps masquerading as concentration camps.

This does not mean that they were either philo-Semitic or great lovers of democracy, but it does render the equation of Nazi = Holocaust rather moot, as not all Nazis were party to the extermination plan. It is, therefore, within the realm of possibility that amongst those opportunistic individuals who joined the party to further their social or professional standing, not all were monsters.

The conclusion drawn is that not all Nazis were killers and that, had they been privy to the real darkness at the heart of their ideology, many would probably have turned away in disgust and revulsion.

We might have called these “moderates” or “reformed-Nazis”, whilst the rest of them, those who could quietly contemplate unspeakable horrors and still remain faithful to the Nazi party were complicit in the crime, far past any possible redemption and as guilty as they come.

Muslims and a case of double standards

The way Muslims are perceived is exactly the other way round. Even though all Muslims, including each and every Taliban and each and every killer from the Islamic State, belong part and parcel to the same ideological core set of beliefs, (i.e Islam), which is characterised by the worship of the same Book (the Koran), the same man as an example to follow (Mohammed), the same common law (sharia), we are told in no uncertain terms that we must not on any account let some rotten apples spoil the whole bunch.

To be totally honest, I do agree with this point of view. I always like to remind people in the audience when I am giving a lecture that generalisations always lead to falsehoods and unjust prejudices, and that one mustn’t conflate what people think and what they are. Individuals are not equivalent to their ideology, and ideas aren’t people.

What made me think long and hard is the difference in treatment when we start comparing the Nazis with our current set of Muslims: we are ordered to not lump all Muslims together, or as the French put it “Padamalgam”[1], which freezes our powers of thinking and then forbids us to question those Muslims who are currently living in our societies in accordance to their obedience to Islamic doctrine.

Likewise, this injunction to “never ever lump together” aims to force us to automatically absolve any Muslim who has not committed a violent act from any guilt by association, even moral guilt.

Ideology does not equal the man; nonetheless adherence to it remains a conscious, deliberate act which engages individual responsibility

I obviously do not mean to suggest that all Muslims are terrorists or supporters of the Islamic State, or that they they may have killed somebody or are planning to at some point in the future. What we must ask ourselves is this: in the name of what exactly are we suppose to refrain from asking these people whom we are told are our fellow citizens, to clarify their position as to their obedience to Islamic ideology? An Islamic ideology which, as anybody who is honest enough would be hard pressed to deny, all criminals who slaughter, rape and enslave in the name of Islam have shared throughout history.

We also owe it to ourselves to ask in whose name we should accept without any further questioning those “This is not Islam” retorts, which are an insult to our intelligence and a slap in the face of tangible reality, whenever heinous crimes and intolerable behaviours are indulged in in the name of Islam.

Disingenuous excuses must stop and responsibilities must be assumed

Why, exactly, should we carry on accepting the premise that Muslims are ignorant of the tenets of Islam, that they cannot know its content? Is the objective and unchanging[2] doctrine of Islam and the behaviours that are allowed or proscribed by it totally unknowable?

Of course not! What do you think they teach in Islamic universities? How would their imams otherwise know and teach their own doctrine?

The political, discriminatory and violent nature of Islam is a solidly established fact. What a relentless process of disinformation aimed to sell us as a “religion just like any others” finally revealed its true colours to all unbiased observers: Islam is, at its core, a totalitarian ideology.

The “spiritual dimension” found in this ideology should not divert attention from its true nature; specific mystical belief systems, books, supreme leaders and the project of a type of society for the entire humanity were also to be found in Nazism and the Chinese brand of communism.

Why should we continue to accept, as a given, that those Muslims living in our countries must not be under the obligation to learn the contents of the Islamic doctrine, in the light of what is happening in the world today, and then draw the obvious conclusions: should they abide by it or not?

The Muslims currently living in Western societies cannot, in any way, shape or form, be compared to the Germans of yesteryear. They can freely access the history of Islam and its long retinue of horrors and unspeakable crimes, or read books describing sharia law or the life of the man they are supposed to model their lives on.

In contrast with the Germans who lived in a police state, they are free to reject without risk a creed whose tenets are antithetical to human freedom and dignity.

It would be quite condescending as well as patronising to view those Muslims who live in the West as being incapable of getting hold of the proper information and of making a responsible choice.

The West offers Muslims the amazing opportunity to free themselves from the shackles of Muslim ideology and become free human beings, respectful of the natural rights and freedoms enjoyed by their fellow citizens.

Who would then carry on insisting that Muslims cannot freely choose their own destiny, decide where their loyalty lies and assume responsibility for the choices that they make?
Why do we insist on humouring them so as to not offend their supposed sensibilities, and why do we carry on treating them as though they were irresponsible, illiterate, or slightly retarded children?

Today we share our society with people who may or may not adhere to an ideology that’s extremely violent, discriminatory and destructive of our way of life. Knowing where these people stand is now a question of survival.

And in view of the consequences that necessarily follow this ideology when it is put into practise in the real world, why exactly should we be satisfied with being shrugged off, with getting an ambiguous reply accompanied with the usual protests about a so-called stigmatisation of their faith?

Adherence or non-adherence to Islamic ideology and to sharia law must no longer be a question unasked and unspoken. This question, left unasked, is the breeding ground which will beget chaos and the tearing asunder of our society. And today, people die for this on French soil.

To finally ask the question that has, up till now, been left unsaid is to force a choice, and so choosing means to renounce one of the choices.

