Google’s You-Tube Supports Jihadis

Google’s YouTube – Soap Box for Terrorists
By Ruthie Blum

Originally Published by the Gatestone Institute.

In mid-March this year, major companies began withdrawing or reducing advertising from Google Inc., the owner of YouTube, for allowing their brand names to pop up alongside videos promoting jihad, a new report released on June 15 by the Middle East Research Media Institute (MEMRI) reveals.

According to the report — which documents the failure of Google to remove jihadi content that MEMRI volunteered to assist in flagging — thus far, AT&T, Verizon, Johnson & Johnson, Enterprise Holdings and GSK are among the companies pulling their ads from the platform. Google responded by promising to be more aggressive in ensuring brand safety of ad placements.

Then came the Westminster attack. On March 22, 2017, Khalid Masood rammed his car into pedestrians — killing four people and wounding dozens of others – then stabbed an unarmed police officer to death.

Exactly two months later, on May 22, Salman Ramadan Abedi detonated a shrapnel-laden homemade bomb at the Manchester Arena, after a concert by American singer Ariana Grande. The blast killed 22 people and wounded more than 100 others.

On June 3, ahead of Britain’s general election five days later, Khuram Shazad Butt, Rachid Redouane and Youssef Zaghba murdered eight people and wounded 48 others in a combined van-ramming and stabbing attack on London Bridge.

On June 6, Britain’s three main political parties pulled their campaign advertisements from YouTube, after realizing that they were placed in or alongside jihadi videos.

If anyone still doubted at that point the connection between terrorism and Google’s video platform, the Daily Telegraph revealed that British counterterrorism police had been monitoring a cell of ISIS “wannabes” since March, and recorded its members discussing how to use YouTube to plot a vehicular ramming and stabbing attack in London.

Appallingly, the surveillance did nothing to prevent the carnage. It did provide further evidence, however, that jihadis purposely use the major online platform to spread their message and recruit soldiers in their war against the West and any Muslims deemed “infidels.” Terrorists have learned that YouTube can be as deadly a weapon as cars and knives.

Nor could Google claim that it is unaware of the increasing pernicious use of its platform, or that it lacks the algorithmic tools to monitor YouTube’s massive traffic – involving 1.3 billion users and 300 hours of video uploaded every minute.

In the first place, complaints about jihadi content have been lodged by individuals and organizations for years. Secondly, Google vowed to tackle the problem through a flagging feature that alerts YouTube to material that “promotes terrorism.” Furthermore, YouTube itself claims: “Our staff reviews flagged videos 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to determine whether they violate our Community Guidelines.”

In 2010, five years after YouTube’s inception, MEMRI Executive Director Steven Stalinsky met with Google and YouTube free-speech attorneys and other company officials to discuss this issue in detail and offer assistance in monitoring jihadi online activity. Nevertheless, despite YouTube’s assurances, it has continued to serve as a virtual soap box for radical imams and recruiters of “martyrs” for missions against both general and specific targets.

During that period seven years ago, MEMRI also presented findings to members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, resulting in written appeals from both Democrats and Republicans to YouTube CEO Chad Hurley to take the matter seriously and do something about it.

In spite of Tube’s earlier promises, MEMRI found that most of the videos it had flagged, beginning in 2010, remained online two and three years later.

The breakdown was as follows:

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and 9/11 attack glorification videos – 100 were flagged, 58 remained online.

Yemeni-American Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki videos – 127 were flagged, 111 remained online.

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri videos – 125 were flagged, 57 remained online.

More recently, of the 115 videos that MEMRI flagged on YouTube in 2015, 69 remained active as of February 27, 2017. Many are still online to this day. Some are so gruesome that the MEMRI report includes a warning to readers about “graphic images.”

One example is a clip titled: “A Martyr From the Taliban Laughs and Utters the Two Declarations [Of Faith] Before He is Martyred.” Posted on July 5, 2011 — and viewed by nearly three million people — it shows a terrorist welcoming death with a smile on his face. The comments beneath the video are all in Arabic.

Another, titled “Shuhada (Martyrs) Of Islam, Look They Are Smiling In Death,” was posted on September 22, 2009, with the YouTube disclaimer, “This video may be inappropriate for some users,” and the user option: “I understand and wish to proceed.” In Arabic with French subtitles, the clip lauds terrorists “martyred for Allah.” User comments include: “beautiful… may Allah give us all the knowledge and power to accelerate our imams.” In other words, the pictures of smiling terrorists and their dead bodies serve as an inspiration to young Muslims seeking Paradise through martyrdom.

A screenshot from one of the terror-supporting jihadi videos on YouTube that was flagged by MEMRI. The video remains on YouTube to this day.

This is not theoretical. According to the website Wired UK, as of June 5, there were 535 terrorist attacks around the world — with 3,635 fatalities — since the beginning of 2017 alone. It is only because the bulk of these attacks took place in countries such as Nigeria, Yemen, Somalia and Bangladesh — and involved Muslims killing other Muslims — that they were barely reported, and even less noticed, in the West.

Whenever a Western country is targeted successfully, however, the issue of global jihad hits the headlines – and now threatens to hurt the coffers of social media giants that have been acting as enablers. According to analyst firm Nomura Instinet, YouTube could lose $750 million in advertising revenue this year, as a result of its “funding” of terrorism and, in effect, enabling of wide-scale murder. Although this figure would not put Google in the red, it represents a protest on the part of users increasingly concerned about international security.

In what was clearly a move to counteract the latest outcry about jihadi videos on YouTube, Google announced on June 18 that it was introducing a “four-step plan” to “fight terrorism online,” referring specifically to ISIS propaganda.

