Sunday, December 27, 2015

Operation angel flight


Christians trying to leave and risk it all, and they have paid the price for it...


I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.


 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. #operation angel flight

Illinois Resolution Seeks Seizure of Privately Owned Weapons

A resolution recently introduced in the Illinois state legislature threatens the natural and fundamental right of citizens of that state to keep and bear arms.
The non-binding measure — House Resolution 855  — would urge “the courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, to adhere to the clear wording of the Second Amendment being a right afforded to state sponsored militias and not individuals.”
The text of the proposal recites a section of the dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens to the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling handed down by the Supreme Court in 2008:
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. 
Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.
The author of the Illinois resolution has built his measure on the weakest foundation: a misstatement of the Founders’ intent regarding the Second Amendment, its application to individuals, its support of self-defense, and the role of the militia.
First, with regard to the enshrinement of the right of self-defense in the text of the Second Amendment, Justice Stevens must not have read much of the writings of the leading men of the Founding Era.
Take these few examples:
In his commentary on the works of the influential jurist Blackstone, Founding-era legal scholar St. George Tucker wrote:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
Writing in The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton explained:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state.
And finally, this from the Declaration of Rights included in the Pennsylvania state constitution of 1776:
“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state….”
In light of the foregoing, it is irresponsible for a sitting justice on the U.S. Supreme Court to ignore the clear and convincing evidence that the men of the Founding Era considered the natural right of self-defense to be one of the primary purposes, if not the primary one, of the protections included in the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.
Next, the author of the Illinois resolution assumes (incorrectly) that the word “militia” as used in the text of the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard and the Reserves. There is no evidence to support this assumption.
In fact, the words of the Founders once again prove that the proposition soon to be considered in Illinois with regard to the Second Amendment’s use of the word “militia” is full of historical flaws and unsupported suppositions.
In his book The Sword and Sovereignty, Dr. Edwin Vieira explains that “the term ‘[a] well regulated Militia, ’which the Second Amendment declares to be ‘necessary to the security of a free State,’ must have had a most definite meaning known to all among WE THE PEOPLE at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified — and a meaning which THE PEOPLE expected could not change absent an Amendment of the Constitution.” [Emphasis in original.]
What, then, is a constitutionally qualifying militia?
Vieira provides historical and legal references that clear up any remaining controversy on the subject:
Even before the idea of the Constitution entered anyone’s head, “the Militia of the several States” (or, earlier, the Militia of the several American Colonies, with the partial, peculiar, and in any event not permanent exception of Pennsylvania) were established and maintained pursuant to statutes enacted throughout the 1600s and 1700s. In those Colonies and then all of the independent States, operations aimed at organizing, arming, and disciplining these Militia were conducted pursuant to these statutes. In those Colonies and States, the vast majority of the able-bodied adult free male inhabitants (other than conscientious objectors) personally possessed firearms, because those statutes imposed upon them a duty to keep and bear arms. 
And as a consequence of all this, throughout America in the pre-constitutional era existed “well regulated Militia” — the products of statutes which Americans had believed were so effective in achieving their ends that they had enacted them and reenacted them and reenacted them yet again, in form and substance, decade after decade and generation after generation.
T.J. Martinell echoed Vieira’s explanations in an article penned on December 22 for the Second Amendment advocacy group,
"Well regulated" had nothing to do with government regulations of what weapons they could use. Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, declared that "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." And then there’s George Mason, considered the father of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, who defined the militia as "the whole people, except for a few public officials."
“The whole people,” not people in a militia that is “state sponsored” as required by the proposed Illinois resolution.
The third significant flaw in the Illinois disarmament resolution is the assumption that the Second Amendment allows any restriction on the right of anyone to keep or bear a firearm.
As readers are aware, the Second Amendment imposes on the federal government an unqualified proscription on constriction of the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The phrase that pays: shall not be infringed. That means “shall not,” not “shall not unless a gun is used in a high-profile crime,” or “shall not unless the president issues an executive order infringing upon it,” or “shall not unless the weapon is made out of plastic.”
Despite what many pundits, journalists, and activists — even those considered “conservative” — would have Americans believe, there is no “reasonable” exception to the “shall not be infringed” phrase. Our Founding Fathers understood this very well. They knew, from sad personal experience with the oppression of tyrants, that the right to keep and bear arms was the right that protects all the other rights.
Finally, while it is true that our Founders never intended for the Second Amendment to apply to the states, the state constitution of Illinois contains language similar to that of the Second Amendment and provides a legal barricade high enough to block enforcement of the proposed resolution.
Section 22 of the Illinois state constitution mandates, “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Citizens of Illinois and her sister states are encouraged to check the progress of those who would see control of all weapons consolidated in the hands of the federal government and the state and national armed forces it controls.
This is most easily and effectively accomplished by promoting state legislation specifically and explicitly protecting the God-given right of all men to own and use weapons in the defense of themselves and their liberty.
Germans Stock Up on Weapons for Self-Defense

