Tuesday, March 22, 2016

College of Pediatricians Calls Transgender Ideology ‘Child Abuse’

College of Pediatricians Calls Transgender Ideology ‘Child Abuse’

A gender neutral restroom at the University of Vermont in Burlington, Vt., Thursday, Aug. 23, 2007.

In a strongly worded statement issued today, the professional association of pediatricians says “a person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking.” It describes such thinking as problem that exists in the mind and not the body and “it should be treated as such.”

The college of pediatricians is joining a heated debate that increasingly pits concerned parents against school teachers, administrators, legislators, and transsexual advocates who are pushing the trans agenda in grade-schools, city governments, state governments, and the federal government.

A wave of “non-discrimination” bills are appearing around the country that require public women’s restrooms to accommodate men who think they are women and even those who consider themselves “gender non-binary,” that is, men who appear to be men but who say there are neither male or female.

The American College of Pediatricians will release a full statement this summer. The statement released today explains, “human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: ‘XY’ and ‘XX’ are genetic markers of health — not genetic markers of a disorder.”

The statement goes on:

The exceedingly rare disorders of sex development (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs do not constitute a third sex.

The statement points out that such gender confusion should be treated as a psychological disorder called “gender dysphoria” and is “a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).”

The group is most concerned about the regimen of drugs that are given to children to block puberty. “Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.”

Rates of suicide among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex change reassignment surgery are “twenty times greater” than the rest of the population even in such trans-friendly places as Sweden.

The doctors argue that “Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse.”



Sent from my iPhone

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

LIMBAUGH: RUSH OUTLINES ESTABLISHMENT'S ANTI-TRUM

JEB'S REVENGE? RUSH OUTLINES ESTABLISHMENT'S ANTI-TRUMP PLOT

Radio host Rush Limbaugh warned his millions of listeners on Tuesday that members of the Republican establishment have a blueprint for foisting former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on the American people despite his disastrous campaign.

Do you support Trump? Tell the world with this brand new bumper sticker: “DONALD TRUMPS THE REST”

Donald Trump is well on his way to winning the 1,237 delegates needed to becoming the 2016 Republican presidential nominee, but Limbaugh said a liberal reading of the convention committee rules may allow GOP insiders to deny the billionaire his due. He cited a Daily Caller article published Sunday that said first-ballot delegates are not bound to vote for the candidate that won their state’s primaries.

“I’m just telling you, if they succeed in this, if they deny Trump or Ted Cruz 1,237 delegates by the end of the primary process, I’m here to tell you Jeb Bush is gonna be the nominee. That’s what they’re gonna do. That’s what they’ve always wanted,” said Limbaugh. “Jeb himself said back on Dec. 14, 2014, when this whole process started, Jeb said that his strategy was to lose the primaries and win the nomination. And everybody said, ‘What? How you gonna do that?'”

Donald Trump (Photo: Twitter)

Donald Trump (Photo: Twitter)

The conservative icon said Ohio Gov. John Kasich will falsely believe he will be picked to sideline Trump if he can win his home state.

“If not Jeb, they’ll go Romney.” said Limbaugh.”The GOP is throwing every egg in its basket in Ohio today. They’re saying that the future of the party is in Ohio today. The future of the GOP hangs in Ohio. What that means is Kasich’s gotta win Ohio. If Kasich wins Ohio, the establishment is still alive, and that way they can engineer a contested convention where they run, that they can then install whoever they want.”

One of Limbaugh’s listeners from North Carolina called in and said there would be “hell to pay” if Trump is denied the nomination due to back-room deals.

Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

“If Donald Trump gets the 1,237 and he doesn’t get the nomination, then there’s gonna be hell to pay. But if he doesn’t get the 1,237, then anything goes  and it’s, like, okay. That’s part of the rules, and we gotta be okay with that,” said Vernon from Winston-Salem.

“No, no. This is crucial,” countered Limbaugh. “If Trump, let’s say, gets to 1,200  he’s 37 short  and they engineer a way to take it away from him, there’s gonna be hell to pay, because 1,200 minus 37? Yeah, the rule’s the rule, but the preference will have been expressed by the voters.

Limbaugh’s theories will soon be put to the test. Kasich secured victory in his home state on Tuesday, besting Trump 43 percent to 37 percent. The Ohio governor netted 66 delegates and brought his overall total to 129.

Radio host Rush Limbaugh told listeners on March 15, 2016, that members of the Republican establishment may try to force Jeb Bush on voters at an open convention (Photo: RushLimbaugh.com screenshot)

Radio host Rush Limbaugh told listeners on March 15, 2016, that members of the Republican establishment will probably try to force Jeb Bush on voters at an open convention (Photo: RushLimbaugh.com screenshot)

RELATED:

Trump on fire! GOP kingpin snatches Florida from Rubio

Bushwhacked: Jeb spent $368 per vote 

Jeb’s tailspin: ‘I’m told Bush team out of money’

Romney rips Trump as ‘phony’ and ‘fraud’



Sent from my iPhone

Debate “Fact Checker” Ignores the Real Facts About Common Core Photo credit: Gage Skidmore Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

Debate “Fact Checker” Ignores the Real Facts About Common Core

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

The day after the confirmation of New York Common Core enforcer John King as U.S. Secretary of Education has brought about a flurry of commentary about Common Core and the election.