In an op-ed in the Financial Times and a subsequent post on “Google in Europe,” Google General Counsel Kent Walker wrote:

“Terrorism is an attack on open societies, and addressing the threat posed by violence and hate is a critical challenge for us all. Google and YouTube are committed to being part of the solution. We are working with government, law enforcement and civil society groups to tackle the problem of violent extremism online. There should be no place for terrorist content on our services.

While we and others have worked for years to identify and remove content that violates our policies, the uncomfortable truth is that we, as an industry, must acknowledge that more needs to be done. Now.”

The steps Walker listed were: increasing the use of technology to identify terrorism-related videos; increasing the number of independent experts in YouTube’s “Trusted Flagger” program; making it harder for videos that do not strictly violate YouTube’s “community standards,” but which contain extremist content, to be located on the site; and implementing a “Redirect Method,” to send viewers in search of radical content to videos that debunk jihadi recruitment messages.

Robert Spencer, of Jihad Watch, responded wryly to these ostensibly new measures, including those that MEMRI found have not been implemented over the years in any case:

“Google says it will put ‘warnings on those videos and make them harder to find.’ Ten to one these warnings will end up going not on jihad videos, but on anti-jihad videos.”

Monetary pressure and public outcries are the methods used in democratic countries to force Google to remove content that endangers lives. (Totalitarian regimes, such as that of North Korea and Iran, simply ban YouTube.)

There is a greater problem, however, which cannot be solved by monetary or technological means. The cultural (or multicultural) climate that has swept the West is clouding the definitions of “incitement,” “terrorism” and “extremism” in relation to radical Islam.

It is this willful vagueness that has provided Google and YouTube with a cloak against accusations that they are contributing to the spread of global jihad.

YouTube claims to be engaging in the “delicate balancing act” of supporting free expression while countering

“content that promotes or condones violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity, or whose primary purpose is inciting hatred on the basis of these core characteristics… if the primary purpose is to attack a protected group, the content crosses the line.”

The message of jihad itself, which is being conveyed via video to potential Islamist terrorists the world over, clearly and concretely meets each of these criteria. However, since Muslims are treated in the West as a “protected group,” it has become safer to rail against and attempt to combat “Islamophobia” than Islamists.

This is exactly what has been happening since the June 19 attack on worshipers exiting the Finsbury Park Mosque in north London. The perpetrator, Darren Osborne — a Briton who hates Muslims and set out to kill as many as possible — is being denounced as an “Islamophobe” who was influenced by anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.K.

As Andrew C. McCarthy argued after the attack, however:

“‘Islamophobia’ is a smear label dreamed up by the Muslim Brotherhood, designed to demagogue any legitimate concern about Islamic doctrine as irrational fear and, of course, as racism. The man who carried out the mosque attack is … is a vile specimen of anti-Muslim hatred, [but] his hatred does not render Islamophobia real. It does not convert into hysteria our worries that a sizable percentage of Muslims — for reasons that are easily knowable if one simply reads scripture and listens to renowned sharia jurists — construes Islam to endorse violence against non-Muslims and to command the imposition of oppressive sharia.”

It is this atmosphere, in which liberals adopt concepts created by Islamist radicals to invert terrorism and its victims, which has allowed Google and YouTube to get away with promoting jihad for a profit, while disingenuously hiding behind the banner of free speech.

Their lip service is no longer acceptable. From now on, if they do not keep their word about combating terrorism, they must be held criminally liable for aiding and abetting mass murder.

Ruthie Blum is a journalist and author of “To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the ‘Arab Spring.’”