  • The scramble to acquire weapons comes amid an indisputable nationwide spike in migrant-driven crime, including rapes of German women and girls on a shocking scale, as well as physical assaults, stabbings, home invasions, robberies and burglaries — in cities and towns throughout the country.
  • German authorities, however, are going to great lengths to argue that the German citizenry's sudden interest in self-defense has nothing whatsoever to do with mass migration into the country, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
  • The spike in violent crimes committed by migrants has been corroborated by a leaked confidential police report, which reveals that a record-breaking 38,000 asylum seekers were accused of committing crimes in the country in 2014. Analysts believe this figure — which works out to more than 100 crimes a day — is only a fragment: many crimes are not reported.
  • "Anyone who asks for the reasons for the surge in weapons purchases encounters silence." — Süddeutsche Zeitung
Germans, facing an influx of more than one million asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, are rushing to arm themselves.
All across Germany, a country with some of the most stringent gun-control laws in Europe, demand is skyrocketing for non-lethal self-defense weapons, including pepper sprays, gas pistols, flare guns, electroshock weapons and animal repellants. Germans are also applying for weapons permits in record numbers.
The scramble to acquire weapons comes amid a migrant-driven surge in violent crimes — including rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults — in cities and towns throughout the country.
German authorities, however, are going to great lengths to argue that the German citizenry's sudden interest in self-defense has nothing whatsoever to do with mass migration into the country, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
In recent weeks, German newspapers have published dozens of stories with headlines such as: "Germany is Afraid — And Grabs for the Weapon," "Germans are Arming Themselves: The Demand for Weapons Explodes," "More and More People are Buying a Weapon," "Security: Hands Up!" "The Need for Security Increases," "Boom in Weapons Stores," and "Bavarians are Arming Themselves— Afraid of Refugees?"
The German daily newspaper Die Welt recently produced a video report about Germany's surge in sales of self-defense weapons, which was titled "The Weapons Business is Profiting from the Refugee Crisis." (Image source: Die Welt video screenshot)

Since Germany's migration crisis exploded in August 2015, nationwide sales of pepper spray have jumped by 600%, according to the German newsmagazine, Focus. Supplies of the product are now completely sold out in many parts of the country and additional stocks will not become available until 2016. "Manufacturers and distributors say the huge influx of foreigners in recent weeks has apparently frightened many people," Focus reports.
According to KH Security, a German manufacturer of self-defense products, demand is up by a factor of five, and sales in September 2015 — the month when the implications of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's open-door migration policy began to dawn on many Germans — were the highest since the company was founded 25 years ago. The company says there is an increased demand not only for self-defense weapons, but also for home alarm systems.
Another manufacturer of self-defense products, the Frankfurt-based company DEF-TEC Defense Technology, has reported a 600% increase in sales this fall. According to CEO Kai Prase:
"Things took off beginning in September. Since then, our dealers have been totally overrun. We have never experienced anything like this in the 21 years of our corporate history. Fear: This is not rational. The important term is: 'refugee crisis.'"
The same story is being repeated across Germany. According to the public broadcaster, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, citizens in Saxony can regularly be seen queuing up in large numbers waiting for gun shops to open.
A store owner in the Saxon town of Pirna said he is now selling up to 200 cans of pepper spray each day, compared to five cans a week before the migrant crisis began. He said he is seeing many new customers who are not the typical clientele, including women of all ages and men who are buying weapons for their wives.
Günter Fritz, the owner of a gun shop in Ebersbach, another town in Saxony, told RTL News, "Since September, all over Germany, also at my shop, sales of self-defense products have exploded." He added that his clients come from all walks of life, ranging "from the professor to the retired lady. All are afraid."
Andreas Reinhardt, a gun shop owner in the northern German town of Eutin, said he now sells four to five self-defense weapons each day, compared to around two per month before the recent influx of asylum seekers. "The current social upheaval is clearly driving the current rush to self-defense," he said. "I never thought that fear would spread so quickly," he added.
Eric Thiel, the owner of a gun shop in Flensburg, a city on the Baltic Sea coast, said that pepper spray is no longer available: "Everything is sold out. New supplies will not arrive until March. Everything that has to do with self-defense is booming enormously."
Wolfgang Mayer, the owner of a gun shop in Nördlingen, a town in Bavaria, said he has an explanation for the surge in gun licenses: "I think with the influx of refugees, the rise in break-ins and the many tricksters, the people are demanding greater protection."
Mayer added that there is a growing sense within German society that the state cannot adequately protect its citizens and therefore they have to better protect themselves. "Since the summer, sales of pepper spray have increased by 50%," Mayer said, adding that buyers are mainly women, of all ages — from the student in the city up to the widowed grandmother.
Pepper spray and other types of non-lethal self-defense weapons are legal in Germany, but a permit is required to carry and use some categories of them. Officials in all of Germany's 16 federal states are reporting a spike in applications for such permits, known as the small weapons license (kleinen Waffenschein).
In the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein, nearly 10,000 people now hold a small weapons license, an "all-time record level," according to the regional interior ministry. Retailers in the state are also reporting an "unprecedented surge" in sales of self-defense weapons, with supplies of pepper spray sold out until the spring of 2016.
In Saxony, retailers are reporting an unprecedented boom in sales of pepper spray, tear gas, gas pistols and even cross bows. Some stores are now selling more self-defense weapons in one day than they did in an entire month before the migrant crisis began.
Saxon officials are also reporting a jump in the number of people applying for the full-fledged firearms license (großen Waffenschein). The rush to arms can be attributed to a "subjective decline in the people's sense of security," Saxon Interior Minister Markus Ulbig said.
In Berlin, the number of people holding a small weapons license increased by 30% during the first ten months of 2015 compared to the same period in 2014, while the number of those holding the full-fledged firearms license jumped by some 50%, according to local police.
In Bavaria, more than 45,000 people now hold a small weapons license, 3,000 more than in 2014. This represents a "significant increase," according to the regional interior ministry. As in other parts of Germany, Bavarian retailers are also reporting a boom in sales of self-defense weapons, including gas pistols, flare guns and pepper spray.
In Stuttgart, the capital city of Baden-Württemberg, local gun shops are reporting a four-fold increase in sales of self-defense weapons since August. One shop owner said she now sells more weapons in one week than she normally sells in one month. She added that she has never seen such high demand.
In Heilbronn, another city in Baden-Württemberg, local officials report that sales of pepper spray have doubled in 2015. According to one shopkeeper, the demand for pepper spray began surging in August, when many mothers started purchasing the product for their school-aged daughters. "Our clients are extremely afraid," the shopkeeper said. "We are seeing this everywhere."
In Gera, a city in Thuringia, local media reported that at one store, the entire inventory of 120 cans of pepper spray was sold out within three hours. The store, which subsequently sold out of another batch of 144 cans, is now on a waiting list to obtain more because of supplier shortfalls.
A woman in Gera who bought pepper spray for her 16-year-old daughter said:
"I think it is fundamentally proper for me to protect my daughter. She is at that age where she is out alone in the evening. If she says she needs this for protection, I think this is not unjustified. Of course, due to the current situation that we now have in Germany. We just do not know who is here. There are quite a lot of people who are not registered."
The same trend toward self-defense is being repeated in the German states of Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Saxony-Anhalt and North Rhine-Westphalia, where spiraling levels of violent crime perpetrated by migrants is turning some neighborhoods into no-go zones.
Apologists for mass migration are accusing German citizens of overreacting. Some point to recent studies — commissioned by pro-migration groups — which claim, implausibly, that the number of crimes committed by migrants is decreasing, not increasing.
Others deny that the rush to self-defense has anything to do with migrants at all. They blame a variety of different factors, including the early darkness associated with the end of daylight savings time, the jihadist attacks in Paris (which occurred in November, three months after sales of self-defense weapons began to spike), and the need for protection from wild wolves in parts of northern Germany.
The Süddeutsche Zeitung described the deception this way:
"Anyone who asks for the reasons for the surge in weapons purchases encounters silence. Officially, the regulatory agencies say that anyone who applies for the small weapons license does not need to provide a justification and therefore the government offices have no explanation. 'But it is true that sometimes we clearly get the message that they are afraid because of the refugees,' says one, on condition that his name and office will not be mentioned in the newspaper. 'People have already told me: I want to protect my family.' We have reported this to the Ministry...
"The retailers also say nothing officially about the reasons for the increase in sales. Call a small gun shop. Many refugees arrived at the end of August, and since September the numbers are up, can there not be a connection? 'If you do not use my name: Sure, what else?' Says the man on the phone. The people who come to the store are afraid. They believe that among the refugees there are 'black sheep.' Some customers openly admit it."
Empirical evidence shows an indisputable nationwide spike in migrant-driven crime, including rapes of German women and girls on a shocking scale, as well as sexual and physical assaults, stabbings, home invasions, robberies, burglaries and drug trafficking.
The spike in violent crimes committed by migrants has been corroborated by a confidential police report leaked to a German newspaper. The document reveals that a record-breaking 38,000 asylum seekers were accused of committing crimes in the country in 2014. Analysts believe this figure — which works out to more than 100 crimes a day — is only a fragment: many crimes are not reported.
Not surprisingly, a new poll shows that 55% of Germans are pessimistic about the future, up from 31% in 2014 and 28% in 2013. The poll shows that 42% of those between the ages of 14 and 34 believe their future will be bleak; this is more than double the number of those (19%) who felt this way in 2013. At the same time, 64% of those aged 55 and above are fearful about the future.
The poll also shows that four-fifths (79%) of the German population believe the economy will deteriorate in 2016 due to the financial burdens created by the migration crisis, and 70% believe that member states of the European Union will drift further apart in the coming year. The most predictable finding of all: 87% of Germans believe their politicians will experience a decline in public support during 2016.
Grim Life for Christians in Muslim Pakistan