It means either:

Disown those who adhere to Islamic ideology, to sharia law and the inevitable violence and oppression that follow in their wake,

or

Abandon the idea of being part of Western societies, which are based upon respect for liberty and the freedoms enjoyed by all citizens.

There can be no compromise, no meeting part way, no grey areas: that time has come and gone.

Our duty to keep our societies safe gives us the right to ask Muslims the following question: “Where do you stand: for or against sharia law?” We mustn’t let ourselves be fobbed off.

The Muslims living among us must give a clear reply, in words and in deeds, acknowledging that they reject once and for all sharia law and all that it entails. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that they endorse the horrors committed by Islam and should thus rightly be considered as today’s Nazis.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/03/nazis-versus-muslims/#more-39127

The Annual Academy Awards Ceremony: A Great Platform For Proclaiming The Confused (ie Hypocritical) Thinking Of The Leftist “Progressives”

Most people don’t understand that Progressives are Leftists are Marxists, which in simple terms means that every individual exists only to serve the collectivist community (by dying if need be), which is always run by wealthy and powerful Progressives (think Obama, Hillary, Stalin, Mao, and frankly Hitler too). 

To keep said community under control, it must be divided into groups (ideologically or superficially – it’s all good), which are in turn encouraged to fight each other (not the greatest challenge given sinful human nature). 

This constant warring keeps the enemy (usually the morally upright or at least people you would probably want in power) and the useful idiots (who actually think they are helping make the world better) all busy while the “informed Progressives” turn cultural footholds into strongholds and amass even more power to create their idea of utopia (picture Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s USSR or Mao’s China – it’s where atheistic humanism always takes society).

All this to emphasise that Progressivism is all about fracturing society.

That’s why you will always hear about victims groups from the Left – blacks, women, homosexuals, trangenders, aboriginals, the poor.

Yes, there’s always a bit of truth mixed in and some of these groups have legitimate victim stories to tell.

However, Progressives redefine these groups so all they can identify as is perpetually insatiable victims of a few actual but mostly fabricated crimes. Also, they are never to blame for any of their circumstances. Only when they get super-special treatment can they be “equal” with all the rest of us.

For example, homosexuals are perpetual victims of everybody – especially Christians, fertility, and the natural biological order – but they are also portrayed as “victims” of HIV, a disease they get from their dangerous sexual practises (yes, anal “sex” transfers HIV and a whole host of diseases to at least 10% of all homosexuals so we’re talking a very serious but entirely preventable epidemic) and even though they do it to themselves, we are told by progressives that somehow none of it is their fault- victims duh! Homosexuals, therefore,  should receive special treatment from everyone, whether by redefining marriage for their tiny percentage or receiving state subsidy to help safeguard their quite literally disease-ridden sexual practises.

Like homosexuals, all of these groups are forever “unequal” and they will always be “unequal” until the next Communism or Reich is fully established and no one can raise a free hand to stop it.

That said, please remember these two important points:

  1. Informed Progressives (like Obama) are using these groups as pawns to gain social, cultural, and political power and importantly, they could give a rat’s about the wellbeing of these groups. Their mission is to be God of their own communist utopia, no matter how many suffer to make it happen.
  2. Useful idiots often do actually care about these groups but they are idiots because they think that the informed Progressives are fighting for a better society (yes, they really do – think all of these Academy Awards speakers, especially Leonardo DiCaprio and his obsession with saving the world from climate change) when it’s really just a long series of power plays. Useful idiots make up the numbers and vote your Obamas and Hitlers into power willingly.

It’s a necessary contextual backdrop for this:

Last week, British singer/songwriter Sam Smith won an Oscar for the theme song of the latest James Bond film Spectre. From what I understand of the ratings, not many (including me) saw it, so let me recap his acceptance speech, which I found on YouTube.

He said he read an article written by some other British guy that no openly gay man had ever won an Oscar. Smith (no relation – I hope) said whether this was true or not, he’d still like to dedicate his award to the LGBT community all around the world. He continued by saying: “I stand here as a proud gay man and I hope we can all stand together as equals one day.”

After the merriment subsided, people took to Twitter and such to correct Smith that he wasn’t the first. Of course, he said he may not be, but that didn’t matter to the low information crowd who watched these displays of self-aggrandizement.

Smith responded to the criticism by saying: “Second openly gay man to win an Oscar or third or fourth or 100th, it wasn’t my point. My point was to shine some light on the LGBT community who I love so dearly.”

The best director Oscar went to Alejandro somebody or other for The Revenant. His name is not as important as what he said during his acceptance. He exclaimed: “What a great opportunity for our generation to really liberate ourselves from all prejudice and – you know – this – tribal thinking and make sure once and forever that the color of skin become as irrelevant as the length of our hair.”

Okay – so we have some liberal movie-maker up there preaching equality, color-blindness, and an end to “tribal thinking.” That is terrific. But what is tribal thinking? What is a tribe? Is it not a community of people who come from a common ancestry, have common values, and share common interests? Tribes willingly segregate due to these interests, do they not?

So I suppose then this director wishes for people to be more integrated – recognized as individuals, rather than a tribe. I guess this is what he meant by an end to “tribal thinking.”

Yet, he began his acceptance by thanking the Native Americans and the English Americans who were in the film. So is he not guilty of tribal thinking – lumping all the Injuns into one “tribe” and all the limeys into another.

And what of Sam Smith? He too is guilty of “tribal thinking” by setting the LGBT “tribe” above all others.