The most parallel-universe analysis comes from Michelle Ye Hee Lee at The Washington Post, who “fact checks” Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and John Kasich on their statements on Common Core during last Thursday’s debate. Lee sets the stage for her mistaken discussion by swallowing whole the Common Core talking points — the national standards were “crafted by a bipartisan group of governors and state school chiefs representing most states,” states and localities control the curriculum, and the Obama administration appropriately used the Race to the Top (RttT) program as an incentive for states to adopt the standards.

Taking the last point first, Lee hammers Cruz — the only of these three candidates who has accurately explained the role of RttT — for claiming abuse of federal power through that program. She acknowledges that the RttT incentives to adopt Common Core were substantial, but she still claims the decision was completely voluntary.

Her analysis misses the mark in two ways. First, her claim of “voluntariness” is tenuous — in a time of deep recession, states grabbed at the “free” federal money tied to Common Core because they felt they had no other choice. Second, the RttT program especially could be characterized as an abuse of federal power because, unlike with some other federal incentive programs, the federal government has no appropriate role in education to begin with. Cruz correctly articulates that making states an offer they can’t refuse, to implement policy the federal government has no right to influence, is an abuse of federal power.

Turning to Trump’s statement that the federal government “took over” Common Core, Lee incoherently argues that this claim can’t be true because Congress just passed a law “explicitly banning federal influence on states’ decisions on education standards.”

Where to begin? In the first place, Trump’s statement is incorrect not for the reason advanced by Lee, but rather because the federal government didn’t “take over” the Common Core initiative — the feds did exactly what the Common Core creators invited them to do from the beginning. But in any event, the new law she references (the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA), properly understood, proves the fallacy of her claim. Even if ESSA did ban federal influence concerning education standards (which it doesn’t), the fact is that the bill, with its Potemkin protections for state autonomy, was passed in response to the federal overreach on Common Core. So the enactment of ESSA proves the Obama administration acted improperly in pushing the states to accept Common Core.

(Interestingly, Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, who blows hot and cold on the national standards that were financed by one of his employer’s major donorstakes Lee apart on her claims of federal innocence in this saga.)

Lee completes her tour de force of misrepresentation by awarding Kasich the “Geppetto checkmark,” which apparently means she thinks he’s telling the truth. If we wrench ourselves back through the looking glass, we see that in fact, what Kasich says about Common Core is more wildly off base than any of the other candidates’ claims. The Common Core standards were crafted by private special interests, not by “the governors”; any “adjustment” of the standards by individual states was cosmetic rather than substantive (indeed, the original initiative forbade states from adding more than 15 percent to the standards); and the idea that local school boards are developing curricula at all, much less curricula unmoored from Common Core, is simply delusional (Hess’s critique is on target on this point as well).

On another front, Nashville Public Radio reports that Sen. Lamar Alexander is puzzled that Common Core is still an issue in the presidential campaign. After all, didn’t he relieve Jeb Bush of Common Core pressure by ramming through ESSA, with its “surface-y soundbites” (to quote former Education Secretary Arne Duncan) supposedly limiting federal power? Alexander seems exasperated that the anti-Common Core grassroots know what ESSA really does and doesn’t do, and that the candidates are responding to their demand for real change in education policy. Oh, for the days when the people had no idea what was going on in education and were content to leave it to the “experts” . . . .

Jane Robbins is an attorney and a senior fellow with the American Principles Project.



Sent from my iPhone

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Scalia Was Sorely Missed in the First Major Abortion Case in a Decade

Scalia Was Sorely Missed in the First Major Abortion Case in a Decade

If you are a lawyer in Washington, D.C. and if you are willing to stand in the cold for hours, you can get a front-row seat at one of the greatest legal shows in the world — oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

They are among the most highly dramatic and significant American events that most of America will never get a chance to see. There are no cameras in this courtroom.

The recent argument in the first major abortion case in a decade should have been a rollicking legal debate. But the argument in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt was, well, a bit dull. It was missing a certain Italian spice. It was missing Scalia.

Most people knew Justice Antonin Scalia from his court opinions, particularly his dissents, which were always compelling, often biting, sometimes downright hilarious. But only a relative and lucky few ever got to watch him live, parrying and thrusting his sharp wit into the soft underbelly of a bad argument.

The Hellerstedt arguments missed him badly. Before the Court was a Texas law requiring abortion practitioners to have admitting privileges at a hospital and requiring clinics to meet the health and safety standards of ambulatory surgical centers (like ophthalmology or dental clinics).

The case was brought by a group of abortion businesses and practitioners who claim the law forced their businesses to close, resulting in an “undue burden” on the right to abortion in Texas.

The stage was set for verbal pyrotechnics, but they never came. The courtroom exchanges were dry. Tedious. They almost seemed to miss the point.

The lawyer representing the abortion businesses said the clinics were forced to close. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito asked for evidence to support her claim.

She had none, beyond timing. The clinics closed around the time the law passed. And then the wagons circled. Justice Kagan said her evidence was just fine. Justice Ginsburg asked the Chief to give her extra time. Justice Sotomayor changed the subject.

This would have gone down much differently if Scalia had been in his seat. Now, nobody can do Scalia like Scalia, but I can’t help imagining that he would have interjected here, saying that the law didn’t mandate the closure of any business. That states set health and safety standards all the time. That you can’t credibly argue the standards are impossible to meet because many clinics are in fact meeting them.

I can imagine him pointing out that new abortion clinics have even opened up since the law was in place, and asking, rhetorically: “Why shouldn’t we draw the inference that the law is a boon to abortion in Texas?”

Justice Scalia might have used the absence of evidence about the reason for closures as an opportunity for some fun speculation. Maybe they didn’t want to spend money on sanitation equipment. Maybe they didn’t like the idea of regular inspections. Maybe they have an irrational fear of fire extinguishers.