  • "Often in these cases the police take no action or, worse, side with the rapists. Christian families or witnesses are pressured to withdraw complaints." — Sardar Mushtaq Gill, Pakistani lawyer and human rights activist.
  • Asia Bibi, a Christian mother of five, has been on death row since 2010 because a Muslim woman, apparently with a personal vendetta against Bibi, accused her of speaking blasphemy against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad. "She could be killed by any inmate or even a prison guard," said an official. "She was vomiting blood last month and was having difficulty walking."
  • Saddique Azam, a Catholic teacher and headmaster at a primary school in a small village, was beaten and tortured by a group of Muslim teachers who resented being under the authority of an "infidel."
  • Nabila Bibi, a Christian woman who was engaged to a Christian man, was abducted, forcibly converted to Islam, and forcibly married to a Muslim man.
The U.S. State Department lists only nine nations as "Countries of Particular Concern" (CPC) -- a designation for those nations considered to be the worst violators of religious freedom. These include governments that "engage in or tolerate" systematic, ongoing, and unspeakable violations of religious freedom.
According to many human rights activists, this list is far from complete: "the State Department has seemed unwilling to recognize the grave unspeakable abuses of religious freedom in a number of Muslim-dominated countries that the USCIRF [U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom] considers CPCs: Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Tajikistan."
Accordingly, on October 21, the USCIRF issued a press release calling on "the State Department to further expand its CPC list to reflect the severe violations occurring in other countries, such as Pakistan, which USCIRF has called the worst situation in the world for religious freedom for countries not currently designated by the U.S. government as CPCs."
To understand why Pakistan was highlighted, consider the following 10 accounts, all of which took place in the month of October -- the same month that the U.S. State Department was being urged to include Pakistan and other countries in its list.
On October 23, a deaf, married Christian woman was gang-raped by three Muslim men who broke into her home while her husband was out working. Despite her screams, no one came to help her. Although one man was arrested, rights activists say he will eventually be released. According to Sardar Mushtaq Gill, a Pakistani lawyer and human rights activist, "Often in these cases the police take no action or, worse, side with the rapists. Christian families or witnesses are pressured to withdraw complaints."
On October 15, eight days before the deaf Christian woman was raped, two Muslim men, both named Muhammad, who had earlier raped two teenage Christian sisters at gunpoint, were acquitted in court. Not only did a key witness change his statement after receiving a bribe, but according to the girls' father, "The lawyer didn't fight the case very well and with commitment. Mostly, he stayed absent from the hearings of the case during the proceedings. The lawyer didn't even participate in the cross-questioning with the culprits in the court. ... We face serious life threats from the culprits now, as they are being released from jail."
A report from October 5 cites three separate incidents in which five young Christian girls were abducted and sexually abused: Two were kidnapped and gang-raped by a group of Muslim men; a 13-year-old Christian girl was kidnapped and raped; and two other Christian girls were abducted and abused by a group of human traffickers who forced them into prostitution.
Nabila Bibi, a Christian woman who had been engaged to a Christian man for a year and was preparing to marry him in a few weeks' time, was abducted, forcibly converted to Islam, and then forcibly married to a Muslim man named Allah Rakha. After discovering her whereabouts, her fiancé went to the kidnapper's home on October 15 and demanded to see her. Rakha, who had 15-20 other Muslims with him, refused, and warned the Christian that because his fiancée was now Muslim, he must never seek her out again, or else suffer "dire consequences." The report adds that such Christian abductees "may be subjected to sexual violence, rape, forced prostitution, human trafficking and sale, or other domestic abuse or discarded from home after passing some time."
On October 23, Sonia Bibi, a 20-year-old Christian woman, was set on fire and almost burned to death after she refused to marry a Muslim ex-boyfriend. According to the woman's testimony, when she turned down his proposal, Latif Ahmed doused her with petrol and set her alight. Burns covered nearly half of her body.
On October 5, Saddique Azam, a Catholic teacher who was appointed headmaster at a primary school in a small village, was beaten and tortured by a group of three Muslim teachers who resented being under the authority of an "infidel." The Muslims barged into Azam's office and ordered him to resign. When he refused, they beat him so severely that he needed to be hospitalized.
According to an October 14 report, rights activists ae concerned for the life of Asia Bibi, a Christian mother of five who has been on death row since 2010. A Muslim woman, apparently with a personal vendetta against Bibi, had accused her of speaking blasphemy against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad. "She could be killed by any inmate or even a prison guard, so we have to be careful," said an official. Bibi was put in solitary confinement, where her health has been steadily deteriorating. "She was vomiting blood last month and having difficulty walking."
Asia Bibi and two of her five children, pictured prior to her imprisonment on death row in 2010 for "blasphemy."