But this is what the hypocrites of the left do – they insist on having it both ways. They say we should be striving for a colorblind and all-inclusive society, which I agree is a laudable but wholly unachievable goal. They then blame the right for not giving just recognition to the black tribe, or the Latino tribe, or the gender-bending tribe, etc.

Yet, they are frankly the only ones to willfully, happily separate people into one group or another when it is to their benefit. How many thousands of times have we been lectured that the right must venture into the “black community” to win their monolithic “tribal” vote. The entire Black Lives Matter movement could be considered “tribal.” And they insist on it.

When a white insists that all lives matter, they are shouted down – not because all lives don’t matter, but because the left must maintain the “tribal” aspect to advance whatever is their cause that day.

These pampered Hollywood weenies, as do all liberals, love to stand up and preach equality and inclusiveness, yet it is the left and only they who advance tribal thinking. The only conclusion any reasonable person could come to is that the left must be advocating for the return of the 1896 Supreme Court decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, Separate but Equal doctrine.

https://kirby.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/hiv/resources/HIVASRsuppl2014_online.pdf
http://freedomoutpost.com/and-the-oscar-went-to-tribal-thinking/

Imagine A World Where Christian Terrorists Murder Muslims In The Name Of The Cross

It sure makes for an amusing fantasy and doubles as a great means of highlighting and underscoring the raging hypocrisy of Islamofacists (both Muslims and leftists):

Writing in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai, Nadine Al-Budair asks how Muslims would react if western youths acting in the name of Christ blew themselves up in their midst. She also slams Muslim attempts to absolve themselves of guilt by saying that terrorists do not represent Islam, calling such disclaimers “pathetic.”

Taking the largest acts of terror from the last couple of decades, Al-Budair, who today lives in Qatar, wonders what would have happened if they had been perpetrated in the Arab world. Citing terrorist groups like the Islamic states desire to impose 7th century Sharia law, Al-Budair writes:

Imagine a Western youth coming here and carrying out a suicide mission in one of our public squares in the name of the Cross. Imagine that two skyscrapers had collapsed in some Arab capital, and that an extremist Christian group, donning millennium-old garb, had emerged to take responsibility for the event, while stressing its determination to revive Christian teachings or some Christian rulings, according to its understanding, to live like in the time [of Jesus] and his disciples, and to implement certain edicts of Christian scholars.

She asks readers to imagine a world in which Christians call Muslims “infidels” and pray that God will eliminate them all. She continues by conjuring an Arab world that grants foreigners visas, citizenship, jobs, free education, and healthcare, and then asks what would happen if one of those foreigners killed Arabs indiscriminately.

Referencing American engineer Paul Marshall Johnson, who was abducted and beheaded by Al-Qaeda operatives in Saudi Arabia in 2004, Al- Budair writes:
“Imagine a Frenchmen or a German in Paris or Berlin leading his Muslim neighbor [somewhere] in order to slaughter him and then freeze his head in an ice box, in a cold and calculating manner … as one terrorist did with the head of an American in Riyadh years ago.”

The liberal writer condemns Muslims for thinking it is within their rights to condemn Trump’s statement rather than “address the implications of some of our extremist curricula, our education, and our regimes, and [to] be ashamed” of them.

Regarding Trump, she wrote:

“However, how much longer [will this last]? Today things are different. [Western] anger [at Muslims] is apparent, and they make scary declarations. One who recently championed [these views] is Donald Trump, who demanded to bar Muslims from entering the U.S.

“It is strange that we [Muslims] believe we have the right to condemn such statements rather than address the implications of some of our extremist curricula, our education, and our regimes, and be ashamed [of them]… It is strange that we condemn [the West] instead of addressing what is happening in our midst – the extremist ways in which we interpret the shari’a and our reactionary attitudes towards each other and the world. It is strange that we condemn instead of apologizing to the world.”

She takes the Muslim world to task for continuing to condemn the West instead of addressing its own radicalism, which holds that killing Westerners is part of a holy jihad that “leads to virgins of paradise.”

“It is strange that we condemn instead of apologizing to the world,” Al-Budair write. She says that claims made by Muslims that those who commit terrorism do not represent Islam are “farces” and “pathetic” attempts to absolve Muslims of guilt.

http://shoebat.com/2016/03/02/saudi-female-journalist-supports-donald-trump-asks-christian-terrorists-blowing-muslims-streets/

Obama Funds The Mass Murder Of Babies And Promotes Homosexuality, Gets An Eight Year Pass But Trump Wants To Stop Immigration And The Pope Says “He Is Not Christian”

Seriously?

Don’t get me wrong – it’s pretty doubtful that Trump is a Christian (I’m not sure Trump actually claims to be a follower of Jesus but I haven’t looked too hard) but where’s the love of Jesus in funding the mass murder of babies not only in your own country but also abroad?

Why does Obama get free pass after free pass from so many leftist-deluded Christians? (The mainstream media is just a given these days)

And are the leftist ABC suggesting that we should vote for Trump because they are promoting what the Pope has said?

After all, these types are always claiming there should be a separation of church and state, which, in their minds means Christians should not be allowed to express any opinion publicly and certainly never have any control over politics.

So I guess Trump – not a Christian according to the Pope – is the atheist man of the hour?

Doubtful.