Original Article

The CO2 Myth

The CO2 Climate Change Myth

by Chylene Ramsey

“…global warming is dressed up as science, but it’s not science—it’s propaganda.”
“You can’t say CO2 will drive climate. It certainly never did in the past.”
“’If the CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the temperature will go up.’ But the ice core records show exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption—the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong.”
The global warming-climate change debate is one that drives society to extreme ends. Any evidence to the contrary, no matter how reputable the science, is hotly denied.
However, there is no reputable scientific evidence that the climate is driven by carbon dioxide (CO2), and as for thee premise of ‘climate change’— the earth’s climate has always changed, there is nothing unusual about it.
There are a number of scientists who don’t agree with the basic principle of CO2 driven climate change, and their voices are getting louder every day. What’s more, they have plenty of data proving that temperature is not driven by CO2 levels—indeed, there are times in the past where there were 10 times the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere, even at times during earth’s intermittent ice ages.
In addition, ‘climate change’ is the driving force to stop development in third world countries, yet scientists who speak out against the popularized rhetoric about the theories of global warming face censure and ridicule from their colleagues. It seems global warming-climate change has been pushed from a media scare to practically a religion, and those who disagree are treated as heretics.
But again—earth’s climate has always changed. The present warming trend can be traced back to “The Little Ice Age” of the fourteenth century. During the coldest winters of this period, the Thames in England actually froze! Then during the medieval warm period, even earlier, temperatures were actually warmer than they are today—England had vineyards, even in the chilly north! This was far from a time of climate catastrophe, however. It was actually a time of great prosperity.
So what makes us think that the situation in any different today? The fault it’s said lie with our industrialized society…we enjoy a leisure and prosperity unmatched in earlier human history, but the question is. Does it drive ‘climate change’?
Since the mid-nineteenth century, the earth’s temperature has risen only half a degree Celsius, and most of the rise in temperature occurred before 1940—before the post-war economic boom that heralded a time of industrial development and technological advancement. During this time of a great increase in industrialization, the temperatures should have increased, that is, if the theory behind CO2 driven ‘climate change’ is correct. Instead, the temperature actually dropped, for four decades no less! This despite a great increase in CO2 levels. Obviously, the facts do not fit the theory.
How then did CO2 become the prime culprit in ‘climate change’? In fact, CO2 makes up such a small part of our atmosphere that it’s measures tens of parts per million, or ppm, and measures approximately 0.54%, and even a smaller part of that can be attributed to human development.
Greenhouse gases actually form a very small part of the earth’s atmosphere, and CO2 is an even lesser part of that. Water vapor actually forms 95% of greenhouse gases.
If it weren’t for greenhouse gases deflecting the sun’s rays from outer space, the world would soon become too hot to support life. If they did not trap the earth’s warmth as it rises, the planet would soon become too cold to live in. Therefore, greenhouse gases are actually beneficial.
The popular theory would indicate that if the temperature of the earth rises, the temperature of the upper atmosphere should rise also. The data, however, indicates that the upper atmosphere has actually dropped, and is not warming as quickly as the surface temperatures, a fact that perplexes scientists that buy into the theory that global warming is driven by greenhouse gases.
Looking at the ice core records, researchers have found a link between temperature and CO2, but not in the path expected. The temperature rises a few hundred years, then the CO2 levels rise following that trend. Therefore, CO2 couldn’t factor into the rise in temperature; it’s not a factor in climate change, it’s actually it’s product.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a natural gas, produced by all living things. It’s not a pollutant, no more than the oxygen and hydrogen in our atmosphere are pollutants.
Humans are not even the major source of carbon dioxide (CO2). Volcanoes produce more CO2 than all the factories and vehicles combined. More comes from animals and bacteria which produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year, compared to a mere 6.5 gigatons produced by humans. Dying vegetation is yet another source of CO2. But the largest producer of CO2 comes from the oceans. Are they to be considered pollutants?
If CO2 doesn’t drive climate, then what does? The sun. More exactly, sunspots. Measuring sunspots produces more accurate results in predicting the weather than conventional means. Sunspots are intense magnetic fields, and astronomers in the past counted sunspots in that belief that the more sunspots there were, the warmer the weather would be. In fact, during earth’s “Little Ice Age”, there were hardly any sunspots at all. Researchers going back 400 years found sunspot activity significantly linked to temperature changes.
Clouds and the earth’s climate are also closely linked. Clouds are formed when cosmic rays from the sun meet water vapor rising from the oceans. Clouds are formed. climate is controlled by clouds, clouds are formed from cosmic rays, and cosmic rays come from the sun. The sun, then, drives climate change, and the effects of CO2 are insignificant.
Then, where did this myth of CO2 driven climate change come from? It’s a convenient theory to drive an anti-capitalistic, anti-development agenda. Socialism and communism were both great failures, and the left has to find a different agenda to drive their ideological spite. Global warming, driven by CO2 produced by industrialization became their focus.
The myth is propagated by the large amounts of money being poured into ‘climate change.’ It has become an economic driver with untold people’s livelihood depending on propagating the theory. Anyone who tried to go against the popular rhetoric soon finds themselves a subject of denouncement and ridicule.
The policies pushed by the popular consensus calls for a reduction of development and industrialization in both the developed and underdeveloped countries. This has, and will cause, a depressing effect on the world’s economies, but most disastrously to the poor in nations such as Africa.
With so much at stake, why does this myth continue to flourish? The ‘precautionary principle’ says that if there is even a small chance of global warming-climate change being correct, we should err on the side of caution. Another factor is human nature; we can’t do anything about cosmic rays or sunspots to control our environment, but we can work earnestly to reduce our ‘carbon footprint’. People receive gratification and even notoriety by succumbing to this public delusion.
CO2 driven climate change is not a fact, it’s more of an opinion, and it won’t be changed until enough voices are raised refuting it that this popular myth will be defeated.
Have any of these people who clamor for reduction of carbon and less fossil fuel use ever think about how their world and lifestyle would be significantly altered should fossil fuel use be significantly reduced? Could they even live in such a world, with no cars, no electricity, and none of the gadgets like cell-phones they take so much for granted now?
Wind and solar technologies cannot be depended upon, either. They are notoriously unreliable and expensive as well, which make them unaffordable to the world’s poor denizens.
The global warming alarm has become so prevalent, and the voices of dissent so effectively silenced, there may be irreparable damage done to our society before people finally accept the truth. By then it may well be too late. They will have caused the very catastrophe their convictions were trying to prevent.

 

The Odds of Evolution Are Zero

The Odds of Evolution Are Zero
By Dr. Jerry Newcombe

Zero times anything is zero. The odds of life just happening by chance are zero.

This universe just springing into being by chance is impossible. It takes a leap of blind faith to believe in evolution, unguided or guided. Of course, there are tiny changes within kinds. It seems to me usually when the evolutionists make their case, they point to these tiny changes.

The analogies to the improbability of evolution by a random process are endless.

A hurricane blows through a junkyard and assembles a fully functioning 747 jet.

Scrabble pieces are randomly spilled out on the board, and they spell out the Declaration of Independence word for word. (Source: Dr. Stephen Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt).

A monkey sits at a typewriter and types thousands of pages. He types out word for word, with no mistakes, the entire works of Shakespeare.

The odds against our universe, of the earth, of the creation, to have just come into being with no intelligent design behind the grand scheme are greater than all of these impossible scenarios.

Forget the works of Shakespeare. What are the odds of a monkey randomly typing away simply spelling the 9-letter word “evolution” by chance? That doesn’t sound too hard, does it?