An October 19 report tells of a Christian family -- a father, mother, and two daughters -- who have been on the run since 2006. Their "crime" was that the woman, formerly a Muslim, converted to Christianity and married a Christian man. This prompted threats and attacks from Muslims, including her family: "Jobless and desperate, they are unable to meet their own needs, as they continue to be threatened, hounded, and attacked because they want to live a Christian life and raise their children in accordance with Christ's teachings," notes the report. Due to the stressful experiences and unsanitary conditions they are forced to hide in, the woman has miscarried their third child. The father was shot in the leg and run over by a motorcycle. Even so, "Attempts to file a case against their tormentors have fallen on deaf police ears."
An October 23 report titled, "Christians required only as sweepers," notes that "Christians make up most of the non-Muslim minority in central Punjab and account for 1.5 per cent of the total population. Their representation in sanitation work, however, is above 80 percent." After noting that Pakistan was named "Land of the Pure" in reference to its Muslim identity (as opposed to that of its largely Hindu neighbor, India), the report adds, "The attitude of forcing Christians into degrading occupations based on their descent continues and owes its existence to this long-entrenched dichotomy of 'pure' and 'impure.'"
On October 7, more than 1,000 Christians gathered in front of the Punjab Assembly to protest an "anti-minority" bill that "denies voting rights to women" and "does not allow religious minorities to elect their own representatives." Religious minorities argued that an appointed official "cannot do anything" except to "become a puppet in the hand of their party."
These ten accounts from October alone are a typical sampling of what Christians, who reportedly make up roughly 1% of Pakistan's population, routinely experience. (Over 96% of Pakistan's population is Muslim).
Worse, the majority of atrocities, according to human rights activists, never get reported for fear of reprisals. It took five years for the account of a two-year-old toddler, who was savagely raped because her Christian father refused to convert to Islam, to become public. She has undergone five surgeries and still remains disfigured. Her family lives in constant fear and in hiding.
According to human rights activist Sardar Mushtaq Gill, who is involved with many of the above-mentioned cases, "Violence against women and children of religious minorities, the weak and vulnerable, is widespread in Pakistan and is often carried out in silence. These cases and the stories do not come to light and when victims talk about it they are intimidated."
In light of all this, it is high time for Pakistan to be labeled a "Country of Particular Concern" by the U.S. Department of State. Otherwise, the crucial question persists: Why is it not?
Jihad: "All the Fault of the West!"