Walid Shoebat’s article offers an interesting perspective which highlights the hypocrisy of the Pope and the mainstream media in their focussed attacks on Trump at the expense of issues where people are actually being brutally murdered (it’s not about abortion but let’s not forget those dead millions when we consider this hypocrisy):

So which is it? Is the Pope the ‘politician’ as Trump says while the Pope accuses Trump of not being a “Christian”? Or is it that both are wrong? Or is it that the Pope in his humanitarian thinking is unintentionally aiding and abetting the drug business by calling on Trump not to erect a wall?

I stand with Trump. The Pope should render unto God what is God’s and to the sheep what is for the sheep and let the ceasars do what caesars do and let God be the judge of Trump’s Protestant faith. The Pope should fight the evil drug-cult epidemic in Mexico instead of enabling it. Over a hundred thousand Catholics murdered by the schismatic Protestant Los Templarios cult and the schismatic Catholic Santa Muerte cult and all the Pope is doing is hone in on Trump? The whole church (Protestant and Catholic) has fallen away. Pope Francis: you should put on sackcloth and lament the fallen and the martyrs in Mexico before you lament over a wall. Did the Pope dare call the evil President of Mexico Enrique Peña Nieto as “unChristian” with the whole lot of the Mexican parliament who aid and abet evil?

Pope Francis took umbrage at comments Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has made about immigrants, saying in an interview that the real estate mogul was “not Christian.”

The pope’s strong dismissal of Trump was in response to measures Trump has proposed on the campaign trail, including building a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border and deporting millions of undocumented immigrants living and working in the U.S.

When asked by a reporter, “Can a good Catholic vote for this man?” Francis responded by saying, “Thank God he said I was a politician, because Aristotle defined the human person as ‘animal politicus.’ So at least I am a human person. As to whether I am a pawn — well, maybe, I don’t know. I’ll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people.”

He continued: “And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.”

The pope made these remarks before he concluded his visit to Mexico, which included a public Mass at the U.S.-Mexico border. Tens of thousands of people from both countries gathered for Mass.

Even before the pope’s comments were released today, Trump had already taken issue with the pope’s trip to Mexico, arguing that the pontiff was playing politics.

In an interview with Fox Business, Trump called Pope Francis “a very political person.”

“I don’t think he understands the danger of the open border we have with Mexico,” Trump said.

During his candidacy announcement, Trump said Mexican immigrants are “bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Has the Pope said anything about the thousands of people in Mexico have been kidnapped and their organs removed for the purpose of selling them or using them in satanic and cannibalistic rituals.

This has been occurring in Mexico and is still happening as we speak. It is a holocaust that is going underreported, and hence we are writing on this dismal reality, to show you what evils the heretics and pagans of Mexico are doing.

A priest by the name of Alejandro Solalinde also revealed a horrifying report: that the bodies of some of the victims were moved to a university in the US to be dissected, with people in the university knowing that the bodies were those of innocent people captured and murdered by Mexican cartel criminals. Fr. Solalinde spoke with the American consulate on this issue and they told him that the situation of organs selling is very “delicate, and he also found out that some very important people are involved in organs selling. The priest said “traffic of that caliber can not be achieved without the complicity of senior government officials, we are talking about a business that makes a lot more money at the expense of migrants, nobody is going to ask for them, we are talking about more than $ 100,000 or $ 150,000 for every body.”

In one example, in the Villa Victor-Chinicuila, which lies right near Jalisco, a truck was stopped at a checkpoint and inside was absolutely horrifying: frozen bodies of children and others, all with missing organs. According to one Mexican militiaman:

In Villa Victoria-Chinicuila, almost near to Jalisco, at a checkpoint there was stopped a truck with frozen bodies, some were children and they were missing some organs …no one knew what happened to them … From one year to date there has been seen naked, open bodies, with nothing inside

First there were some doubts that such evils were taking place, but these doubts were dissipated when reports of countless bodies discovered without organs were heard. Reports of poor Central American migrants being kidnapped and disemboweled for their organs have also been heard, and have spread terror throughout. The bodies of these victims have been scattered throughout the wilderness, the murderers knowing that if anything happened to them nobody would fight for justice after their deaths.

The modus operandi of the cartel is to search for parents or mothers with children, rarely groups of men because they are more difficult to ‘catch’, take them to a kind of farm or safe houses, right there, with staff dedicated to extraction, and they perform the procedure for obtaining organs.

One of the individuals heavily involved in the kidnapping and organ stealing of innocent people was one Kike Plancarte, a major member of the anti-Catholic Protestant cult, Los Caballeros Templarios, who was killed in a gunfight in 2014. Although he has been dead for two years now, the kidnapping of and stealing organs from innocent people continues.

In one situation a truck was discovered and in it were hearts and different organs. The police came to the scene but no one knows of what transpired in the criminal case. Obviously the Mexican government is doing nothing, since 98% of murders in Mexico go unsolved. The militiaman said that the media has been reporting that the stories are “pure lies and legends that do not even exist,” but the reason for the propaganda is because while “the government knows about it,” it “has interests” since “it costs thousands for one liver, for example… it is fortunate that we saw it (the truck), we deliver it to the police, they know it exist but have remained silent out of fear and because also they negotiate with them (the criminals) and make a profit.” The militiaman went on to explain:

In the canyons, where nobody walks, but only those who know the areas we monitor, I saw bodies that are not of the community, and they are women. We knew that many migrants have a fate, but for years the clandestine graves hide hundreds of deaths, but they are not the same, these bodies are leftovers

He went on to explain how the bodies are cut with precision, from the neck downwards. He also said that children are a frequent target, “perhaps because they are younger, healthier.”