Justices Breyer and Sotomayor spent a considerable amount of time anguishing over whether the remaining clinics would have sufficient “capacity” to handle the abortion demand. I have no doubt that Justice Scalia would have raised his voice here, too.

“When did ‘capacity’ become a constitutional issue?” he might have asked. Isn’t it really a market issue? And aren’t the majority of abortions elective, anyway? He might have said it looks more like a business opportunity than a constitutional problem to him. “If some clinics closed, for reasons we can only speculate, isn’t the marketplace wide open for new clinics with better business practices to step in to pick up the slack?”

Finally, to put a fine point on it, he might have added: “If this law results in old unsanitary clinics closing and shiny new well-staffed clinics opening — that’s somehow bad for women? Every dirty old clinic must remain open for a new law to be deemed constitutional?”

These are admittedly feeble attempts to conjure the great man. But now that he is gone, all we are left with is our imagination, as it is difficult to imagine another who could replace him. I am sure that I was not the only lawyer gazing at that black-draped chair, longing for Scalia’s voice.

For so many of us who admired him, Justice Scalia’s death hit hard. It is not just his votes we will miss, or his magnificent written opinions. That Wednesday morning I realized that we might miss him most of all in flesh, at oral argument, verbally stepping into the game and hitting a home run every time we — and the Constitution — needed it.



Sent from my iPhone

Monday, March 14, 2016

CNN Journalist ‘Governments Pay Us To Fake Stories’, Shocking Exposé

https://vimeo.com/125921526

CNN Journalist ‘Governments Pay Us To Fake Stories’, Shocking Exposé

According to Amber Lyon, a three-time Emmy award winning journalist, CNN is routinely paid by the US government and foreign governments to selectively report on certain events. Furthermore, the Obama administration pay CNN for editorial control over some of their content.

Redflagnews.com report:

Back in March 2011, CNN sent a four person team to Bahrain to cover the Arab Spring. Once there, the crew was the subject of extreme intimidation amongst other things, but they were able to record some fantastic footage. As Glenn Greenwald of the UK’s Guardian writes in his blockbuster article from September 4th 2012:

“In the segment, Lyon interviewed activists as they explicitly described their torture at the hands of government forces, while family members recounted their relatives’ abrupt disappearances. She spoke with government officials justifying the imprisonment of activists. And the segment featured harrowing video footage of regime forces shooting unarmed demonstrators, along with the mass arrests of peaceful protesters. In sum, the early 2011 CNN segment on Bahrain presented one of the starkest reports to date of the brutal repression embraced by the US-backed regime.

Despite these accolades, and despite the dangers their own journalists and their sources endured to produce it, CNN International (CNNi) never broadcast the documentary. Even in the face of numerous inquiries and complaints from their own employees inside CNN, it continued to refuse to broadcast the program or even provide any explanation for the decision. To date, this documentary has never aired on CNNi. Having just returned from Bahrain, Lyon says she “saw first-hand that these regime claims were lies, and I couldn’t believe CNN was making me put what I knew to be government lies into my reporting.”

Here is a segment of the Bahrain report that Amber Lyon and her team put together. CNNi refused to allow it to air because the Bahrain Government had paid them not to show it.

When Amber Lyon recognized the extent of the reasoning, she challenged CNN. CNN told her to be quiet, and began to view her as a risk. She knew, and found out, too much. Amber is now trying to tell the story, the real story, of what is going on behind the closed doors of US Media entities. Amber has created her own website, and additionally as noted in the Guardian Article she is trying to share the truth of the deceptions.

What Amber Lyon describes is exactly the reason why CNN never aired the Nick Robertson interview with Muhammed Al Zawahiri in Egypt.

Amber recently did a web interview with Alex Jones on InfoWars. Generally the TreeHouse does not appreciate Alex Jones. He is wound up tighter than piano wire, and unfortunately much of his truth is diminished because of the hype he places upon it.

Alex Jones is easy to disregard as a “conspiracy theorist”, not because of what he says, but because of how he says it. Everything is desperate and dangerous with him.

That said, the words and explanations of Ms. Lyon in the discussion/interview are poignant and vastly informative. So I share the video with you so you can hear from Amber herself exactly what is being described and articulated.

It is critical to listen to what she says, not just about Bahrain but also about what the Obama administration is specifically doing.



Sent from my iPhone

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

The Shocking Words of a Czech Physician Living in England

The Shocking Words of a Czech Physician Living in England

An original translation by Xanthippa

From this Czech website:

The Shocking Words of a Czech Physician Living in England: Female Muslim Physicians Are Refusing to Remove Their Headscarves Upon Entering the Operating Room, Muslim Physicians Leave Their Patients to Go Pray, the Reading of the Koran During Surgery

23 January, 2016, 12:42

INTERVIEW

For more than 10 years, the Czech physician Vladislav Rogozov has been working at a teaching hospital in Sheffield, England. With this look at the current Islamization of Great Britain, he is attempting to bear witness to this serious danger to our homeland, in order that the Czech Republic might recognize this danger in time and not end up as tragically [as Great Britain]. He speaks of criminality growing out of the clash of different cultures, which was actively kept secret by the police, the politicians and the social workers. The victims of criminal acts have even been threatened in order to withdraw their testimony.

Photo: Archive

Description: Muslim migrant, illustrative photo

Tell us, how, from your point of view, what did the relatively recent Christmas celebrations look like in ‘good old England’? Have you noticed some difference to what it was like when, eleven years ago, you first came to Great Britain as a physician?