  • As long as we in the West are not prepared to take Muslims at their word when they claim to be waging bloody jihad because it is their religious obligation, we have no chance of repelling the current onslaught on the West.
  • First to go will be the welfare states. Shrinking native populations cannot generate enough taxes to accommodate masses of immigrants with so few skills as to be effectively unemployable, or who do not want to contribute to "infidel" societies. Well before mid-century, the number of Muslims in Denmark will be large enough irreversibly to have changed the composition and character of the country.
  • In the United States, a House of Representatives resolution, H. Res. 569, has been sponsored that calls to censor one of the few countries left with freedom of speech. The resolution, fits into the 10-year plan of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which would criminalize all criticism of Islam, worldwide.
  • Will Muslim non-integration spell the end of the secular state as we have known it? Probably. Religion – or more accurately, Islamic ideology, which knows no distinction between religion and politics – is on the ascendant.
It was not supposed to have happened this way. In 1995 a number of EU member states signed the Schengen Agreement, integrated into European Union law in 1999. The signatory powers promised to abandon their internal border protection in exchange for a promise by the EU authorities that they would police Europe's external borders. Then the EU authorities, while demanding that the Schengen states keep their borders open, spectacularly failed to honor their part of the agreement. There can be little doubt that the EU packed up, walked out and left its populations to their own devices.
Sadly, their policies have achieved the exact opposite of what they claimed to strive for. Instead of tolerance, we have witnessed division and irreconcilable enmity between cultures and ethnicities that often have nothing in common except a desire to squeeze as much out of the public coffers as they can. Instead of "inclusion," Europeans have seen exclusion, low-intensity warfare, terror, no-go zones, rape epidemics, murder and mayhem.
Governments, parliamentary majorities and the stars of academia, the media and the commanding heights of culture cannot have failed to notice that their grand multicultural, Islamophile game did not produce the results they had promised their unsuspecting publics. Yet to this day, most of them persist in claiming that unfettered immigration from the Muslim world and Africa is an indisputable boon to Europe.
Recently, in the wake of the so-called "refugee crisis," some of these notables have thrown out the script and are expressing concern that immigration is out of control. European governments are still allowing millions of so-called refugees to cross all borders and settle anyplace. According to the EU agency Frontex, charged with protecting Europe's external borders, more than a million and a half illegals crossed Europe's frontiers between January and November 2015.
Thousands of migrants cross illegally into Slovenia on foot, in this screenshot from YouTube video filmed in October 2015.