Dr. Scott M. Huse, B.S., M.S., M.R.E., Th.D., Ph.D., who holds graduate degrees in computer science, geology, and theology, wrote a book about creation/evolution back in the early 1980s, The Collapse of Evolution. Huse has done extensive study on these questions of random probability. I had the privilege of interviewing him about it for Dr. D. James Kennedy’s television special, “The Case for Creation” (1988). It was a type of Scopes Trial in reverse—filmed on location in Tennessee, in the very courtroom where the 1925 monkey trial took place.

Later, Huse created a computer program to see what are the odds of a monkey typing the word “evolution”? He notes that the odds are 1 in 5.4 trillion, which statistically is the same thing as zero. Any casino that offered such horrible odds would lose customers quickly, because no one would ever win. Forgive my bluntness, but the suckers have to win something before they start losing big.

Here’s what Scott told me in an email: “The typical personal computer keyboard has 104 keys, most of which are not letters from the alphabet. However, if we ignore that fact and say the monkey can only hit keys that are letters of the alphabet, he has a one in twenty-six chance of hitting the correct letter each time.

“Of course, he has to hit them in the correct sequence as well: E then V then O, etc. Twenty-six to the power of nine (the number of letters in the word “evolution”) equals 5,429,503,678,976.

“So, the odds of him accidentally typing just the 9-letter word ‘evolution’ are about 1 in about 5.4 trillion …From a purely mathematical standpoint, the bewildering complexity of even the most basic organic molecules [which are much more complicated than a nine-letter word] completely rules out the possibility of life originating by mere chance.”

Take just one aspect of life—amino acids and protein cells. Dr. Stephen Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science at Cambridge University. In his New York Times bestselling book, Darwin’s Doubt (2013), Meyer points out that “the probability of attaining a correct sequence [of amino acids to build a protein molecule] by random search would roughly equal the probability of a blind spaceman finding a single marked atom by chance among all the atoms in the Milky Way galaxy—on its face clearly not a likely outcome.” (p. 183)

And this is just one aspect of life, the most basic building-block. In Meyer’s book, he cites the work of engineer-turned-molecular-biologist, Dr. Douglas Axe, who has since written the book, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed (2016).

In the interview I did with Scott Huse long ago, he noted, “The probability of life originating through mere random processes, as evolutionists contend, really honestly, is about zero…. If you consider probability statistics, it exposes the naiveté and the foolishness, really, of the evolutionary viewpoint.”

Dr. Charles Thaxton was another guest on that classic television special from 1988. He is a scientist who notes that life is so complex, the chances of it arising by mere chance is virtually impossible. Thaxton, now with the Discovery Institute, has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, and a post-doctorate degree in molecular biology and a Harvard post-doctorate in the history and philosophy of science.

Thaxton notes, “I’d say in my years of study, the amazing thing is the utter complexity of living things….Most scientists would readily grant that however life happened, it did not happen by chance.”

The whole creation points to the Creator. Huse sums up the whole point: “Simply put, a watch has a watchmaker and we have a Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Original Article

The Odds of Evolution Are Zero

The Odds of Evolution Are Zero
By Dr. Jerry Newcombe

Zero times anything is zero. The odds of life just happening by chance are zero.

This universe just springing into being by chance is impossible. It takes a leap of blind faith to believe in evolution, unguided or guided. Of course, there are tiny changes within kinds. It seems to me usually when the evolutionists make their case, they point to these tiny changes.

The analogies to the improbability of evolution by a random process are endless.

A hurricane blows through a junkyard and assembles a fully functioning 747 jet.

Scrabble pieces are randomly spilled out on the board, and they spell out the Declaration of Independence word for word. (Source: Dr. Stephen Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt).

A monkey sits at a typewriter and types thousands of pages. He types out word for word, with no mistakes, the entire works of Shakespeare.

The odds against our universe, of the earth, of the creation, to have just come into being with no intelligent design behind the grand scheme are greater than all of these impossible scenarios.

Forget the works of Shakespeare. What are the odds of a monkey randomly typing away simply spelling the 9-letter word “evolution” by chance? That doesn’t sound too hard, does it?

Dr. Scott M. Huse, B.S., M.S., M.R.E., Th.D., Ph.D., who holds graduate degrees in computer science, geology, and theology, wrote a book about creation/evolution back in the early 1980s, The Collapse of Evolution. Huse has done extensive study on these questions of random probability. I had the privilege of interviewing him about it for Dr. D. James Kennedy’s television special, “The Case for Creation” (1988). It was a type of Scopes Trial in reverse—filmed on location in Tennessee, in the very courtroom where the 1925 monkey trial took place.

Later, Huse created a computer program to see what are the odds of a monkey typing the word “evolution”? He notes that the odds are 1 in 5.4 trillion, which statistically is the same thing as zero. Any casino that offered such horrible odds would lose customers quickly, because no one would ever win. Forgive my bluntness, but the suckers have to win something before they start losing big.

Here’s what Scott told me in an email: “The typical personal computer keyboard has 104 keys, most of which are not letters from the alphabet. However, if we ignore that fact and say the monkey can only hit keys that are letters of the alphabet, he has a one in twenty-six chance of hitting the correct letter each time.

“Of course, he has to hit them in the correct sequence as well: E then V then O, etc. Twenty-six to the power of nine (the number of letters in the word “evolution”) equals 5,429,503,678,976.

“So, the odds of him accidentally typing just the 9-letter word ‘evolution’ are about 1 in about 5.4 trillion …From a purely mathematical standpoint, the bewildering complexity of even the most basic organic molecules [which are much more complicated than a nine-letter word] completely rules out the possibility of life originating by mere chance.”