Christmas celebrations looked the same as all of England looks like – two parallel worlds and growing Islamization. In the countryside, where we live, there was a picturesque English Christmas, filled with carols and traditions. In many Muslim suburbs, there was no mention of the origin of Christmas. Its original meaning is intentionally being drowned in commercialization. Year after year, one can feel the growing influence of Islamization and political correctness.

For example, at a nearby school, the headmaster had, for the first time this year, banned the Christmas Tree. On BBC, I have, for the first time, noticed the greeting “Salaam Aleikum Merry Christmas”. And in one comedy show on BBC on Christmas Eve, they did not lay Baby Jesus in the manger, but Baby Mohammed. I guess it no longer surprises me.

Photo: Vladislav Rogozov, MD

What led you to start writing on your blog, the year before last, about the ongoing Islamisation of Great Britain, and to raise the warning, to prevent something similar from happening in the Czech Republic?

In 2005, when I received the offer to work at the Teaching Hospital in Sheffield, I did not hesitate for a minute. It was a professional and personal challenge. I had always admired England for all the good it had brought to humanity. A few days after arriving, on Thursday 7th July, I traveled from Sheffield to London to the General Medical Council. I did not make it to London that day. British Muslims had attacked innocent people, they killed dozens of them and injured hundreds. It was a total shock.

Yet it took me several more years before I would admit to myself that the process of Islamization is going on across the whole country, and that this process is no longer reversible.

In the year 2009 we had a reunion with other former students of the Medical School. When I told them that multiculturalism is not working in Britain, that it is just Islamization, none of them wanted to believe me. That is when I realized how easy it would be to underestimate this risk, if we do not pay attention to it in time. We are dealing with a huge problem, which concerns not just our safety, but the whole structure of our culture. However, the majority of Western politicians has not even dared to name it directly.

How would you describe it yourself?

Today, it is absolutely clear that in Europe there is a growing confrontation between two civilizations — the European democratic one and the Islamic theocratic one.

European culture is based on democracy, freedom, rule of law, individuals, critical thinking, the equality of people of differing opinions and genders. In contrast with this, Islamic culture is based on religious dogmatism, absolute veneration of religion, irrational obedience of the text of the Koran. From this then grows its intolerance of people with differing opinions or sexual orientation, or to the inequality [under the law] between men and women.

The values of these two systems are sufficiently different that they cannot exist at the same place and time without competing with each other. This clash can only have one of two results — either continuing Islamization or a long-term conflict. The probability that Islam might undergo some enlightened renaissance process is very low. For some countries, no good solution exists any longer.

I believe that the Czech Republic may yet avoid this. But not much time remains.

What do you see as the root causes of this?

The causes for the current movement of numerous Muslim populations into Europe are various. In many countries, the starting factor is post-colonial heritage and a myopic solution to the problem of the ageing of the European population due to low birth rates. The desire of closed Muslim communities to integrate into the majority culture is miniscule. To the contrary, their motivation for expansion and Islamization is immense. The existence of these communities has therefore brought great problems to all the Western countries that had, in good faith, undertaken this experiment.

Parallel worlds with parallel values were created, even including parallel legal systems. For example, in Britain, there exist dozens of Sharia tribunals.

The integration of Muslim communities had failed. It is not possible to integrate someone by force, against their will. The British government invests great resources and will into various integration programs, without results.

For example, David Cameron announced that he will provide £20 million for a project to teach Muslim women to speak English, because a large majority of them do not even speak English. He immediately faced criticism from many Muslims that this is discriminatory and putting labels on people, and the British Muslim women don’t even have to speak English because they only go outside with their husbands, and so on.

Do we want to once be facing similar problems in the Czech Republic?

So, is Islam to blame for this state of things?

It is difficult to blame Islam for self-propagation; this is what it has always done and it has never attempted to hide it. The main problem is the weakness of our current European society and a crisis in values. If any living system, from a single cell to the whole of human community, gives up on its own defense and on maintaining its own integrity, it will most certainly perish. And it will free up living space for those more capable of survival.

Europeans have been lulled by long-lasting safety and prosperity. They have given up on the vigorous defense of its basic values; they consume experiences and give birth to too few children. It would be unnatural if such a weakness were not exploited by another, expansive culture to spread further. After all, freedom, democracy and the rule of law are not the products of safety, but its preconditions. If we do not defend these values, even with the use of force [if necessary], we will lose it all.

Has Europe not primarily caused these problems for herself?

A terrible mistake has been made with the series of unnecessary interventions in the Middle East. The result is our own weakening, the rise of Islamic terror, regional wars, chaos, unrest, the migrant crisis. Instead of exporting democracy — using force — into places where it has no chance to work, we should focus on vigorous defense and promotion of democratic values at home in Europe.

Another observation from here, in England, is the national self-flagellation. English people are raised to feel guilty for colonialism and from this flows this need for self-sacrifice in favour of peoples from the former colonies.

One of my friends, an English teacher, told me recently: “Thank you for opening my eyes. Until now, I had actually been ashamed of my English identity. Now I see that I have something to be proud of.” I think that many Germans have also approached this migrant wave while under the influence of the lingering shame for the war. However, we can do great harm with ill-considered acts of goodness.

You work at the cardiovascular clinic in a teaching hospital in Sheffield, you are teaching University students. How has it affected you personally, when the situation has led you to admit that you have started to fear Islam, that you have become an Islamophobe?