Right now there is an ever-widening gap between the people and their rulers. In a conference recently organized by the Danish Free Press Society to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the famous Muhammed cartoons, the British political analyst, Douglas Murray, noted that the European populations are reacting to decades of lies and deception by voting for political parties which, just a few years ago, were vilified as "racist" and "fascist." Marine Le Pen, of the National Front party, has emerged as a strong candidate in France's 2017 presidential election.
Perhaps the most momentous political earthquake in Europe was the recent 180-degree about-face by the Danish Social Democratic Party. Only a few years ago, it was a staunch proponent of Muslim immigration, and hammered away at anyone daring to deny the "cultural enrichment" brought about by the spread of Islam.
The leader of Denmark's Social Democratic parliamentary group, Henrik Sass Larsen MP, on December 18 wrote:
"The massive migration and stream of refugees now coming to Europe and Denmark are of a magnitude that challenges the fundamental premises of our society in the near future... According to our analysis, the stark economic consequences of the current number of refugees and immigrants will consume all room for maneuver in public finance within a few years. Non-Western immigrants have historically been difficult to integrate into the labor market; the same applies to the Syrians that are now arriving. The more, the harder, the more expensive... Finally, it is our analysis that given our previous experience with integrating non-Western people into our society, we are facing a social catastrophe when it comes to handling many tens of thousands that are soon to be channeled into society. Every bit of progress in terms of integration will be put back to zero. ... Therefore our conclusion is clear: We will do all we can to limit the number of non-Western refugees and immigrants coming to the country. That is why we have gone far -- and much farther than we had dreamed of going... We are doing this because we will not sacrifice our welfare society in the name of humanitarianism. For the welfare society ... is the political project of the Social Democratic Party. It is a society built on the principles of liberty, equality and solidarity. Mass immigration -- as we have seen in, for example, Sweden -- will undermine ... our welfare society."
Clearly, the Danish Social Democratic Party -- the architect of Denmark as we have known it -- has understood that there is political capital to be defended. It seems finally to have realized that it cannot persist in whittling away its accomplishments if it wants to keep its dwindling share of the votes.
One may speculate that if the Social Democratic Party means what it says, it might have an impact among Social Democratic and Socialist parties in other European countries.
However, as Douglas Murray also pointed out, Westerners suffer from the notion that regardless of how many jihadis, murderers and terrorists claim that their actions are motivated by their love of Allah, they cannot possibly mean it. There must be some other underlying "root cause" that the men of violence are not aware of, but which well-meaning Westerners are keen to tell them about: old Western imperialism, centuries of humiliation, racism, Israel, the Crusades, poverty, exclusion, the Muhammad cartoons, etc. And, of course, that it is all the fault of the West!
As long as we in the West are not prepared to take Muslims at their word when they claim to be waging bloody jihad because it is their religious obligation, we have no chance of repelling the current onslaught on the West. The latest sighting of this shift was just this week, in the form of a U.S. House of Representatives resolution, H. Res. 569, to censor one of the few countries left with free speech. The resolution fits into the 10-year plan of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to implement UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, which would criminalize, worldwide, all criticism of Islam. [1]
As long as the authorities are unwilling to protect their own populations from being overrun by foreigners, many of whom seem prepared to do them harm, we are likely to see the natives take protection into their own hands. On December 16, for instance, there was a violent protest in the small Dutch city of Geldermalsen, as the local authorities were trying to set up an asylum center behind the backs of the local population. No doubt the authorities were taken aback by the activism.
Western societies are based on an implied contract between the sovereign and the people: The sovereign -- the king, the president, the government -- promises to uphold law and order, protect his people from violence and foreign encroachment and apprehend and punish criminals. In exchange, the citizens promise not to take the law into their own hands. It follows that if the state fails to uphold its part of this social bargain, then the right -- indeed the obligation -- to protect oneself, one's family, neighbors and the community, returns to the citizens.
There was also the recent spate of asylum-house burnings in Sweden. According to the Danish-Swedish website, Snaphanen, there have been 40 occasions during the past six months in which buildings intended to house asylum seekers have mysteriously burned to the ground -- without anyone being hurt or killed. None of the perpetrators has been caught; no one has claimed responsibility. It all appears organized quite well.
Will citizen activism save Europe? Probably not. Vast areas are too far gone to be saved. Sweden is a broken country, as pointed out by Ingrid Carlqvist in several articles at Gatestone. By 2020, Germany may have 20 million Muslim residents.
We are probably beyond the point where effective change can be obtained by politics in the old sense, for the simple reason that central authorities are not strong enough to make their writ run throughout their national territories. This will spell the end of Europe as we know it, and people who cannot leave, or who choose to stand and fight, will be left to their own devices -- and quite possibly entirely new modes of social organization.
First to go will be the welfare states. Shrinking native populations cannot generate enough taxes to accommodate masses of immigrants with so few skills as to be effectively unemployable, or who do not want to contribute to "infidel" societies.
What might post-European Europe look like? Think of Northern Ireland in the time of the Troubles or of ex-Yugoslavia during the civil wars of the 1990s.
When states break down, people's first concern will be security. Who can and will protect my family and me?
For a long time in Europe there has been talk of "parallel societies" -- in which the state ceases to function as a unitary polity -- due to the cultural, religious and politico-judicial separation of non-Muslims and Muslims into incompatible and antagonistic enclaves.
There appears to be a growing realization among Danish demographers that third-world immigrants and their descendants, with or without citizenship, will constitute the majority of the Danish population before the end of the century.[2] A sizable segment of this third-world population will be Muslim, and well before the middle of the century, the number of Muslims will be large enough irreversibly to have changed the composition and character of the country.
Will Muslim non-integration spell the end of the secular state as we have known it? Probably. Religion -- or more accurately, Islamic ideology -- which knows no distinction between religion and politics, is on the ascendant as the constitutive principle among Danish Muslims. As Muslim institutions grow stronger, the Islamic court is bound to become even more powerful as the organizing principle of the Muslim parallel societies.
How will the old Danish, and nominally Christian, population react to this metamorphosis? To a large extent, that will depend on what organizing principle will determine the character of the Danish parallel society. Two possibilities stand out: "Danishness" and "Christianity." "Danishness" would probably entail a society founded on a nationalistic or ethnic myth, whereas "Christianity" might be more ethnically inclusive and stress society's Judeo-Christian and humanistic roots.
In either event, it is difficult to see how the secular state could survive, because the parallel societies will not be free to define themselves or determine their political systems or modes of governance. They will constantly be forced to maneuver in response to "the other's" long-term objectives and immediate actions -- as has been seen, for example, in Bosnia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Northern Ireland and the Basque provinces.
Under these conditions, the modern system of sovereign territorial states is likely to break down. We can only guess at what will replace it.
Lars Hedegaard, a Danish historian, journalist and author, established the Danish Free Speech Society in 2004.

[1] In accordance with the 10-year plan of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to implement U.N. Resolution 16/18 and criminalize all criticism of Islam worldwide, a group in the U.S. House of Representatives has sponsored H. Res. 569, in condemnation of violence, bigotry and "hateful rhetoric" toward Muslims in the U.S. This bill comes on the heels of Attorney General Loretta Lynch's post-San Bernardino attack statement to the Muslim American community that she will prosecute anyone guilty of anti-Muslim speech. Passage of this legislation will be the death knell for the First Amendment and the end of any and all discourse and education about the threat posed by the global jihad.

Operation angel flight

Christians trying to leave and risk it all, and they have paid the price for it...



Sunday, December 20, 2015

Have a Bless Christmas and remember those Christian babies who are living in camps…


Thursday, December 17, 2015

Why Has the Church Abandoned the Christians of the Middle East?