Take just one aspect of life—amino acids and protein cells. Dr. Stephen Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science at Cambridge University. In his New York Times bestselling book, Darwin’s Doubt (2013), Meyer points out that “the probability of attaining a correct sequence [of amino acids to build a protein molecule] by random search would roughly equal the probability of a blind spaceman finding a single marked atom by chance among all the atoms in the Milky Way galaxy—on its face clearly not a likely outcome.” (p. 183)

And this is just one aspect of life, the most basic building-block. In Meyer’s book, he cites the work of engineer-turned-molecular-biologist, Dr. Douglas Axe, who has since written the book, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed (2016).

In the interview I did with Scott Huse long ago, he noted, “The probability of life originating through mere random processes, as evolutionists contend, really honestly, is about zero…. If you consider probability statistics, it exposes the naiveté and the foolishness, really, of the evolutionary viewpoint.”

Dr. Charles Thaxton was another guest on that classic television special from 1988. He is a scientist who notes that life is so complex, the chances of it arising by mere chance is virtually impossible. Thaxton, now with the Discovery Institute, has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, and a post-doctorate degree in molecular biology and a Harvard post-doctorate in the history and philosophy of science.

Thaxton notes, “I’d say in my years of study, the amazing thing is the utter complexity of living things….Most scientists would readily grant that however life happened, it did not happen by chance.”

The whole creation points to the Creator. Huse sums up the whole point: “Simply put, a watch has a watchmaker and we have a Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Original Article

The Truth About Islam-Revisited

The Truth About Islam Revisited

June 4, 2017 by admin

The Truth About Islam Revisited
By Geri Ungurean

Over two years ago, I wrote an article about Islam.  I am bringing this article out again with updates. I am sick to death of hearing that our fight is not against Islam. It most certainly is against this barbaric and satanic “religion of peace.”  To give Islam a name which includes “peace” is ludicrous.  It is the religion of hatred and death and domination.

Main Stream Media

The Left will go to their graves defending Islam.  I have racked my brain as to why liberals defend and seem to love Islam, when they see the horrific attacks and trail of death left by these people. The only thing I can come up with is that the Fundamentalist Muslims hate America. And so do the liberal Left. This is their bond.

From thereligionofpeace.com

Why Islamic Terrorists Commit Attacks
– In Their Own Words

“I am one of the servants of Allah.  We do our duty of fighting for the sake of the religion of Allah.  It is also our duty to send a call to all the people of the world to enjoy this great light and to embrace Islam and experience the happiness in Islam…

Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion.” (emphasis added)

~Osama bin Laden, May 1998

We must all remember that these terror attacks all over the world are committed for one basic reason:  The furthering of Islam.

These cowards  choose what are called “Soft targets” so that the intensity of the horror and terror has the greatest impact.  The latest tactic is the mowing down of people using large vehicles. Also, setting off bombs where young people have congregated i.e. concerts.  Beheading Christians and posting the heinous and horrific acts online is one of their favorites.

Original article from 2014:

We hear so much about all of those moderate Muslims out there. Why aren’t they speaking against the jihadists? Certainly they don’t agree with the mass beheadings and terror, right?

For many, this article will be eye-opening to say the least. We have all heard of Christians in name only. Moderate Muslims are Muslims in name only, and they are hated by those who are true to the Qur’an and to their prophet, Muhammad.

Islam is a totalitarian ideology, cloaked in robes of religion to present itself as honorable to an unsuspecting world. We have heard imans (Muslim clerics) who describe Islam as: “The Religion of Peace.” Islam is in truth a demonically influenced regime of warlords, whose goal is world dominance.

The word Islam means submission. In this article I will take passages straight from the Qur’an which clearly show that Islam has nothing to do with peace. It has everything to do with beheading, raping, pillaging, and dominating the entire world. To those who practice Islam and are jihadists (the Qur’an commands this) their god Allah promises great rewards awaiting those who give their lives while fighting infidels.

Who are the infidels?  This term means anyone who does not believe the words of their prophet, Muhammad. In fact, the Muslims in name only are hated by the Muslims who are obedient to the words in the Qur’an. Are you beginning to understand why the so-called moderate Muslims do not speak out against the terror? They are fearful for their own lives!

Here is an example of a command from their false god:

Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing…but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun [the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.].”

Muslim jihadists must obey the words of their book. They fear for their own lives if they do not live as terrorists, because Allah has told them in their book that they should be killed for not obeying. In fact, doubting Allah in the mind of a Muslim is a terrible thing. We wonder how they can be so brutal and merciless. It’s because they must show their god that they believe him, and that they will bring terror against all infidels and slay them if they do not convert to Islam.

Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” (Here we see Allah proclaiming to his subjects that violence is virtuous. It even states that some may find it repulsive, but they must know that their god knows what is good for them.)

I believe that Allah is actually Satan. He fights primarily against Jews and Christians. He commands submission from his followers. Jesus is spoken of in the Qur’an, but it’s not the Jesus we know from the Word of God. Jesus – called Isa, is merely a prophet. It is emphasized that He is not the Son of God. On the roof of the mosque on the Temple Mount are inscribed these Arabic words: “God has No son.” That sounds demonic to me.

Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”

Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. (This speaks of Christians, who say that “God has a Son” is joining companions with Allah).

Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” (Unlike early Christian who were led meekly to their slaughter, Muslims are killed in battle for the cause of Allah. This is the basis for today’s suicide bombers.)

Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.” (Here we see Allah stressing that the jihadists will be rewarded, but not those who do not fight for the cause.)

Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” These words are clear, and commentary here would be redundant. “

Quran (8:57) – “If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.” I am reminded of the videos with beheadings that are posted for all to see. They love to put fear in the hearts of all infidels. “

Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” (Clearly, these words show that the only way to escape death is to convert to Islam.)

Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (People of the Book refers to Christians and Jews.)

Now you have seen a sampling from the Qur’an of the terror that is commanded by its words. Religion of Peace? Hardly – more like the Third Reich  meeting in mosques worldwide, and planning the demise of all who will not convert.

So why do we not hear what the Qur’an really says on the news? Why do politicians avoid what is stated in black and white on the pages of this terrifying book? I can only guess that some refuse to believe that a religion could actually be so violent as the jihadists are. They have their heads in the sand, believing that the ones beheading and raping must be a radical faction of the religion of peace. Perhaps others are just plain scared.

Here is a paragraph of President George W. Bush’s commencement address to the Air Force Academy, on 3 June 2004, illustrating the problem:

“History is once again witnessing a great clash. This is not a clash of civilizations. The civilization of Islam, with its humane traditions of learning and tolerance, has no place for this violent sect of killers and aspiring tyrants. This is not a clash of religions. The faith of Islam teaches moral responsibility that ennobles men and women, and forbids the shedding of innocent blood. Instead, this is a clash of political visions.”

This is another reason that I believe that Allah and Satan are one and the same. The deception is so blatant and so complete—only the enemy of God could pull this off. Some believe that Islam is in fact demonically influenced, but that Allah is not Satan. Be assured, that I am not saying that the Antichrist will be Islam. I believe that Satan manifests himself in many ways.

We now have a president who sees the evil and calls it as such. He is trying desperately to protect the American people.  We thank you, President Trump, for your resolve to keep us safe.

I believe that all Muslims in America or who are trying to come to America, should be asked to renounce Sharia Law and renounce the Jihadi verses in the Qur’an.

Now when you are watching the news and you hear someone speaking about the “radical jihadist” faction of Islam, you will know the truth.

I doubt that you will ever hear the phrase “Religion of Peace” ascribed to Islam, and not think back on the passages you’ve read here from the Qur’an.

A side note on the importance of praying for Muslims:

Many Muslims are coming out of Islam and running into the arms of our Lord Jesus. Continue to pray for this to happen.  We are to pray for our enemies.  There is no better prayer than to pray for their salvation.

Shalom b’Yeshua

MARANTHA!

Grandmageri422@gmail.com

Original Article

Trump Lambastes London’s Muslim Mayor

Trump Lambastes London’s Muslim Mayor
U.S. president calls out Sadiq Khan for his permissive attitude toward terrorism committed by his fellow Muslims.
By Matthew Vadum

After terrorists slaughtered seven people Saturday in London, England, President Trump turned up the heat in ongoing debates over Islam, terrorism, and immigration by criticizing London’s Muslim mayor Sadiq Khan for his permissive, laissez-faire attitude toward terrorism committed by his fellow Muslims.

“We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people,” Trump tweeted after the killings at London Bridge and nearby Borough Market. “If we don’t get smart it will only get worse.”

The Metropolitan Police and British Prime Minister Theresa May have labeled the incidents terrorist attacks and Islamic State has reportedly claimed responsibility for the atrocities. May appeared to agree with Trump, saying “We cannot and must not pretend that things can continue as they are. Things need to change.”

Khan, a member of the left-wing Labour Party, doesn’t particularly care about the threat that Islamic terrorism poses to Western civilization.

It was just last Thursday (June 1) that Khan sounded as detached from reality as former Vice President Al Gore. “Climate change remains one the biggest risks to humanity,” he tweeted. “Now more than ever world leaders must recognise and act on this threat.”

Muslim terror is no big deal, shrugs Khan, who says terrorist attacks are “part and parcel” of city life.

Khan is one of those “urban elites … grotesquely out of touch with the lives of ordinary citizens,” writes Monica Showalter at American Thinker. “They dismiss terror deaths as ‘tragic’ suggesting the victims had some role in their own deaths as in the definition of tragedy.”

It’s easy for elitist hipsters like Khan to “claim global warming is a bigger problem than the immediate and deadly threat of terrorism,” she writes.

Taking action on global warming makes them feel good, costs them nothing and only threatens the livelihoods of farmers and fishermen and miners, not their own. As for terrorism, that’s no problem for them, either – you’ll never find an elitist like Khan strolling on London Bridge on a Saturday night for terrorists to take down. With his bodyguards and the protective bubble he lives in, terrorism is for little people.

Khan’s arrogance and disregard for the safety of others may help to explain why President Trump felt the need to slap him around on Twitter.

Trump mocked Khan, a Sharia-loving darling of the mainstream media, for trying to create a false sense of security among Britons. “At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is ‘no reason to be alarmed!’”

“This is our city… and we will never be cowed by terrorism,” Khan had previously said in a press release, adding that the killers were “barbaric cowards.”

“Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days,” Khan continued. “There’s no reason to be alarmed. One of the things the police and all of us need to do is ensure that we’re as safe as we possibly can be.”

Media-savvy Trump used social media to treat the horrifying events in London as a teachable moment. He urged the courts to reinstate his stalled temporary travel ban aimed at six terrorism-plagued Muslim countries.

“We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights,” Trump tweeted. “We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!”

Trump petitioned the Supreme Court last week to review his travel ban that various federal judges have enjoined. A Department of Justice spokeswoman said DoJ is “confident that President Trump’s executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the nation safe and protect our communities from terrorism.”

The tweet prompted criticism of Trump from the Left, which is more concerned about the president’s tweeting than about Americans and Britons being slain by terrorists. Much of the criticism was found on CNN, the unofficial news network of the Trump resistance movement.