We meet almost daily with the manifestations and effects of Islamization,.and every day its evolution truly greatly worries me. I fear the loss of our cultural identity, ideologically motivated violence and the danger of increasing fascism of a part of our European community. When I look at how England is changing, I become very sad. Many places now look like the streets of Pakistan. Yet much more important than appearances are the values that Islam brings with it.

I have deep respect for every human being, including every individual Muslim I have come into contact with, be it as a patient, a relative or a fellow physician. However, I do not have respect for the Islamic culture — it brings us unequal position of women before the law, intolerance to differences, racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, honour killings, female circumcision, Sharia, torturing of animals and other medieval “advances”.

Yet, an even worse danger is ideologically motivated violence. It is a proven fact many times over that Islam has the potential to inspire its followers to commit violence against innocent people. For that, it is sufficient to follow the daily news. Nobody can deny the fact that in the 21st century, the largest source of ideologically motivated violence comes from the Islamic environment.

Quite simply, until Islamic culture places human life above obedience to Allah, some Muslims will not stop killing in the name of Allah. And that is a sufficient reason to be afraid. However, Islamic culture cannot be forced into a renaissance of change; it has to arrive at it itself. Until that happens, we either have to defend ourselves against it or let ourselves be Islamized.

A no less disturbing effect of Islamization is the danger of radicalization of indigenous Europeans. Unless political representatives find the courage to name and solve this problem in a timely way, we may fear the rise of extremist and fascistic tendencies.

Less than a year ago you wrote that in multicultural Britain, there is an absolutely never-before-seen range of brutal rape and sexual slavery of children, and that the majority of the perpetrators are British Muslims of Asian descent, and their victims are white English children. This information has not surfaced here, and you have been accused in some discussions that you are making this up and that the officials did not cover this up. What would you say to that?

This is a specific type of crime which arises from the clash of differing cultures. Because it deals with criminality with a racial motivation, nobody dared to publish the truth for years. It was actively hidden by the police and social workers. Victims of criminal acts were even threatened, to make them recant their testimony. It is absolutely shocking, where Islamization in combination with political correctness leads. But I have described that in my post “About the Rape of Children…”

If you are asking me about personally assigning guilt, I do not solve this. Idiots exist everywhere; they are cowardly and hide behind anonymity. Everything I have written about this problem is supported by evidence published by British institutions and thus easily provable. The victims’ testimonies are available for viewing on-line on BBC iPlayer. I personally know the mother of one of the victims.

What are the loudest [most ostentatious] personal experiences you or those closest to you have had with the impact of Islamization on your lives?

Unfortunately, those experiences could fill a whole book. I have written about some of these already on my blog. So, randomly…

Islamization directly affects many aspects of life, from shopping to picking schools. For example, when we were picking a school for our growing daughter, we were quite surprised. Not by the number of Muslim children in the classrooms, but with the attitude of the personnel. Everywhere, they welcomed us as foreigners, that they are proud of their institution, and proud of their multicultural approach. Then, when we toured the classrooms, every single notice-board was dedicated to the teachings of Islam.

We decided to sell our house in the city and to move to the countryside. There we finally found a traditional English school and community — exactly what we had wanted our daughter to still experience. This is a general trend: because of growing Islamization, many people are moving from the cities into the outlying regions.

We also had to solve a number of problems in the hospital — physicians and medics refuse to remove their headscarves upon entering the operating room, Muslim physicians leave their patients in order to go pray, demands for breaks for prayers, and so on. Just last week, our operating room nurses were complaining that one Muslim anesthesiologist, in the middle of a surgery, started reading out loud from the Koran and urged the rest of the personnel to also read from it. And I have to note that here, in the teaching hospital, this is much less pronounced than in a number of smaller hospitals. There, the situation is much worse.

And do fears of terrorism manifest themselves somehow?

The fear of Islamic terrorism is unpleasant and ever-present. Even MI5 admits that it is only a question of time before something happens. I remember how my friend, also a Czech doctor, phoned me in a panic when there was that terrorist attack at Glasgow airport. One of his colleagues, a Muslim physician at his hospital, was one of the perpetrators.

Publicly, nobody speaks about these problems openly: it is discussed only among good friends, behind closed doors. Criticizing Islam can easily be classified as fanning religious intolerance, and that is a criminal act in Britain. The situation is similar to what it had once been with any criticism of communism [behind the Iron Curtain]. Some negative manifestations were publicly named, but they could not be connected to the cause. Open discussion existed only in private; public critics were punished.

How do the local media react, face to face, to this growing Islamization of Great Britain, whether it be the publicly funded BBC or private outlets? From your previous answer, one may presume that instead of open transfer of information, they prefer political correctness, just as it is here as well as in most of the countries of the European Union.

No politician ever asked their electorate if they wanted the Islamization of their countries. When the majority culture, horrified, started to wake up, it was too late. Politicians cannot now ignore millions of their Muslim citizens, they have the same rights as non-Muslims. And they are voters. That is why it was necessary to create political correctness, as a tool to suppress criticism and cause the gradual erosion of the freedom of speech.

In the name of maintaining non-violent coexistence of different cultures, the politicians themselves have no choice, whether they like it or not, about aiding the peaceful Islamization of society.

The same goes for the media. On BBC, you can watch original shows about Muslims, or, perhaps, about how great it is to convert to Islam. The media carry information about current events — even about rapes, honour killings, female circumcision, terrorism — but nobody dares to link it with Islamic culture and its value system. They call it different things — the influence of a perverse ideology, extremism, radicalization — yet nobody dares to criticize Muslims. Even David Cameron says that these are “not Muslims, but monsters” — who have twisted and misused Islam. They never explain just how.

More and more, British Muslims are affecting the view of Britain on the international scene. The country that gave humanity democracy and the Beatles has thus become renown for its export of jihadists, who cut the heads off of living people.

Monday’s discussion in Parliament was symptomatic of this. The MPs had to debate barring Donald Trump from entering Britain — the subject of a petition signed by hundreds of thousands of British Muslims. One of my English colleagues told me yesterday just how ashamed he is of British image in the world. And it will get worse. As the Muslim community grows, it will promote its needs more vigorously.

That huge migration wave which rolled into Europe last year, according to the views of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, appears to be unstoppable. After the New Year’s attacks by hundreds of migrants on women and girls in Cologne-on-Rhine and also other and not just German cities, might the approach of the political elites [to the migrants] change? What reactions to these events have you noted in Great Britain?

German politics regarding the migration wave was perceived here with criticism. One could often hear the opinions that it is one-sided politics which endangers the stability of Europe. Information about the Cologne attacks was carried by all the major outlets, including airing the victims’ statements.

However, the news reporting was, of course, politically correct. I did not notice a single report where one of the commentators would draw an unequivocal link between the attacks and Muslim immigration. Nobody bothered to note that there might, perhaps, be some similarity to the thousands of attacks by Muslim men against English women.

If you have written off the future of Great Britain in light of the basic cultural and demographic change to the society and their vanishing identity, how do you see the chances of the continental countries of the European Union — primarily Germany and France, but, of course, also of the Czech Republic?

We do not experience the happenings in France as directly as we do those in England, even though we do go over to visit my sister-in-law and my niece is studying in high school there. However, I do think that France is about on par with England when it comes to Islamization. There is no good solution — either continuing Islamization or prolonged conflict.

What the politicians did in Germany — that is suicidal, dangerous and careless, both with respect to their own citizens and to surrounding countries. Who, in God’s name, have they taken counsel with regarding this decision? We will feel the results for a long time. And with the coming spring, the problem will return with a renewed intensity.

The European Union has failed. The Schengen area is crumbling; now it functions in reverse – its outer borders are porous, yet the internal borders between the States are being closed. There are very few reasons to think that the European Union will be able to deal as a united entity or defend itself as a whole. Protecting the integrity and security would appear to be more and more dependent on individual states.

Therefore the Czech Republic should not act as an afterthought to events, but  should be prepared to take control of its borders at any time. In this context, the Visegrad area [Hungary, Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic] would appear to grow in importance. I think that the preservation of cultural identity and the prevention of Islamization lies in the close cooperation between these countries. It is quite possible that the tables will turn and that the bastion of democracy on the continent may, in the future, lie in Central Europe. Perhaps once the former inhabitants of Western countries will try to emigrate to us [Central Europe] just as once we had lined up to emigrate from there to escape totalitarian regimes. We tried out communism for them; they have tried out Islamization for us. We will be even. We must be ready to help them.

How can the citizens of the Czech Republic help ensure that their country will not follow in the footsteps of the Islamized Great Britain, and how should they face the accusations of xenophobia, Islamophobia and racism, to which they are subjected the moment they dare voice their disagreement with accepting migrants?

The only non-violent way to defend against Islamization is to not permit it to even start. To the West of us, we have plenty of case studies in how large Muslim migration changes society, how the formation of isolated ghettos came about along with a parallel value system. Therefore, preventing mass Muslim immigration and the creation of closed communities is the only protection from Islamization.

Of course, it makes no sense to hold a primary war against Islam. The primary thing should be the protection of our own values and way of life. Of course, not at the cost of closing ourselves to the world — that would be suicide. It is necessary to remain open and friendly to newcomers — to be attractive for those who want to accept our culture and its values, and wholly unaccepting of those who do not wish to respect this. Thus, the answer is a strong democracy, an open society that knows its values and knows how to use any means to protect them against those who either do not respect it or hate it.

That also goes regarding the freedom of speech. Political correctness is censorship, a barrier to freedom of expression, we should wholly reject it. If we do not call problems by their real names, we cannot solve them.

So, you do not see the worst of human qualities behind rejecting the migrants, as some ‘do-gooders’ would have us think?

Everyone has the right to voice their disagreement with accepting the migrants. The first concern of individuals must be their family, then surrounding area and then their country. If there exists strong proofs regarding negative impacts if imigration on safety, it is absolutely their place to worry about the effects of unchecked immigration. Anything else would be hazardous. There is no other way nature can work. If anyone calls well-supported fears xenophobia, we are dealing with implementing the principles of Political Correctness. Politeness, freedom, courage and truth – these are effective tools to fight Political Correctness.

Of course, I feel sorry for all those suffering from war. It is our moral duty to help those who need help, that is one of our core values. The more we help, the better the world around us will be and even we ourselves. Helping helps cultivate individuals and societies.

On the other hand, it is clear that we cannot help all those who need help. We can only help within the frame of our abilities and from our own free will. Helping at the cost of our own safety and integrity is suicide. Then, we will not be able to help anyone.

Of course, it also holds that helping does not mean moving everyone into your own home. It is possible to help the needy in many different ways.

If you follow the happenings on the Czech domestic scene, how would you comment the opinions of the President, Milos Zeman, with respect to the other side as represented by the Prime Minister, Bohuslav Sobotka, the defeated candidates of direct presidential election Karel Schwarzenberg and Jiri Dienstbiere, or the leader of the opposition, Miroslav Kalousek, on the migration wave to Europe? Does the President have the right to say that this is our country?

Of course, we follow domestic developments. Now, I do not want to address individual statements, there are so many of them and they are evolving so fast. However, I am afraid that the majority of our politicians still do not admit just how pivotal these times are in which we find ourselves. The current evolution of events will forever affect the shape of our country.

The politicians must defend the interests and safety of their own citizens; that is why they were elected and why we pay them. They must protect the country against dangers and risks, which also include uncontrolled immigration. Therefore, the [Czech] Republic must be ready to protect its borders. If it comes to the growth of the numerous Muslim community, Islamization will begin and there will be no way back. Such a basic decision regarding the mass immigration of an incompatible culture ought to remain under the overarching control of each member country. And they [the decisions] ought not be made by politicians elected for just a few years — this should be decided upon by citizens, in a referendum.

Yet there is something even more important here. The public and the politicians are facing a basic task – to guide the ship of democracy between the cliffs of Islamization on the one hand and fascism on the other. The longer politicians delay in naming things by their real names, the closer to these cliffs we will come. It is obvious that navigating between them will take effort and sacrifices. Let’s hope these will be just material sacrifices.

In order for people to be willing to give up parts of their comfort for the benefit of immaterial values and for future prosperity, they need motivation in the shape of political vision. We do not need politicians who are afraid or who are scaremongers. We need politicians who will inspire. We don’t need to say what kind of country we do not want, but rather what kind of a country we do want to live in — not showing people what to fight against but what to fight for. We need politicians who will give people a vision — “shared values, which are worth defending”.

And that even at the cost of more expensive gas and lowered pensions. If our culture is to survive, we have to define our values and protect them from all ideologies, which either do not respect or hate them. Already we have handed our country over without a fight twice – first to fascism, then to communism. Will we succeed in protecting it against Islam? I still believe that yes, we will.



Sent from my iPhone

Monday, March 7, 2016

GOD'S FEARLESS SPIRIT IN TRUMP REVIVES MEN

Please read this with "this" thought in mind: If GOD has not given us the spirit of fear...who has? 
--jgr

GOD'S FEARLESS SPIRIT IN TRUMP REVIVES MEN

“Dilbert” comic creator and insightful commentator Scott Adams shared a moving letter to “President Trump” from “just a simple man” named Troy, a black man who grew up without his father. Fear controlled Troy’s decisions and held him back in life, but courage enables Trump’s winning strategy. Troy described so clearly not only the strength of Donald Trump’s spirit, but the fear and weakness that rules over men and America today.

God called me to rebuild men, specifically black men. I have helped blacks and all people the past 26 years through my nonprofit, BOND – counseling, mentoring, leading open forums, showing people how to pray and return to the Father by forgiving and loving their earthly father and fellowman.

Many Americans, including Christians, have become so weak, emotional and feminized that they do not recognize real love, nor real men. Reaction to Donald Trump highlights differences between those who can see and those who cannot. The lines have not split cleanly between “liberal” and “conservative,” nor between “Christian” and “worldly.” Many conservatives and Christians love Trump – as do the more down-to-earth Democrats and “independents” who never liked stiff Republicans. Many nice “by-the-letter” Christians and intellectual constitutional conservatives fear and judge Trump – as do liberals and the godless who hate the truth and hate older white men boldly standing for Americans.

Trump is not the first man to divide so starkly and uniquely. Two-thousand years ago, Jesus sharply divided Pharisees, teachers of the law, and the people – many hated and slandered him; many loved and appreciated him; some wanted to kill him. Today, conservative heroes who know history, know the Constitution, similarly despise Trump – some of them friends of mine. They write off his supporters as blind fools angrily following a hate-monger and a “Hitler” – Trump supporters cannot be “real” evangelical Christians or “real” conservatives.

Never mind that you won’t find another real man but Donald Trump running for president. You would be hard-pressed to find a more genuine man (and conservative Christian) than one of his most ardent supporters: me. Those who know me, who appreciate the insight God has given me, know that this is true.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

Conservatives have maintained their pet issues for years; everyone knows it, and evil has played them – and America – for fools and won. Liberals, women, blacks and homosexuals who listen to Satan have grown more emboldened and oppositional against men, whites and Christians who lack the courage, clarity and street smarts to beat back the children of the lie and win. Because of this, the country is more divided than ever, and only growing more corrupt. Many Christians lose their children to the world in schools, and their own souls to helpless anger.

Trump recognizes the damage done to our union, the irrational rage and lies of Black Lives Matter, the evil of abortion, the homosexual agenda and the attack on Christians – but he’s more concerned about Christians’ heads being cut off by ISIS, and the horrible division tearing apart our country. Trump wants Christians to unite, Republicans to unite, and Americans to unite.

In addition to rebuilding men, my main purpose is to unite the races with truth instead of dividing them with lies. No candidate but Trump’s shows the courage, honesty and tough love that angry agitators needed from their fathers. Notably, Trump’s children love their father. Trump shows care and concern for victims of real hate and violence.

Trump may not see life exactly as you do at this point. But you can learn from him. He is humble enough to talk, listen and learn from those who disagree. Are you? And if protesters are looking for trouble, he deals toughly and swiftly with them.

While Ted Cruz has proven canned, and Marco Rubio a fraud, Donald Trump has shown the spirit, cunning and good-natured fire necessary to overcome enemies foreign and domestic – dealing with his first line of assailants, the lying and liberal media, establishment RINOs, wicked Black Lives Matter and Occupiers.

Just as Obama in his hatred and deceit has transformed American culture for evil, so Trump in telling the truth and not backing down has already awakened people for good – simply by being himself, setting a strong example and shining a light on deceptive politicians and movements. Troy Morton is just one man of many inspired by Donald Trump.

A black man named Christian who called himself an atheist frequently calls my radio show. Seeing my YouTube videos, at first he rejected the truth I spoke about black trifling and anger. But he realized I was 100 percent right. I sent him my first book, “From Rage to Responsibility.” He forgave his father and started a thriving business. Without knowing it, he has grown closer to God. If God used me to speak to Christian to help him past his anger, God can use Trump to help men like Troy move past their fear. And if God gave a chance to an angry black “atheist” like Christian, God can choose a bold, “worldly” Christian named Donald Trump for president.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

Media wishing to interview Jesse Lee Peterson, please contact media@wnd.com.



Sent from my iPhone

MONEY TRAIL' LEADS FROM MEXICO BORDER STRAIGHT TO MIDEAST

'MONEY TRAIL' LEADS FROM MEXICO BORDER STRAIGHT TO MIDEAST

cash-100-dollar-bills-money-600

Just a few months after six Middle Eastern men who entered the U.S. illegally through Mexico were arrested in Arizona state, authorities have now uncovered a “disturbing money trail” between terror-sponsoring countries and Mexico, according to a Judicial Watch report.

This includes more than a dozen wire transfers sent from the Middle East to known Mexican smugglers in at least two different regions of Mexico, Judicial Watch reported, citing information from the Arizona Attorney General’s Office.

“A report issued by the AG exposes the disturbing money trail between Mexico and terrorist nations in the Middle East as well as evidence of smuggling routes tying the region to America’s southern border,” Judicial Watch reported.

WND reported nearly a year ago on Judicial Watch’s findings that ISIS had established a camp inside Mexico just a few miles from the Texas border.

An excerpt of the AG’s new findings was published by a local media outlet this week.

It states that the city of Tapachula, a known human smuggling hub near the Guatemalan border in the Mexican state of Chiapas, was the top destination of Middle Eastern money transfers.

Nogales, adjacent to the Arizona border in northern Mexico, is the second destination, the investigation found.

“Agents conducted a comprehensive geographic analysis of possible terrorist related transactions and/or money transfers involving human smuggling networks,” the state report says.

Officials launched the probe shortly after six men – one from Afghanistan and five from Pakistan – were arrested in Patagonia, a quaint ranching town that sits 20 miles north of Nogales, on Nov. 17, 2015.

Judicial Watch investigated the matter as part of an ongoing probe on the dire national-security issues created by the notoriously porous southern border.

Special Agent Kurt Remus in the FBI’s Phoenix headquarters told JW that the agency’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces vetted and interviewed the six men and determined that there were “no obvious signs of terrorism” so they were returned to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE.

But a few days later, in a story first reported by JW, five young Middle Eastern men were apprehended in the nearby Arizona town of Amado, which sits about 30 miles from the Mexican border.

Two of the Middle Eastern men were carrying stainless-steel cylinders in backpacks, law enforcement and other sources told JW, alarming Border Patrol officials enough to call the Department of Homeland Security for backup.

Only three of the men’s names were entered in the Border Patrol’s E3 reporting system, which is used by the agency to track apprehensions, detention hearings and removals of illegal immigrants. E3 also collects and transmits biographic and biometric data including fingerprints for identification and verification of individuals encountered at the border. The other two men were listed as “unknown subjects,” which is unheard of, according to a JW federal law enforcement source. “In all my years I’ve never seen that before,” a veteran federal law enforcement agent told JW.

“The money trail exposed by Arizona officials in the aftermath of these two major incidents is extremely troublesome,” Judicial Watch concluded. The AG’s Financial Crimes Task Force quickly identified suspicious wire transfers sent from Middle Eastern and African nations by people with Middle Eastern names to Mexico. In 2015, one human smuggler in Mexico received 70 money transfers from 69 senders, the task force found.

“All of the 69 sender names appeared to be of Middle Eastern origin,” the AG writes in its report. This seems to confirm JW’s reporting in the last few years on the dangerous alliance between Mexican smugglers and Middle Eastern extremists who want to attack the U.S.

Last summer JW reported on a Mexican drug cartel operation that smuggles foreigners from countries with terrorist links into a small Texas town near El Paso.

They use remote farm roads – rather than interstates – to elude the Border Patrol and other law enforcement barriers, according to sources on both sides of the Mexico-U.S. border.

The foreign nationals are then transported to stash areas in Acala, a rural crossroads around 54 miles from El Paso on a state road – Highway 20.

In April 2015 JW reported the Islamic State, also called ISIS, is operating camps near the U.S. border in areas known as Anapra and Puerto Palomas west of Ciudad Juárez in the Mexican state of Chihuahua.

That warning follows reports from Judicial Watch in recent months that four Islamic terrorists have been captured in Texas after coming across the U.S. border from Mexico.

The warnings conflict with claims by the Department of Homeland Security there is not an imminent danger of ISIS breaching the nation’s southern border.

In its April 2015 report Judicial Watch said its sources for the information about the ISIS camp include a Mexican Army field-grade officer and a Mexican federal police inspector.

That information came from high-level sources just months after JW exposed an ISIS plot orchestrated from Ciudad Juárez to attack the U.S. with car bombs or other vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices.

As a result of JW’s reporting Fort Bliss, the U.S. Army base in El Paso, increased security. The threat was imminent enough to place agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies on alert.



Sent from my iPhone