“We started beating about careful, because the only people who could be involved in that was on drugs, we talked to villagers in Michoacán was Kike Plancarte who had started the business with other members of his family, that he struck what it cost a body and having both migrant in the country, was a waste not to use them, and how what happens to one happens to the other, we began to take care and combing the area, if we were in the spotlight, but nothing happened.

A few months ago, when it seemed that no longer passed many drug shipments we have a truck that stopped because we were going to surrender to the police, for these areas with a large transport could only be drugs, we could stop them, but it was a horrible thing, were hearts, livers were all scared little ones, it was a human butcher “.

Goes on to explain that the police took over, but the truck disappeared, no one knew where he went and what happened to the bodies, what we do know is that it was not even a week when they found that those who were guarding the truck and they detained were released, the police asked for explanations but ignored them and insulted them.

FBI agents are now in possession of photographs that prove organ trafficking in Mexico and that they are killing migrants. The images show mutilated bodies, with the chest and belly open with surgical incisions that lead to the extraction of livers, kidneys, hearts, to mention only a few.

The priest Alejandro Solalinde recounts that cases involving organ trafficking were evident in areas of Veracruz, Oaxaca and Michoacan. “At first we had knowledge of the first state where bodies were found without organs, then we tracked them in Oaxaca, when a local deputy reported that they had found bodies in the region of the mountains”.

Fr. Alejandro Solalinde also recounted how in the land of Tierra Caliente, Michoacán, the militia group, Las Autodefensas, intercepted a truck with bodies, and although they reported it to the State Attorney, they were ignored, and although the bodies were confiscated, no one knows what became of the case.

There was a second time, again a truck, in this they were bodies and the Autodefensas said that “in addition to the bodies, some were still living children”.

The major drug cartel in Mexico, the Templars (Los Templarios), have been kidnapping children, ripping their hearts as they are still alive, and eating them raw. Alfredo Castillo, the federal government’s envoy to Michoacan, told a local radio:

At [an] initiation ceremony they used the organs, in this case the heart, and forced people going through this initiatory process to eat it

This ritual is superintended by Nazario Moreno, the leader of the Templarios, who makes his initiates consume the hearts of kidnapped children. Mr. Castillo continued to say:

There are statements from some people who were present when Nazario Moreno (El Chayo) came and told others, either as initiation or as part of a ritual: ‘Today we are going to eat a person’s heart

Nazario Moreno is a cult leader, and is believed by his followers to have special powers.

According to Mexican authorities the children are then further dissected for their organs which are sold in the underground (and underworld) black market. Several children were captured by the Templar cult gang and locked in a freezer in a van, being prepared to be sacrifices for upcoming rituals for future initiates. A local Christian militia in Mexico, tired of the government not doing anything, took up arms, attacked the devil worshippers, intercepted the van and rescued the children before they could be ritually sacrificed in the satanic ritual. The leader of the Christian militia, José Manuel Mireles, said:

They were inside a refrigerated box, tightly wrapped in blankets… They were all children from the same Mexico City school.

Two major drug cartel agents, Caballo and Chanenque, were ambushing innocent travelers and dismembering them. Jose Manuel Mireles, the leader of the militia, captured both Caballo and Chanenque. His men beat the two murderers on camera, and then ordered for the filming to stop. We don’t know the fate of the two devil worshippers, but one can imagine that the Christians justly dispatched them.

The Christian militia is called Los Autodefensas, and they began as a response to the horrific and satanic murders done by the drug cartel, and as a result of the utter corruption and evil cooperation the government has with the cartels. The drug cartels, like ISIS, taxes all those who live under their control. A local farmer was unable to pay the extortion tax, and so the cartel kidnapped his children, tied them up and smashed their heads upon rocks. It was against this horrific violence that this militia arose and fought.

God the ever glorious Son became of one flesh with humanity, and proclaimed to the holy Peter, “That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18) The saints march to the gates of the inferno as it approaches the land of heavenly beings, and they, burning with a zeal only quenched by justice, fight with all noble ferociousness, tearing down its sinister walls and breaking the chains of the abysmal demons.

In their ineffable will and exuberance they strike the sinister forces, the corrupters of souls and the shedders of innocent blood, by “faith working through love.” (Galatians 5:6) Is this not a war between those of the flesh and those of the Spirit? The war is not between weapons, but between those led by the Spirit, (Galatians 5:18) and those who advance pharmakeia (Galatians 5:20) to use the word of the Apostle, which is nothing but the occult and the rituals of demons in which narcotics are used.

The Mexican cartels make up to twenty billion dollars a year from selling pharmakeia — in the forms of cocaine and methamphetamine — in the US, and all they are doing is advancing witchcraft. The soulless never end in spewing out their evils, saying that drugs are “harmless,” and that they should be tolerated and legalized, and they do not even realize that they are only being ambassadors for doctrines of demons and their acolytes who only come to steal, and to kill, and to destroy (John 10:10).

These militants do not fund their cause with drugs or with the blood of the innocent, but with money gained by the sale of limes and avocados. In one event — worthy of our lamentation — fourteen lime producers expressed their support for the militia and the Templar drug cartel murdered all of them.

All of this violence taking place in Mexico means that the nation is entering a civil war. These types of events are ones you would hear happening in Syria and Iraq, but they are occurring in Mexico. Mexico is on the brink on civil war. The cartels have already been fighting the militia army, Las Autodefensas. Now these self-defense armies are developing throughout Mexico. The righteous uprising began in Michoacan, and now you have militias in Guerrero, Sinaloa, Tamaulipas, Veracruz and they will continue to come about in other states. This is the restoration of the Cristeros, Catholic warriors who revolted against the anti-Christian government of Mexico in the 1920s and 30s.

This war will continue between the Autodefensas and the cartels, but ultimately it will be between the Autodefensas — the New Cristeros — and the biggest cartel, the Mexican government.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-19/pope-says-trump-not-christian-in-views-over-immigration/7182544

Feminists Launch Jihad Against Sportsman Chris Gayle, Forget To Make Any Public Response To Gangs of Muslim Men Raping And Sexually Assaulting Women All Over Europe

I read an article over at the ABC about how it wasn’t a good start to the year for men because some politician and a crickets made some sexist remarks.

You would think that the ongoing rape and sexual assault epidemic in Eruope by Muslim men would somehow get a mention in said article.

You would be left confused because it did not.

Feminists should be all over this specifically because women are the conspicuously only victims here and they are victims not of silly pick up lines but sexual assault and rape!

Like I have written before, multiculturalism clearly trumps feminism in the hierarchy of cultural Marxism. Simply, women’s rights will be ignored before Muslim’s rights, which works out quite nicely given Islam’s treatment of women.

Consider Lara Prendergast’s take on the mainstream media’s grand hypocrisy:

Regardless of the background of the men who carried out the attacks in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, it is a pretty horrific story. A series of sexual attacks took place in the city centre by a group of around 1,000 men. More than 150 women have filed criminal complaints, three-quarters of them for sexual assault. Two cases of rape have been reported. It is the kind of story that should make headlines – and should provide ample fodder for writers who like to tackle feminist topics head on. After all, surely this is the very definition of ‘rape culture’? And if the actual attacks aren’t enough to merit a reaction, then how about the suggestion by Cologne’s female mayor that women should adopt a ‘code of conduct‘ to prevent future assault. Is that not the very definition of ‘victim blaming’?

But the headlines have been conspicuous by their absence. So far this year, the main ‘feminist’ topic covered by Guardian comment writers is Chris Gayle’s cricket sexism row, which involves the sportsman chatting up a female journalist. There is not one mention of the Cologne attacks, aside from in news reports. Why is that? Is it because they are not deemed important? Perhaps we don’t care about vicious attacks against German frauen? Or is it because the details of the story – that the men appear to have been of ‘Arab or North African origin’ who did not seem to speak German or English, and that there is a possibility they are some of the 1.1 million migrants to have entered Germany last year – make it too controversial to touch? Feminist writers are not famed for holding their tongues – as individuals who have been hanged, drawn and quartered by them can attest. But in an article for Prospect, Jessica Abrahams offers this measly explanation for the silence:

Feminists are necessarily concerned with the protection of minorities and marginalised groups. If some of them are finding it difficult to speak up about the event because of concerns it might be used to encourage aggression against refugees, I can’t say I blame them. The fault lies not with the feminists but with those making them nervous to speak–the very same people, often, who are expressing outrage that they aren’t.

It is usually the task of feminists to make enough noise about incidents of sexual assault that they can no longer be ignored; the Cologne attack was big enough that it received a huge amount of attention across Europe and further afield. We can only hope now that the police are successful in bringing those responsible to the courtroom and preventing further attacks, and that the women involved are given enough support.

I do not wish to get into a debate about migration, but it seems fair to suggest we face facts: many North African and Arab countries are not famed for their exemplary treatment of women. And many of the people entering Europe are young men from these countries, who may well have never come across the concept that women are equal to men, and do not deserve to be threatened, molested or raped. If we are too scared to say this, for fear that it might look uncharitable towards migrants, then we land ourselves in all kinds of trouble. Eventually we will have to say it though, so we might as well start now.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-06/donoughue-a-poor-start-to-the-year-for-the-men-of-australia/7070222
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/why-are-feminists-refusing-to-discuss-the-cologne-sex-attacks/

Dear Christian, Please Do Some Basic Research On The Pharisees: Who They Were, What They Did, And Why Jesus Was Forceful With Them And Not All The Other Sinners He Encountered

I can’t recount the number of times I have heard something along the lines of “Jesus spent time with sinners, not the Pharisees”

On almost every occasion, this statement has been used as a veiled attack against someone they disagreed with. Usually, it’s used against me.

The “Pharisee” ad hominem is, contrary to popular belief, the best way to hurt a Christian. Now before all those non-believers out there start rubbing their hands together in glee, it only hurts when it comes from other genuine believers. Indeed, that is why it hurts at all – because it’s family.

There not much worse than being misunderstood by family, to the extent that family accuse you of sharing the morality of people whom John the Immerser describes as a “brood of vipers” and whom, upon seeing Jesus cure the sick and the lame, accused him of doing by demonic power.

So you can understand why it’s not so nice to hear your fellow brothers and sisters accuse you of being a Pharisee, especially given that some of these guys were literally on their way to the lake of fire and even leading others with them.

So I write with sobriety that if you are a Christian and you are going to accuse your brothers and sisters of being like the Pharisees, you should do two important things:

  1. Understand that your accusation is massively serious, and;
  2. Do some basic research to understand why it is massively serious.

Needless to say, a lot of Christians who casually throw out “Pharisee” against people whose opinions they don’t like (or are too lazy to find biblically sound arguments to refute) may just find out that in no surprising twist of irony, the real Pharisees were the ones throwing accusation, specifically false ones against the innocent Son of God because they didn’t like him or his Father.

So what did Jesus say about the Pharisees?

“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.” Matthew‬ ‭23:1-3‬ ‭ESV‬‬

To begin with, the Pharisees had the very serious God-given responsibility of teaching and maintaining the God’s Torah, given through Moses, in the nation of Israel, the nation God himself chose to bring forth the only hope all humanity had of escaping judgment for sin and death: Messiah.

As far as responsibility goes, this was right up there and I would argue that there is nobody since, bar the apostles, who carried a greater weight of responsibility before God.

The serious crime of the Pharisees is that they did not aspire to keep the Torah themselves, according to Jesus own words, and not that keeping the Torah was itself a bad thing. Funny that – many Christians have internalised the false dichotomy of “law versus grace” which paints keeping the Torah as some kind of heinous legalism attempting to earn salvation. Since Jesus kept the Torah perfectly and had to in order to be accounted righteous according to the Torah, a bit of biblical education would not go astray for the church in this area.

And their crimes were multiplied beyond this:

They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.” Matthew‬ ‭23:4‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Anyone who has ever looked at the Talmud, known in Judaism as the “oral law”, might begin to piece what Jesus says here together. In Judaism, the Talmud is considered the interpretive key of the scriptural Torah and it is considered equally inspired by God.

Simply, interpreting the Torah through the Talmud makes obeying God very complex and difficult. More importantly, teaching the oral Torah as equal to the written scriptural Torah actually adds to the Torah, something God expressly forbids.

But that’s not all!

“They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others.” Matthew‬ ‭23:5-7‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Not only were the Pharisees adding to the Torah with Talmudic interpretations, making human interpretations equal to God’s instructions (a big biblical no-no) and keeping the average Israelite bound up with complex commands instead of wholehearted devotion to God, but they were equally unconcerned about the people in their care and their own hearts and instead concerned about privilege, power, and their outer appearances.

All of this becomes evident in the following passage:

“Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.” Matthew‬ ‭12:13-14‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Imagine having a withered hand that you can’t use. Then suddenly, theirs guy comes along and miraculously heals it! Imagine the celebration as you run around excitedly telling people all about it. How would you respond when your respected community leaders turn up and start gunning for the guy who just changed your life for the much better?

That’s who many of the Pharisees were.

So the Pharisees, at least the ones who accosted Jesus, are a bit different to someone who disagrees with you on a theological issue and even more so that someone who makes a good point that you just don’t understand.

When you throw in that the Pharisees turned Jesus over to be brutally murdered because they didn’t like his liberating threat to their power base, calling someone a “Pharisee” is really just a step down from “Antichrist”.

Hey, if the shoe fits but the important question is – are you sure it fits?

Perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself and calling someone a “Pharisee” isn’t so bad after all?

““But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”” Matthew‬ ‭23:13, 15-39‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Guess I’m not.

Obama Tries Hand At Irony, Succeeds (UPDATED: With More Organ Harvesting Hypocrisy)

This one speaks for itself:

President Barack Obama told a group of young African leaders on Monday that harvesting organs from humans that are killed as part of an African ritual was “craziness” and a “cruel” tradition that needed to stop. He warned of dehumanizing marginal groups of humans and of the problems that arise when “you are not able to see someone else as a human being.”

In a wide-ranging question and answer session with members of the Young African Leaders Initiative [YALI], a woman from Kenya said “Persons with albinism in Africa are being killed and their body parts harvested for ritual purposes,” a woman in the audience said. “My request to you is to raise this issue with heads of state of African countries to bring these atrocities to an end.”

Obama decried the practice and went on to encourage the young people to do everything in their power to fight on the behalf of vulnerable humans.

“Young people, you can lead the way and set a good example. But it requires some courage because the old thinking, people will push back at you and if you don’t have convictions and courage to be able stand up for what you think is right, than cruelty will perpetuate itself,” he said. He added, “If there’s one thing I want YALI leaders to come out with, it’s the notion of you are strong by taking care of the people who are vulnerable, by looking after the minority, looking after the disabled, looking after the vulnerable. You’re not strong by putting people down you’re strong by lifting them up. That’s the measure of a leader.”

Obama also tied the practice of harvesting organs from albinos with racism and discrimination against gay people and urged consistency in how they view the sanctity of human life if they want to complain about human rights abuses.

Obama’s comments come in the midst of a weeks-long scandal in his own country over the killing of unborn children via abortion followed by the harvesting and distribution of their organs. The Center for Medical Progress has released five videos of Planned Parenthood officials discussing the killing of human fetuses and the harvesting of their organs — or entire cadavers — to researchers willing to pay a pretty penny for them.

On the topic of human organ harvesting, President Obama’s spokesman Josh Earnest has said that President Obama has chosen not to watch the video footage of Planned Parenthood officials dissecting human fetuses for parts. Nevertheless, President Obama has vehemently defended the abortion group.

In 2012, Planned Parenthood said, while announcing a $1.4 million ad buy on his behalf, that they had “no greater champion” than President Obama.

During his time in the Illinois Senate, Obama’s devotion to abortion was so extreme that he argued a form of infanticide should remain legal out of fear that protecting infants born alive might somehow protect young humans in the womb.

To see the video referred to in the article, visit the link.

Thankfully, others have noticed the mind boggling double standards and gross hypocrisy on display from Obama here.

So here is one more perspective on the debacle:

Wow. Our President (and his team) really are clueless, aren’t they?

On Monday President Obama was speaking to a group of young African leaders who were attending the Young African Leaders Initiative in Washington, D.C. During his time with them someone asked about the killing of Albinos which has plagued Africa – Albinos are murdered and then have their body parts harvested to be sold for religious rites and in potions.

The questioner said it like this, “Persons with Albinism in Africa are being killed and their body parts harvested for ritual purposes. My request to you is to raise this issue with heads of state of African countries to bring these atrocities to an end.”

President Obama responded by condemning the barbaric activity.

“When I was in Africa, I said, there are important traditions and folkways that need to be respected that’s part of who each culture is — each country is — but there’s also foolish traditions and old ways of doing business.

The notion that any African would discriminate against somebody because of the color of their skin, after what black people around the world have gone through – is crazy.

It is infuriating and I have no patience for it.”

President Obama harshly condemned the grotesque and evil practice (as he should have), but obviously failed to grasp the greater truth. He has endorsed equally barbarous and much more expansive behavior here in the United States and around the world with his support of abortion. Moreover, he has thrown his full support behind exactly this practice of murdering and then selling body parts in his continued embrace of the practices undertaken by Planned Parenthood! In his response, Obama literally chastises himself for his “foolish” and “crazy” discriminatory beliefs that have led to the murders of more than 55 Million babies in America alone.

I won’t be holding my breath expecting him to see the irony in his response or the hypocrisy of his support of abortion.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/05/obama-killing-humans-and-harvesting-their-organs-is-an-atrocity-that-must-end/

http://godfatherpolitics.com/24176/obama-calls-killing-to-harvest-body-parts-in-africa-a-foolish-tradition-fails-to-see-the-irony/

If Adam Goodes Is Booed Only Because He Is Aboriginal, Why Aren’t Other Aboriginal Players Booed Too?

It’s a question that we should all be asking, especially given that the leftist media have swarmed on this as though it’s the most critical news occurring at the moment.

Now many of us can agree that people are equal and deserve to be treated with respect. I don’t believe we should boo anybody and I include footballers in that.

The media have been swift in their condemnation of all white people, even ones who don’t like football and never attend along with white people who don’t know who Adam Goodes is. 

This is supposedly the proof of our ingrained racism – white people that is and no other ethnic or national origin.

The media collectivises all white people together, as though we were ants functioning as one mind.

Why is this acceptable?

Because some white people have done wrong in the past.

The so-called “progressives” love these kinds of stories and that’s why the media is saturated in it. They always prance in declaring themselves as the mature adults who have come to chide the foolish children, represented by white people in general.

White racism seems to be the only acceptable form of racism because apparently only white people have ever wronged others based upon superficial features like skin colour. 

We must be able to look throughout all history and find only a harmony of multicoloured utopia, where everyone accepted each other and civilisations rested at peace.

But that’s a total farce.

Consider how well non-Arabs are received in many parts of the Middle East and why the population of Japan is almost entirely homogenously Japanese for a start.

Does anyone really believe that different appearances were never a factor in the myriad of wars in human history?

As I have stated, there will always be people who judge purely by appearance and treat people differently accordingly and as I have stated, we should not do this because we are all made in God’s image and are precious to him.

But we need to stand against the constant barrage of lies about white Australians being the only racists that ever existed. 

Former footballer Jason Akermanis has done just this in speaking out against Goodes and the media’s collective accusations:

Brisbane Lions great Jason Akermanis has told Adam Goodes to stop “playing the victim” and says those who label the booing of the dual Brownlow medallist as racist are kidding themselves.

As AFL and NRL players rally behind Goodes, who has taken extended leave and is reportedly considering retirement, Akermanis said fans had the right to boo anyone they like, whenever they like.

“Any stupid journalists who said that they’re racist is kidding themselves,” the Brownlow medallist and triple premiership player told Fox Sports on Thursday.

“I got booed and no-one ever said it was racist. (Former rugby league star) Benny Elias got booed when we were in Queensland because he was from New South Wales. Umpires get booed every week.

“Adam Goodes has got to stop looking like a sook and stop making it about him in this sense, and also he should stop trying to play the victim.”

Akermanis said it would be a shame if Goodes decided to retire over the controversy, outlining the 35-year-old needed to make a decision about “whether he’s for the club or for himself”.

“If you don’t play, who’s winning?” Akermanis said.

“For Adam and for me and for anyone else who’s been booed, which I have over many years and got called even worse names than what he did, you cannot let them win.”

While I certainly don’t agree with everything he says, he does make some valid points and I certainly remember watching Akermanis get booed time and time again last decade. If anyone can relate to Goodes experience, Akermanis is one of those people.

Interestingly, my recent discussions about this matter have confirmed that other people are getting sick of being lumped together with legitimate racists just because we all share the same skin colour.

I think that’s fair.

The reality is that plenty of other Aboriginal players are not getting booed any more than non-Aboriginal players so it seems to be more than black skin behind this controversy.

And if white player start sticking it to the crowd, they should expect to be booed just as Goodes has.

Condemnation can be rightly levelled at people who are actually racist but claiming everyone is to justify being racist against white people is as equally wrong as racism against Adam Goodes.

My white skin doesn’t determine my behaviour but to some people, skin colour seems to be everything and they just can’t move past defining people, both individuals and groups, by this superficial feature.

And I’m writing mainly about the so-called progressives and their bullying media empire here.

“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭7:3-5‬ ‭ESV‬‬

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-30/jason-akermanis-says-adam-goodes-is-a-sook/6659344?section=sport