Citing the travel ban tweet, one of CNN’s resident jihad apologists, Iranian-born Reza Aslan, lashed out at Trump. “This piece of shit is not just an embarrassment to America and a stain on the presidency. He’s an embarrassment to humankind.”

When NBC highhandedly refused to report on Trump’s tweeted claim that the attacks in London were Islamic terrorism, Aslan cited the NBC tweet, labeling the president a “man baby” and writing that he should be “ignored in times of crisis.”

CNN published an op-ed by hack Chris Cillizza titled, “The London terror tweets prove Donald Trump is never going to be ‘presidential[.]’”

Al Gore moaned on CNN’s “State of the Union” show, “I don’t think that a major terrorist attack like this is the time to be divisive and to criticize a mayor who’s trying to organize his city’s response to this attack.”

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee looking at the Left’s bizarre conspiracy theory about alleged Russian meddling in the election, said on CNN it “troubles” him to see Trump’s tweets in the wake of the London attacks.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry, who has never been right about anything during his long political career, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program, “A travel ban will be cannon fodder to the recruiters. It’s the worst thing we could do.”

In a spectacular display of obtuseness, Jennifer Rubin whined in the Washington Post that “our president acted like a clod, a heartless and dull-witted thug in sending out a series of tweets.”

Out of these examples of criticism, Aslan’s tweets mostly closely match the desperate forehead-vein-popping mindset of the Left today as it begins to sink in that Trump is going to be president until at least January 2021. Left-wingers are experiencing these collective mental breakdowns almost daily in the Trump era. They risk death by spontaneous combustion as they treat perfectly normal things that a new president does, such as firing U.S. attorneys nationwide to make way for his own picks, like Hitler’s power-consolidating Enabling Act.

Trump’s disavowal of the Paris Climate Accord last week launched a million valium prescriptions. The Left exploded in anger at the president for goring one of its most sacred cows, unleashing the kind of over-the-top rhetoric we’ve grown accustomed to throughout the Obama years. Obama himself trashed Trump, and urged defiance.

On Saturday, the terrorists reportedly began by running over pedestrians on London Bridge with their vehicle and then stabbing people. One attacker reportedly said “this is for Allah.” Two restaurant customers told the Telegraph that the men entered the dining establishment and began stabbing diners. No firearms were involved. Three suspects were killed by police. Their names had not been released as of late Sunday night. Twelve people have been arrested in connection with the attacks.

Unlike most of the United States, the United Kingdom has draconian gun control laws, which means unless an armed law enforcement official happens to be in the right place at the right time, Britons must fend for themselves.

On Twitter, President Trump wrote, “Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That’s because they used knives and a truck!”

Meanwhile, British voters are scheduled to head to the polls on Thursday (June 8). The attacks Saturday night mark the second time in a fortnight that the U.K. general election has been disrupted by Islamic terrorism.

On May 22, 22 people attending an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena were killed by Muslim suicide bomber Salman Abedi. Abedi “met in Libya with members of an Islamic State unit linked to the November 2015 Paris terrorist attack, according to current and retired intelligence officials,” the New York Times is reporting.

On Sunday night the One Love Manchester concert organized by Grande to benefit victims of the bombing went forward as scheduled at the Old Trafford Cricket Ground in Greater Manchester. Grande performed along with fellow pop stars Justin Bieber, Pharrell Williams, Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, Robbie Williams, the Black Eyed Peas, Coldplay, and others. The event was broadcast live in at least 50 countries, and at time of writing had reportedly raised £2 million for the We Love Manchester Emergency Fund.

On March 22, British Muslim Khalid Masood killed four people by running them over with his vehicle on Westminster Bridge. He also stabbed a police officer to death outside Parliament. Masood was killed by police.

Islam-motivated violence in becoming increasingly common in the United Kingdom.

On Dec. 5, 2015, Muhaydin Mire attacked people with a knife – and attempted to behead one man – at Leytonstone Tube Station in East London while shouting “this is for my Syrian brothers.” Mire was later convicted of attempted murder.

Mohammed Rehman and Sana Ahmed Khan had planned to detonate a bomb on July 7, 2015, the 10th anniversary of the London 7/7 bombings. They were convicted of possessing explosives. In the July 7, 2005, bombing, 52 people, along with the four perpetrators – Hasib Hussain, Mohammad Sidique Khan, Germaine Lindsay, and Shehzad Tanweer – were killed. Close to 800 people were wounded.

In July 2015, Mohammed Ammar Ali was convicted of attempting to possess a chemical weapon. “Under the username Weirdos 0000, Ali struck a deal with a supplier on the internet black market to buy 500mg of powder for 500 US dollars – enough to kill 1,400 people,” the Liverpool Echo reported. “Ali was unaware that his source Psychochem was in fact an FBI agent who tipped off police in England and substituted the consignment of ricin for harmless powder.”

On May 22, 2013, Muslims Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale attempted to decapitate British soldier Lee Rigby, 25, in London, after striking him with their vehicle. Adebolajo shouted “Allahu Akbar” as he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder. In a strange example of an evildoer speaking truth to power, Adebowale called out “that’s a lie” when the politically correct judge lectured the duo that their militant views were somehow “a betrayal of Islam.” Adebowale was sentenced to a minimum of 45 years imprisonment.

Omar Mohammed Khan, Mohammed Hasseen, Anzal Hussain, Mohammed Saud, Zohaib Ahmed, and Jewel Uddin were convicted of conspiring to bomb an English Defence League rally in Dewsbury on June 30, 2012. The bomb, which was not detonated, contained 359 nails and 93 ball bearings.