Intellectual State of Emergency
The Occupied Territories of Progressive Thought

are today's racists?
  • A "March for Dignity" recently assembled outraged "anti-racists," who shouted insults in the name of universal love.
  • It was in the name of anti-racism that the progressives chanted "death to Jews" at the UN's Durban conference against racism in 2001.
  • Every week, the Place de la République has seen the roaring processions of the Sheikh Yassin Collective, inciting the hatred of Jews. Did anyone even care?
  • These "progressives" were strangely silent while a quarter of a million people were killed in Syria, while Yazidi women were sold into slavery, or when a new Caliph ordered the massacre of thousands in the name of Allah, or the mutilation and murder of Christians who refused to convert. Is that kind of behavior nothing more than bad taste?
  • Today the new virus of prejudice has two faces: brandishing a knife and trying to appear as innocent as a lamb.
  • The suffering of the Arabs, of the Palestinians and of the suburban youth is real, but will be alleviated only if there is first a critical examination of the delusional views on what is causing it. Neither the Jews nor Israel are at the root of this suffering.
  • The massacre perpetrated on November 13th in Paris was predictable and announced; only those who refuse to see things that clash with their ideological beliefs do not understand this. The ideological denial of reality remains the main reason for our inability to fight terrorists, whom many do not dare admit are Islamists.
    For months now, our hatred has been directed only at those who have been urging us to open our eyes and call things by their real names. For months now, the demands not to associate an entire population with a few extremists, as well as calls to "stop Islamophobia," have been forcing us to close down our minds.
    But who has been making this connection in the first place? Who actually are today's racists?
    Every week, the Place de la République in Paris has seen the roaring processions of the Sheikh Yassin Collective, inciting the hatred of Jews. Did anyone even care? Recently, a "march for dignity" assembled outraged anti-racists, who shouted insults in the name of universal love, anti-racism and "fraternity" against several prominent Jewish philosophers and journalists, including Bernard-Henri Lévy, Éric Zemmour and Alain Finkielkraut.
    Members of the "Sheikh Yassin Collective" demonstrate in support of Hamas, in Paris, on August 30, 2014.

    What is this taste for hatred on full display in public debates, as well as on the streets of Paris? Some youths who adopted a Nazi identity are having a nostalgic sit-in on the Boulevard Saint Germain. They are demanding, right in the midst of the Latin Quarter, that the "Talmudist BHL" (Bernard-Henri Lévy) be expelled from the country -- and no one bats an eye.
    When the multi-racial crowd, "Marching for Dignity," the supposed protectors of our universal conscience, descend into the streets to protest the pain and suffering of the offended, they denounce "racism" against "victims" -- usually non-French citizens of non-French origins: Muslims, Arabs, black Africans and others from the former French colonies -- all victims of a supposedly dominant "Islamophobia."[1]
    In the midst of all these compassionate anti-racists, the Hamas flag -- from a group we all know to be so charitable and benevolent -- is unfurled. No one denies that there is racism in France but what is this French version of the Nation of Islam, in which suburban Black Panthers declare their hatred for France and the French?
    They, who call themselves "Les Indigènes de la République," [Non-Ethnic French Citizens] take full advantage of the reigning anti-racist indignation. Today, no one dares to declare himself a "racist." Racism is the primordial evil. This struggle against racism is the first step toward a new awareness. Today, everyone is anti-racist except for those who practice a kind of "State racism." This idea, which corrupts history and is based on lies, today takes the place of Holocaust denial. The difference today is that these "Indigènes de la République" mobilize people from the projects under the benevolent guise of anti-racism.
    There seems to be some confusion. That neo-Nazis denounce the Jews is nothing new, but what of the offended anti-racists who are "not Charlie"? What is the meaning of these slogans splashed across the protest signs of those "Marches for Dignity"? Who are these anti-racists denouncing "white power," while they assemble in the name of ethnic diversity? What demon possesses these people the minute the name of Israel is pronounced or the Star of David makes its appearance?
    In the summer of 2015, the City of Paris invited the City of Tel Aviv as a partner for Paris's month-long "Paris Plage" (Paris Beach) event. That was all it took for a Mrs. Simmonet, an elected official from the left, to go into "progressive" fits and an anti-fascist stupor. "Shame on the City of Paris! Obscene invitation, etc. Inviting a colonial racist country, etc.!" We have never heard Mrs. Simmonet denounce trade between France and China, Egypt, Iran, Qatar, or Saudi Arabia, for instance.
    "Is the mention of Israel pornographic?" one man says. Some people verge on hysteria, as if the mere mention of the word is a breach of global etiquette. These "progressives" were strangely silent while a quarter of a million people were killed in Syria, while Yazidi women were sold into slavery. They were quiet when two hundred schoolgirls were abducted in Nigeria, and when a new Caliph, in the name of Allah, ordered the massacre of thousands in Iraq or the mutilation and murder of Christians who refused to convert. Is that kind of behavior nothing more than bad taste?
    However, if Israel expresses its concerns to the UN regarding explicit plans for its own annihilation by another country and member of this same UN, the exalted Human Rights Commission (in which our dear friend, Saudi Arabia, participates) hastens to denounce the savagery of the Jewish state.
    Since the 1970s, anti-Zionism has managed to mainstream ancient racist Jew-hate. This new virus has now supplanted the even more ancient virus of hating Jews as individuals -- a bigotry that led to their massacre, burning, expulsion, and the destruction of their books. It also led to baseless accusations, collective blame for all sorts of ills, blanket condemnation, and finally to their being gassed. At its peak, under Nazism, this hatred then regressed over 20 years, but at the end of the 1960s, it began mutating, and the word "Israel" took on a repellent character no one could have foreseen.
    This racist mutation was completed at a UN conference in Durban, South Africa in 2001, when the old, unmentionable antisemitism was merged with a new, liberating anti-Zionism. It was in the name of anti-racism that the progressives chanted "death to Jews" at the UN conference against racism.
    This disease of the mind seems extraordinarily mutable, with the capacity to reproducing under different guises. Today the new virus has two faces: brandishing a knife, and trying to appear as innocent as a lamb.
    Why raise the recurring issue of hatred for the Jews now, a hatred which has turned into hatred for Israel? Because this is at the heart of this current rabid insanity. Because it is the seed of hatred that the Islamists have planted against Western civilization. What more can be said that has not already been said? Why are hundreds of thousands of people drinking from the cup of this religion that dares not say its name?
    This hatred for Israel takes on the same characteristics in the 21st century as the collective medieval belief that blamed the Jews for the bubonic plague. Remember when sharks began attacking tourists in Sharm el-Sheikh, and the Egyptian director of tourism placed the blame on the Mossad? He claimed it had trained these killer sharks so that tourists would flee Egypt and harm its economy; no one has yet explained how the sharks were trained not to eat Egyptians.
    "Pro-Palestinians" often do not really care about Palestine. For them, this truly compelling cause is nothing more than fiction: it is hatred for Israel that mobilizes them.
    The basic reproach was formulated, simply, by the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Israel, he said,would be "illegitimate" -- meaning it has no right to exist. That is indeed what is being said or thought: Israel, nobody wants you. Please disappear. The world would be so peaceful if it were not for your wrench in the works.
    When the journalist Edwy Plenel, the self-proclaimed vigilante against the lies of the government, quoted Nelson Mandela in order to condemn Israel, the quote was discovered to be totally made up. "If I have committed a factual error," he said, "at least I was politically correct!"
    During the fall of 2015, the French newspaper Le Monde led the charge against the hidden source of all of our political ills. What worries our anti-fascist vigilantes is the threat of the Front National, led by Marine Le Pen, as well as that popular thought leaning toward the right. Those who are leading this shift to the right must therefore, according to Daniel Lindenbergh, be named and called out. They are Michel Houellebecq, Éric Zemmour and Alain Finkielkraut. How does this view contaminate the mind? Read their works. In France there is no worse insult than being called a racist, but in intellectual circles it is even worse to be called a "reac" (reactionary). If you have murdered your mother and father, there will always be some sort of reason, however subtle, for your actions. But to be called a "reac" is too harsh. It is unbearable. The "reac" thinker is now the new enemy.
    The thinkers have found a new home, and the left a new dogma. Here, in order of top priority, is France's greatest enemy: those-intellectuals-who-are-used-by-the-Front-National and who must be flushed out and their names added to the blacklist.[2] What would become of enlightened thinking without the illusory safety of the Front National? The specter of "the darkest years of our history" of the 1940s is often used by those who claim to be Enlightened and to represent universal love.
    So here is the predictable return of the already seen, read and heard Fascist menace -- this prefabricated artificial idea that invents radical enemies to avoid dealing with complexities it pretends to understand. [3]
    More recently, another incident added to this reversal of causes and responsibilities. The historian Georges Bensoussan is at risk of being summoned by the MRAP (Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples) "before a criminal court for racial slurs and incitement to hatred and racial violence." The reason is apparently having dared to bring up the antisemitism that is commonplace in the Arabic and Muslim culture in the Maghreb.[4]
    If the Republic suffers today in so many areas riddled with such a brotherly hatred, it is because it refuses to face the evil that is devouring it. The suffering of the Arabs, of the Palestinians and of the suburban youth is real, but will be alleviated only if there is first a critical examination of the delusional views on what is causing it. Neither the Jews nor Israel is at the root of this suffering. What is causing it is what happened to this culture -- born from Islam, or from Arabic heritage -- always to place the blame elsewhere when it is itself the source of the current disaster. It is not Israel that is bombing and starving the Yarmouk Palestinian camp in Syria. The historian Bernard Lewis asked the timely question "What Went Wrong?" to cause this heritage to go so far astray? Placing the blame elsewhere was the answer.
    This failure of thought not only affects the Arabic and Muslim world. It also affects the ideas of the progressives.
    Would the 21st century see the posthumous victory of Comrade Stalin? Have we not learned the lessons of the blinded intellectuals in front of seductive totalitarian ideologies? One fears that the ideological denial of facts -- in exchange for demanded intellectual opium for "unity" -- will remain the norm. These dogmas, even in the name of progressivism and anti-racism, do not eliminate evil, they only lead to deeper graves. Run, Comrade. Graves might be behind you, but the cutthroats are out in front.
    Jacques Tarnero, affiliated with the Cité des sciences et de l'Industie, Paris, specializes in the study of racism.
    This article was originally published in a slightly different form in French. Gatestone is most grateful to the author for his kind permission to publish it in English.

    [1] Quoting the spokesperson for the Indigènes de la République
    [2] Which the historian Daniel Lindenberg is getting ready to publish.
    [3] On the heels of the Charlie Hebdo and Jewish supermarket attacks, Philippe Lioret, director of the movie "Welcome," a film about the conditions of illegal migrants in France in 2008, stated on France Inter radio: "I have had this idea for a while that I never hear in the news. Who, historically, is responsible for this crisis? The Six Day War for example. In 1967, the Israelis entered into West Bank and Gaza. They dispossessed the Palestinians. Wasn't this the beginning of a terrible transformation of the Arabic identity that brings today this type of Islamic fundamentalism (...) The West is always to blame. The ones with the money," he concludes,"are the ones that decide."
    [4] A petition signed by about twenty people was sent to the Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (the French TV and radio regulatory body) to decry the statements made by Bensoussan during a debate with Patrick Weil during a program called "Répliques" hosted by Alain Finkielkraut on France Culture on Saturday, October 10, 2015.

    One Christian Slaughtered Every Five Minutes"
    Muslim Persecution of Christians: September, 2015