As part of the massive Operation Pitsford counter-terrorism operation, 11 Muslims were sentenced in 2013 for planning a terror attack.

Parviz Khan was sentenced to life imprisonment with a requirement to serve at least 14 years for masterminding a 2007 plot to behead a British Muslim soldier in Birmingham. The goal was to undermine British Army morale and make it difficult for the military to recruit Muslims.

This is not an exhaustive list.

Until our leaders open their eyes to the danger Islam and its difficult-to-assimilate adherents pose to the civilized world, innocent people’s lives will be in danger.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan epitomizes the problem, according to Showalter.

Khan is typical of members of “the ruling structure of large urban metropolises across the West, and his continuous inability to recognize reality, let alone take meaningful action or at least advocate for it, is a major reason why these terror attacks just keep happening.”

Original Article

The Trump-Haley Effect at the UN

The Trump-Haley Effect at the United Nations
What caused the UN Secretary General and Norway to call out depraved Palestinian behavior?
By Ari Lieberman

It has become routine for Palestinians to name public places, including streets, schools, parks and public squares after hard core terrorists convicted of the most heinous offenses. Over the years, Israel has vigorously protested these outrages to the European Union, the United Nations, and the United States. The latter, particularly under the Obama administration, offered faux sympathy and little else, while the UN and EU were routinely dismissive of Israel’s objections. In the eyes of the UN and EU, the Palestinians could do no wrong and the Obama administration, by its deafening silence, gravitated toward this obscene position. This shocking inaction further encouraged the Palestinians to engage in what can only be described as depraved and aberrant behavior.

But on May 28, something strange but surprisingly decent happened at the UN. UN Secretary-General António Guterres issued a stinging rebuke to the Palestinian Authority for naming a women’s center after Dalal Mughrabi, a notorious terrorist. In 1978, Mughrabi along with seven other Arab terrorists commandeered a bus packed with civilians and mercilessly murdered 37 people, including 12 children.

For the Palestinians, this act of debauchery warranted praise and Mughrabi was elevated to the status of heroine and martyr. On May 26, the watchdog group, Palestinian Media Watch revealed that a women’s center named after Mughrabi in the Arab town of Burqa was constructed with funds provided by the UN and Norway. A prominent sign posted on the building bore the logos of the Palestinian Authority, the UN and Norway. Worse yet, PMW quoted a village council member who stated that “the center will focus especially on the history of the struggle of Martyr Dalal Mughrabi and on presenting it to the youth groups, and…constitutes the beginning of the launch of enrichment activities regarding the history of the Palestinian struggle.”

Upon learning of the outrage, a spokesperson for Guterres released a statement that termed the naming “offensive” and “unacceptable” and described it as a “glorification of terrorism” and an “obstacle to peace.” Guterres also demanded the immediate removal of the UN’s logo. Just two days prior, Norway issued a similar rebuke to the Palestinian Authority demanding not only the removal of the Norwegian logo but the return of all Norwegian funds earmarked for the project.

A statement released by Borge Brende, Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, was unusually harsh in tone and content. It called the Palestinian “glorification of terrorist attacks…completely unacceptable” and noted that “Norway will not allow itself to be associated with institutions that take the names of terrorists in this way [and] will not accept the use of Norwegian aid funding for such purposes.”

So what led to this sudden, drastic change in attitude? There are likely three causes.

Unlike his predecessor Ban Ki-moon, Guterres has made statements and taken actions demonstrating a more balanced, nuanced approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example in March, he rejected a UN report authored by an Israel-hating conspiracy theorist that peddled the banal and false claim that Israel practices apartheid and had the report removed from the UN’s website. Shortly thereafter, a top official that headed the commission which issued the report resigned. That same month, he publicly reiterated recognition of ancient historical and religious Jewish ties to Jerusalem. This was seen as a rebuke to UN bodies like UNESCO, which had sought to sever that nexus. In an address to the World Jewish Congress in April, Guterres stated that “Israel needs to be treated like any other UN member state,” and tellingly noted that, “the modern form of anti-Semitism is the denial of the existence of the State of Israel.”

In addition, the relentless surge of radical Islamic terrorism in Europe has likely produced an increased level of empathy with Israel. Moreover, nations affected by terrorism have reached out to Israel and sought its expertise. Only the most radical and anti-Semitic of Europe’s leaders, like Sweden’s Deputy Prime Minister Margot Wallström and British Labor Party head, Jeremy Corbyn, still differentiate between Israeli blood and blood spilled in Western Europe.

But perhaps the single most influential factor for the positive change in attitude lies with President Donald Trump and America’s ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley. From the moment he was elected, Trump made clear that he would no longer tolerate the UN’s inequitable practices and shoddy treatment of Israel. He could not have picked a better emissary than Nikki Haley to carry out America’s new and robust approach toward rectifying a long-standing, systemic UN problem.

At every opportunity and in every forum and venue, Haley has made clear that the United States will not sit idly by while one of its most important allies and only Mideast democracy is mercilessly attacked and vilified by assorted despots and dictators, while other nations with abysmal human rights records are allowed to go unchallenged. Haley has made clear to UN member states that “there’s a new sheriff in town” and that sheriff is “taking names.”

Judging by this past week’s swift action by the UN Secretary General and Norway, it appears that the Trump-Haley, one-two combo is having the desired effect. Haley’s continued pressure at the UN is all but certain to produce more positive outcomes but it is still an uphill battle given the level of long-standing and embedded vitriol which still prevails in that cesspool of depravity.

Original Article

%d bloggers like this: