A Catastrophic Media Failure


NO Collusion

NO Russian Interference

NO Obstruction of Justice

By Sean Davis, Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2019, 7:10 p.m. ET

Robert Mueller’s investigation is over, but questions still abound. Not about collusion, Russian interference or obstruction of justice, but about the leading lights of journalism who managed to get the story so wrong, and for so long.

It wasn’t merely an error here or there. America’s blue-chip journalists botched the entire story, from its birth during the presidential campaign to its final breath Sunday—and they never stopped congratulating themselves for it. Last year the New York Times and Washington Post shared a Pulitzer Prize “for deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.” A 2017 Time magazine cover depicted the White House getting a “makeover” to transform it into the Kremlin.

All based on a theory—that the president of the United States was a Russian asset—produced by a retired foreign spy whose work was funded by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. An unbiased observer would have taken the theory’s partisan provenance as a red flag, but most political journalists saw nothing but green lights. No unverified rumour was too salacious and no anonymous tip was too outlandish to print. From CNN to the Times and the Post, from esteemed and experienced reporters to opinion writers and bloggers, everyone wanted a share of the Trump-treason beat. What good is the 21st-century Watergate if you don’t at least make an effort to cast yourself as the fearless journalist risking it all who got that one big tip that brought down a president?

Not only did the press fail to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency; it provided voluminous evidence for his repeated charge of “fake news.”

Take CNN. The network reported in December 2017 that Donald Trump Jr. received special email access to stolen documents before their public release by WikiLeaks—an accusation that, if true, could have proved the president’s inner circle was colluding with Russian hackers intent on taking down Mrs Clinton. But it turned out “the most trusted name in news” misreported the dates on the unsolicited emails to the president’s son. They had been sent to him days after WikiLeaks had published the pilfered documents. CNN still hasn’t explained why it failed to do basic due diligence on such an important story.

Another CNN foul-up came in June 2017, the month after President Trump fired James Comey as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr Trump said Mr Comey had assured him three times that he wasn’t under FBI investigation. The network reported Mr Comey would directly refute the president’s claim under oath. In reality, Mr Comey’s own memos explicitly confirmed Mr Trump’s statement.

A December 2016 Washington Post story “incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid,” as a later editor’s note acknowledged. “Authorities say there is no indication of that so far.” Slate falsely claimed in October 2016 that Mr Trump’s computers were secretly sharing information with a Russian bank as part of a scheme to avoid detection.

Each new claim, true or not, became fodder for political pundits. Sure, there may be no actual smoking gun or verified information or anything even approximating evidence, but if you take all the disparate pieces and put them on the same corkboard, stand back at just the right distance, and squint really hard, you can almost make out a barrel and a plume of smoke.

Enter Jonathan Chait of New York magazine, author of the classic 2003 article “Why I Hate George W. Bush.” (“I hate the way he walks. . . . I hate the way he talks. . . . I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him.”) Last July, before Mr Trump met Mr Putin in Helsinki, Mr Chait penned a nearly 8,000-word piece titled “Will Trump Be Meeting With His Counterpart—or His Handler?” Mr Chait’s speculation—that “Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987”—was worthy of the late Lyndon LaRouche.

In a January 2019 Twitter thread, meanwhile, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman asserted that “the failure to connect the dots on Trump-Russia” was one of the “big failures of 2016 campaign coverage.” He added: “There is no sin quite as offensive as challenging conventional wisdom early, and then being proved right.”

Many in Washington and around the country believed Mr Mueller’s investigation would put the entire issue to rest. If there was collusion, he’d find it. If there was obstruction of justice, he’d prosecute it. Whatever he found, the nation would accept it and move on. “The best thing for our country is that Trump is innocent and that Mueller tells us he’s found nothing,” Garrett Graff of Wired tweeted Thursday, the day before Mr Mueller submitted his report to Attorney General William Barr. “Mueller got everything he wanted,” Mr Graff wrote Friday. “Never blocked by DOJ in pursuing something he requested. That’s big.”

But the next day, Mr Graff excoriated Nikki Haley for agreeing: “No, everyone does not have to acknowledge that Trump didn’t interfere with Mueller,” Mr Graff tweeted Saturday at the former United Nations ambassador. By Monday Mr Graff was insisting that “a million questions” about Trump-Russia collusion remain.

Likewise, on Monday the irrepressible Mr Chait insisted the president could still be guilty: “People who want to demonstrate their innocence make displays of cooperation with investigators,” he wrote. “His flamboyant refusal to cooperate deprives Trump of any claim to having been cleared.”

So much for accepting Robert Mueller’s conclusions and recommendations. If your objective is to bring down Mr Trump, nothing Mr Mueller or anyone else finds—or fails to find—makes a difference. Mr Trump didn’t collude with Russia, but he did defeat Mrs Clinton. From their behaviour, it is evident that many in the media view that as sufficient to establish his guilt. For them, the Trump-Russia investigation was never about protecting democracy or securing elections—never mind telling the truth, which is supposed to be their job.


Britain’s War on Christianity: Part I

In recent years, dozens of Christians — clergy and non-clergy — in Britain have been arrested or fired from their jobs due to their faith. Much of the harassment is based on three sections of two British laws that are vague and open to subjective interpretations.

At an appeal hearing at Bristol Crown Court, attorney Michael Phillips emphasized the importance of freedom of speech, even in cases where the speaker does not necessarily hold the views being expressed. Another attorney, Paul Diamond, argued that there is no right not to be exposed to contrary ideas. He added that should passers-by not wish to hear the preaching, they are able to walk away.

BELFAST, NORTHERN IRELAND - DECEMBER 16: Pastor James McConnell who has been accused of making grossly offensive remarks about Islam answers questions from reporters as he leaves Belfast Magistrates' Court on December 16, 2016 in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Pastor McConnell denies two charges relating to a sermon he gave in a Belfast church last year. Belfast Magistrates' Court heard that Pastor McConnell called Islam "satanic" and "heathen". The judgement of the case has been reserved until January. (Photo by Charles McQuillan/Getty Images)

Belfast, Northern Ireland – December 16: Pastor James McConnell who has been accused of making grossly offensive remarks about Islam answers questions from reporters as he leaves Belfast Magistrates’ Court on December 16, 2016 in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Pastor McConnell denies two charges relating to a sermon he gave in a Belfast church last year. Belfast Magistrates’ Court heard that Pastor McConnell called Islam “satanic” and “heathen”. The judgment of the case has been reserved until January. (Photo by Charles McQuillan/Getty Images)

The unlawful arrest of a Christian street preacher in London has drawn attention to the continuing use of hate speech laws to silence Christians in multicultural Britain — even as incendiary speech by Muslim extremists is routinely ignored.

On February 23, Oluwole Ilesanmi, a 64-year-old Nigerian evangelist known as Preacher Olu, was arrested at Southgate Station in North London after complaints that his message about Jesus was “Islamophobic.”

A video of the arrest, viewed more than two million times, shows how two police officers ordered the man to stop preaching because “nobody wants to listen to that,” confiscated his Bible and then arrested him for “a breach of peace.”

The video was filmed by Ambrosine Shitrit, co-founder of Eye on Antisemitism, a London-based organization that tracks anti-Semitism on social media.

Shortly before Ilesanmi’s arrest, Shitrit had seen him interacting with another man, who turned out to be a Muslim. She thought the Muslim was about to assault Ilesanmi when she went over and started filming with her phone. When the police arrived in response to an emergency call, the Muslim man left the scene.

The video shows Ilesanmi pleading with police, “Don’t take my Bible away. Don’t take my Bible away.” An officer responded: “You should have thought about that before being racist.” A popular blogger known as Archbishop Cranmer tweeted what many people doubtless felt: “Dear @metpoliceuk, Setting aside the appalling ignorance of these two officers, would you handle a copy of the Qur’an like that?”

Ilesanmi said that after he was searched, the police drove him to a remote area before “de-arresting him.” In Britain, “de-arrest” is a legal term which means that no crime has been committed. Since then, London police have changed their story about what transpired; some have accused the police of staging a cover-up.

When journalist Marcus Jones of Premier Christian Radio asked the Met Police whether they agreed that Ilesanmi had been driven away to a remote location, the Met Police expressly denied it. In an email exchange, they said that Ilesanmi was escorted “approximately 200 meters away, de-arrested and shown to a nearby bus stop.”

Upon further questioning by Jones, Met Police said that Ilesanmi “was driven approximately 3.5 miles to Hadley Wood in north London, where he was left at a bus stop.” The police also said that the man was arrested “in order to prevent[emphasis added] a breach of the peace.” The police also said, “Yes, officers checked that he had a bank card.”

Jones emailed a follow-up question:

“Mr. Ilesanmi says he was taken 5.2 miles away and dropped at the edge of Wrotham Park outside of the London transport zone. He also insists that he had no money on him when he was left by the police. I just want to be sure on the exact distance: is the 3.5-mile figure an exact distance or an estimate? Thanks.”

The Met Police responded:

“The man was driven approximately 3.5 miles to Hadley Wood in north London, where he was left at a bus stop. As stated below, the man was left at a bus stop with a bank card.”

The British watchdog group Christian Concern wrote:

“Oluwole was not taken to Hadley Wood. He was taken to Wrotham Park which is some distance away from Hadley Wood and is outside the London transport zone. He had an Oyster card [a rechargeable plastic card valid for all of London’s public transport] with him which was not accepted on the bus. He is clear that he did not have a bank card on him when the police searched him. Bank cards are in any case not accepted on the 84 Metro Line bus which he eventually caught. Furthermore, there are no ATMs anywhere near the place where the police left him.

“Oluwole had to work out where he was with his smartphone and then catch a bus back to High Barnet. When a bus came, he was told that his Oyster card was not accepted on this bus. He explained that he had been dropped there by the police and asked how he was going to get back. The driver asked him to leave the bus. He said that a passenger would help him, whereupon a passenger did volunteer to pay his £2 bus fare in cash. He still has the ticket which validates his account of what happened.”

Christian Concern launched a petition asking Home Secretary Sajid Javid to do more to ensure that the police are trained to act within the law:

“A video of street preacher Oluwole Ilesanmi being arrested outside Southgate Underground station has been seen by millions of people worldwide. It’s not the first time a Christian street preacher has been wrongly arrested in the UK. 

“Christian street preachers should be free to share the gospel, even where it means challenging the beliefs of others. 

“The law rightly protects freedom of speech, even if it offends, shocks or disturbs others. But too often, police officers have shown themselves either to be ignorant of this freedom or unwilling to uphold it. This leads to a chilling effect, where people are increasingly unwilling to say what they believe, for fear of arrest.”

Christian Concern CEO Andrea Williams added:

“Despite laws that theoretically support the freedom to preach in public, in practice, police officers are quick to silence preachers after any suggestion (often false) of Islamophobia or homophobia. This is not only unjust but kills free speech through self-censorship. We want to see police officers protect the freedom of street preachers by only using their powers when truly necessary.”

In recent years, dozens of Christians — clergy and non-clergy — in Britain have been arrested or fired from their jobs due to their faith.

Much of the harassment is based on three sections of two British laws that are vague and open to subjective interpretations:

Section 4A (Intentional Harassment, Alarm or Distress) of the Public Order Act 1986: “A person is guilty of an offense if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he — (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior, or disorderly behavior, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.”
Section 5 (Harassment, Alarm or Distress) of the Public Order Act 1986: “A person is guilty of an offense if he — (a) uses threatening or abusive words or behavior, or disorderly behavior, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”
Section 31 (Racially or Religiously Aggravated Public Order Offenses) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998: “A person is guilty of an offense under this section if he commits — (a) an offense under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (fear or provocation of violence); (b) an offense under section 4A of that Act (intentional harassment, alarm or distress); or (c) an offense under section 5 of that Act (harassment, alarm or distress), which is racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of this section.”

Many of those accused of breaking the law had challenged the doctrinal claims of Islam or had made public proclamations of Christian sexual ethics. A free speech clause, tabled by Lord Waddington as section 29JA in the Public Order Act 1986, assures that public criticism of homosexuality or same-sex marriage is lawful.

The amendment to section 29J (Protection of Freedom of Expression (Sexual Orientation)) states:

“(1) In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”
“(2) In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, any discussion or criticism of marriage which concerns the sex of the parties to marriage shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”

Nevertheless, police often use heavy-handed tactics to remove lawful Christian preachers off the streets. Muslim street preachers, by contrast, often are treated more leniently. A video illustrates the double standards being applied by British police with regards to street preaching by Christians and Muslims.

In one instance, a Muslim judge convicted a Christian preacher of a public order offense due to his choice of Bible verses.

District Judge Shamim Ahmed Qureshi, who also serves with the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, the overseer of Britain’s Shariah courts, ruled that Michael Overd, a former British paratrooper who is now a Christian street preacher, should not have quoted a passage from Leviticus Chapter 20, which calls for the death penalty for Israelites who engage in sodomy.

Qureshi said that Overd should instead have used Leviticus 18:22, which merely describes homosexual practice as an “abomination.” Overd later noted: “I am amazed that the judge sees it as his role to dictate which parts of the Bible can and can’t be preached.”

Conservative Party MP Sir John Hayes recently warned that “the ‘golden era’ of religious liberty may be coming to an end.” He explained:

“Religious believers are, once again, facing increased pressure to restrict their faith to the ‘private sphere.’ We now see regular, and increasingly unapologetic, persecution of Christians who remain committed to biblical teaching, refusing to bow to liberal, secular orthodoxies.”

Following is the first of a three-part series which examines the persecution of Christians in Britain. Part 1 documents efforts to remove street preachers from the public square. Part 2 examines the persecution in Britain of ordinary Christians in the workplace. Part 3 documents hostility to Christianity in the British culture.

Gatestone Institute has documented more than two dozen cases in which street preachers have been unlawfully arrested, jailed and or harassed by British police, prosecutors and the judiciary:

July 2018. London. Alan Coote, a 55-year-old Christian street preacher, was arrested outside St. Paul’s Cathedral for “breaching the peace” after reading aloud from the Bible. Coote had been arguing for what he said is his legal right to preach outside the cathedral.

Martin Parsons of the Barnabas Fund, a Christian charity, said:

“This illustrates the slippery slope down which the UK is losing its heritage of religious freedom. One of the first aspects of freedom of religion to be established in England was the freedom to read the Bible in public. St Paul’s is trying to stop someone reading the Sermon on the Mount in public.”

St Paul’s Cathedral staff eventually relented, but only to the extent that they offered to allow Coote to preach on the site for half an hour each week.

The Telegraph noted that the cathedral staff’s treatment of Coote is very different to when, in 2011, St Paul’s Cathedral hosted anti-capitalism protesters as they set up camp outside the church for over three months.

At the time, the cathedral’s Canon Chancellor, Giles Fraser, gave the demonstrators a warm welcome and affirmed their right to protest. He asked police to move off the steps of the cathedral.

March 2018. Barking, London. David Lynn, a Christian pastor from Canada, was arrested outside Barking underground station after a female passer-by told officers that he made homophobic comments. He was later released without charge after police admitted they were wrong to detain him.

December 2017. Camberley, Surrey. David Barker and Stephen Wan, two Christian street preachers from Reading, were charged with hate speech after hecklers told police that they had made homophobic comments.

On January 15, 2018, the two men were cleared of all charges after police determined that they had not said the things they were accused of saying.

July 2017. Nottingham. Andrew Frost, a Christian street preacher, was arrested in the city center after allegedly entering into a discussion with two passers-by about homosexuality.

The two men claimed that Frost had verbally abused them and directed several lewd comments at them, all of which he denied. Frost was charged under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Nottingham Magistrates’ Court proclaimed Frost not guilty and ordered the repayment of his legal fees.

June 2017. Lincoln, Lincolnshire. Daniel Courney, an American missionary, was arrested in the High Street quarter after a Muslim passer-by told police that he had made Islamophobic comments. He was charged under Section 5 Public Order Act 1986. On September 14, 2017, the Lincoln Magistrates’ Court convicted Courney of using “threatening and discriminatory language.”

During Courney’s appeal at Lincoln Crown Court, his attorneys argued that the law provides the freedom for him to preach the Christian message, a freedom which has been upheld in the courts for many years.

Courney also denied making the Islamophobic comments attributed to him. On December 8, 2017, the Crown Court overturned the Magistrates’ Court’s sentence.

June 2017. Southwark, London. Ian Sleeper, a Christian street preacher, was arrested outside Southwark Cathedral, after displaying a placard which read, “Love Muslims Hate Islam Time For The Truth.”

He was subsequently released on bail after the Crown Prosecution Service could not decide whether to charge him. After having been on bail for six weeks, the police decided to take no further action against him. Sleeper, who owns a restaurant in Ashford and employs Muslims, said:

“Society needs to kick political correctness into the long grass and be unafraid to criticize Islam. It was political correctness and an abuse of my rights under the law that got me detained in a police cell for 13 hours.
“I differentiate between Muslims the people and Islam the ideology. I love my Muslim neighbor as the Bible commands, and I am friends with all my Muslim staff. But I hate the religion’s ideology. It is not Muslims we should be attacking, it’s Islam. Islam makes Muslims victims with a tight grip that holds them captive to an evil ideology.
“The majority of people we engage with on the street agree with us. This includes ex-Muslims as well as Muslims. Many Muslims fear that they are unable to speak up against and leave Islam, but I have had the privilege of meeting ex-Muslims on the street and am often joined by them in my protest.”

March 2017. Bristol. Michael Overd and Michael Stockwell, two Christian street preachers, were convicted at Bristol Magistrates’ Court of disorderly conduct and using “threatening and abusive words…likely to cause alarm.”

In July 2016, Overd and Stockwell were arrested for preaching at Bristol’s Broadmead Shopping Center. Several hecklers who appeared to be supportive of Islam became loud and aggressive, with some swearing and hurling abuse.

There was debate on several points, especially over the differences between Islam and Christianity. At the time Overd and Stockwell were arrested, a police officer chided one of the men, saying, “People were getting angry.

You were challenging homophobia [sic]. You were challenging Muslims.” The officer accused them of “anti-social behavior.”

Andrea Williams of the Christian Legal Center filed an appeal:

“The Bible and its teachings are the foundation of our society and provided many of the freedoms and protections that we still enjoy today. So it is extraordinary that the prosecution, speaking on behalf of the state, could say that the Bible contains abusive words which, when spoken in public, constitute a criminal offense.”

During the trial, Crown Prosecutor Ian Jackson argued that biblical claims about the unique, salvific role and divine nature of Jesus Christ were offensive. As a result, Jackson argued, quoting parts of the Bible in public should be considered criminal offenses under Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

At an appeal hearing at Bristol Crown Court in June 2017, Michael Phillips, an attorney for Overd and Stockwell, emphasized the importance of freedom of speech, even in cases where the speaker does not necessarily hold the views being expressed.

Another attorney, Paul Diamond, argued that there is no right not to be exposed to contrary ideas, adding that should passers-by not wish to hear the preaching, they are able to walk away. Bristol Crown Court agreed and acquitted Overd and Stockwell of all charges.

July 2016. Irvine, Scotland. Gordon Larmour, a Scottish evangelist, was arrested after he answered questions from a gay teenager about the Christian view on homosexual practice.

Larmour, who often visits Irvine to offer Christian leaflets to passers-by, referred to the Book of Genesis and stated that God created Adam and Eve to produce children. Larmour’s answers angered the young man, who called police and told them that Larmour had made “homophobic” remarks.

Larmour was arrested and charged with behaving in a “threatening and abusive manner aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation” and “assault.” In January 2017, Kilmarnock Sheriff Court found Larmour “not guilty” after Sheriff Alistair Watson established that the evidence against him was unconvincing.

Larmour told the Scottish Mail on Sunday:

“The police didn’t listen to me. They took the young homosexual guy’s side straight away and read me my rights.
“I feel they try so hard to appear like they are protecting minorities, they go too far the other way. I want to be able to tell people the good word of the gospel and think I should be free to do so. I wasn’t speaking my opinions — I was quoting from the Bible.
“I think the police should have handled it differently and listened to what I had to say. They should have calmed the boy down and left it at that.
“In court the boy’s friend told the truth — that I hadn’t assaulted him or called him homophobic names. I had simply answered his question and told him about Adam and Eve and Heaven and Hell. Preaching from the Bible is not a crime.”

December 2015. Beverley, Yorkshire. Michael Jones, a 66-year-old Christian street preacher, was arrested for Islamophobia. He was accused of shouting “Muslims are terrorists, they should not be allowed in this country,” “Islam is not a religion, Islam is terrorism” and “Islam does not preach the Bible, it’s not religion, it’s terrorism.”

A recording of his sermon revealed that he had not said the words he was accused of saying. In February 2016, the Crown Prosecution Service dropped all charges against Jones.

August 2015. Belfast. James McConnell, a 78-year-old Christian pastor in Northern Ireland, appeared at Laganside Magistrates’ Court in Belfast, after local Muslims complained that he delivered a sermon in which he described Islam as “heathen” and “satanic.”

According to Northern Ireland’s Public Prosecution Service (PPS), McConnell — whose sermon was streamed live on the internet — violated the 2003 Communications Act by “sending, or causing to be sent, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message or other matter that was grossly offensive.”

In January 2016, McConnell was acquitted after Belfast Magistrates’ Court Judge Liam McNally ruled that his comments did not reach the “high threshold” of being “grossly offensive.”

McConnell summed it up this way:

“Islam is allowed to come to this country, Islam is allowed to worship in this country, Islam is allowed to preach in this country and they preach hate. And for years we are not allowed to give a tract out, we are not allowed in Islam, we are not allowed to preach the gospel. We are persecuted in Islam if we stand for Jesus Christ.”

April 2015. Hereford. Andrew Geuter, a Christian street preacher, was arrested after he was wrongly accused of making homophobic comments by a member of the public. He was held for five hours, during which time he was interviewed before being released on conditional bail. The police later determined to take no action due to insufficient evidence.

March 2015. Taunton, Somerset. Michael Overd, a Christian street preacher, was convicted of a public order offense for quoting a Bible passage condemning homosexuality. He was fined £200. District Judge Shamim Ahmed Qureshi, a Muslim, told Overd he could instead have chosen another Bible passage deemed by the judge to be less offensive.

After the trial, Overd said:

“I am amazed that the judge sees it as his role to dictate which parts of the Bible can and can’t be preached. I did not quote the full text of Leviticus 20 or make reference to the death penalty, but the judge is telling me that I should use other parts of the Bible. This is not free speech but censorship. The judge is redacting the Bible.

“I have been ordered to pay compensation for causing ’emotional pain’ to someone who approached me aggressively demanding to debate the issue. There was no harm, injury or theft, just a simple disagreement over theology which I have now been fined for.”

The President of the National Secular Society, Terry Sanderson, said that the ruling appeared to make the quoting of certain passages of the Bible illegal. “Whilst we all want to encourage public civility, there is a higher principle at stake,” he said. “As long as there is no incitement to violence, then people should be allowed to speak freely without fearing legal repercussions.”

On December 11, 2015, Overd won an appeal against his public order conviction for using the “wrong” Bible verse in public. Circuit Judge David Ticehurst, sitting at Taunton Crown Court, ruled that the Crown Prosecution Service failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the conviction.

Overd said:

“Today the Court was faced with the farcical situation of a witness telling the judge that he couldn’t even remember what I had said, but simply asserting that it was ‘homophobic’ — as though the mere assertion that something is ‘homophobic’ is enough to curtail free speech.

“In this country, we are now in the ludicrous situation where the slightest accusation of a ‘phobia,’ be it ‘homophobia’ or ‘Islamophobia,’ is enough to paralyze rational action by the police and authorities. The highly politicized dogma of ‘phobias’ now too often results in trumped up charges and legal action. There is a chilling effect.

“Reasonable, law-abiding people now feel that they can’t say certain things and that is dangerous. Totalitarian regimes develop when ordinary people feel that there are certain things that can’t be said.

“Rather than prizing freedom of expression and protecting it, the police and the prosecutors risk undermining it, because they’ve become paranoid about anyone who might possibly feel offended.”

February 2014. Banbury. Bill Edwards, a 73-year-old street preacher, was arrested outside Banbury Magistrates’ Court after some people inside the building found his preaching “offensive.” He was taken to a nearby police station, where he was grabbed by six officers and pinned to the floor.

In February 2014, Oxford Magistrates’ Court cleared Edwards, a former teacher, of all charges. An application for a restraining order to prevent Edwards from preaching outside Banbury Court House was refused; he was reimbursed for his travel expenses.

September 2013. Perth, Scotland. Josh Williamson, a Christian street preacher, was arrested twice in one week for breaching the peace.

In an interview with The Scotsman, Williamson explained:

“The officer told me to stop as I was breaking the law. I asked him what law I was breaking and he replied that I was in breach of the peace. When I asked him to explain, he pointed to my mp3 recorder and said I was too loud. I pointed out to the officer that I wasn’t using amplification, but just my natural voice. I then asked him what a reasonable sound level would be. The police officer replied that the noise level isn’t the issue, but rather that a complaint had been made. I tried to reason with the officer, explaining that such argumentation is subjective as anyone can claim anything is too loud. After a few more minutes I was placed in the back of a police van.”

September 2013. Basildon, Essex. Rob Hughes, a 38-year-old street preacher, was arrested and jailed after he was accused by a lesbian bystander of engaging in hate speech against homosexuals. The woman in question had earlier confronted Hughes shouting that she was “gay and proud” then proceeding to tell him to “get down off your pedestal, you judgmental ****. Homophobia is not in this town.”

Hughes, who had recorded everything he said while preaching, explained that he had said nothing about the issue of homosexuality and asked that her request not to be judged be extended also to him. He was later released and informed that no further action would be taken due to insufficient evidence.

In May 2015, as part of an out-of-court settlement, Hughes received £2,500 and a contribution towards his legal fees for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and breach of his human rights.

August 2013. London. Dominic Muir, a Christian street preacher, was arrested for preaching in the Battersea Park area. A police officer asked Muir if he had obtained permission to preach in the area. When he responded that he did not, he was told that he would be prosecuted. The council alleged that Muir had breached little-used by-laws which ban street preaching in certain parts of the borough.

In September 2013, during the first hearing at Richmond upon Thames Magistrates’ Court, Muir entered a not guilty plea. The council subsequently dropped the case against Muir.

July 2013. London. Tony Miano, an American evangelist, was arrested and jailed during the Wimbledon Championships while preaching on the street about sexual immorality. He was part of Sports Fan Outreach International, an evangelistic effort in England to share the Gospel with attendees of the annual Wimbledon tennis tournament.

Approximately a dozen or more men and women were on the streets preaching, distributing tracts and engaging in one-on-one conversation with spectators. Miano, a retired Los Angeles County Sheriff, was preaching about sexual immorality from the book of First Thessalonians when a female passer-by became agitated by his message and began to curse.

She then called the police to complain. Moments later, officers arrived and notified Miano that he had allegedly violated Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which prohibits public language that is threatening or insulting. After being booked, photographed and fingerprinted, he was released without charge.

February 2012. Inverness, Scotland. Kenneth Macdonald, a well-known evangelist, was cleared of behaving in an abusive manner while preaching the gospel in Inverness city center. In January 2011, a shopkeeper had falsely accused Macdonald of harassing passers-by. After more than a year of legal proceedings, Macdonald was acquitted.

September 2011. Manchester. John Craven, a Christian street preacher, was arrested and jailed for reading from the Bible after two gay teenagers asked him about his views on homosexuality. He added that “whilst God hates sin, He loves the sinner.”

The teens then began to kiss in front of him and perform sexual acts. They then reported Craven to a nearby mounted police constable, who placed him under arrest for “public order offenses.” After spending 19 hours in jail, police told him there would be no charges and no further action.

In March 2014, Craven was awarded £13,000 in compensation after a three-year legal battle against Greater Manchester Police estimated to have cost taxpayers £50,000.

December 2010. Birmingham. Anthony Rollins, an autistic Christian street preacher who was arrested for speaking out against homosexuality, was awarded £4,250 in damages following a court case against West Midlands Police.

Birmingham County Court ruled that Police Constable Adrian Bill committed assault and battery against Rollins when he handcuffed him unnecessarily.

The court also ruled that Rollins was wrongfully arrested, unlawfully detained and his human rights to free speech and religious liberty were infringed. The court ordered the police to pay Rollins’ legal costs.

April 2010. Workington, Cumbria. Dale McAlpine, a 42-year-old Christian street preacher, was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a homosexual police officer overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same-sex relationships.

McAlpine said that he did not mention homosexuality while delivering his sermon but admitted telling a passer-by that he believed it was against the word of God.

Police officers alleged that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act. McAlpine was taken to the police station and locked in a cell for seven hours. Prosecutors later dropped the case due to a lack of evidence.

March 2010. Glasgow. Shawn Holes, a 47-year-old American street preacher, was fined £1,000 for “uttering homophobic remarks” that were “aggravated by religious prejudice.” Holes, a New Yorker who was touring Britain with colleagues, was arrested by police while responding to questions from people in Glasgow City Center.

He said later:

“There were homosexuals listening – around six or eight of them – who were kissing each other and cuddling, and asking ‘What do you think of this?’ It felt like a set-up by gay campaigners. When asked directly about homosexuality, I told them homosexuals risked the wrath of God unless they accepted Christ.”

Holes said that he had no choice but to admit the charge at Glasgow Sheriff Court because he wanted to fly home to see his wife, and his father, who is in a hospice. However, he said he had expected to be fined only about £100.

August 2009. Manchester. Miguel Hayworth and his father, John Hayworth, two street preachers, were accused by police of inciting religious and racial hatred for reading from the Bible and handing out tracts at St. Ann’s Square. Miguel Hayworth said:

“At 2 pm, I was approached on more than one occasion by several police officers who falsely accused me, stating that I was inciting hatred with homophobic and racial comments. One plain-clothed officer, who was with the other two uniformed officers, said: ‘It is against the law to preach and hand out tracts: preaching causes offense and handing out tracts is harassment and could result in an arrest.'”

Hayworth said that at about 2.30 pm another officer warned him that he could be arrested and that his actions were being filmed and recorded. He stopped preaching. Critics claimed that a Muslim preaching Islam in the street would not have been treated in such a way by police.

Original Source: Date-stamped: 2019 MAR 19 | Time-stamped: 5:00 | Author: Soeren Kern | Article Title: Britain's War on Christianity: Part I  Article Link: gatestoneinstitute.org

2018 DEC 05: Australia: Imam in court over marriage ceremony involving 14-year-old girl 

It is no surprise that an imam would be involved in this. Islamic tradition records that Muhammad consummated his marriage with (i.e., raped) Aisha when she was nine, and the resultant fact that child marriage is accepted in wide swaths of the Islamic world. Child marriage has abundant attestation in Islamic tradition and law.

Turkey’s directorate of religious affairs (Diyanet) said in January 2018 that under Islamic law, girls as young as nine can marry.

“Islam has no age barrier in marriage and Muslims have no apology for those who refuse to accept this”

“There is no minimum marriage age for either men or women in Islamic law. The law in many countries permits girls to marry only from the age of 18. This is arbitrary legislation, not Islamic law.”

There is no minimum age for marriage and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.”

“Islam does not forbid marriage of young children.”

Hadiths that Muslims consider authentic record that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was six when Muhammad wedded her and nine when he consummated the marriage:
Note: (In Australia this is Paedophilia & Criminal Offence which attracts long prison sentences

“The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari 7.62.88).

Another tradition has Aisha herself recount the scene:

The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bukhari 5.58.234).


Marrying young girls was not all that unusual for its time, but because in Islam Muhammad is the supreme example of conduct (cf. Qur’an 33:21), he is considered exemplary in this unto today.

And so in April 2011, the Bangladesh Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini declared that those trying to pass a law banning child marriage in that country were putting Muhammad in a bad light:

Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam, [putting] the moral character of the prophet into controversy and challenge.” He added a threat: “Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to women.

The Mufti said that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice their lives for any law restricting child marriage.

Likewise the influential website Islamonline.com in December 2010 justified child marriage by invoking not only Muhammad’s example, but the Qur’an as well:

The Noble Qur’an has also mentioned the waiting period [i.e. for a divorced wife to remarry] for the wife who has not yet menstruated, saying:

“And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women, if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated” [Qur’an 65:4].

Since this is not negated later, we can take from this verse that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl. The Qur’an is not like the books of jurisprudence which mention what the implications of things are, even if they are prohibited. It is true that the prophet entered into a marriage contract with A’isha when she was six years old, however he did not have sex with her until she was nine years old, according to al-Bukhari.

Other countries make Muhammad’s example the basis of their laws regarding the legal marriageable age for girls.

Islamic Republic of Iran Ayatollah Khomeini lowered the legal marriageable age of girls to nine.

Article 1041 of the Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that girls can be engaged before the age of nine, and married at nine: “Marriage before puberty (nine full lunar years for girls) is prohibited.

Marriage contracted before reaching puberty with the permission of the guardian is valid provided that the interests of the ward are duly observed.”

According to Amir Taheri in The Spirit of Allah: Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution (pp. 90-91), Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight.

Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful to give their own daughters away accordingly: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.”

When he took power in Iran, he lowered the legal marriageable age of girls to nine, in accord with Muhammad’s example.

Original Source for Article Above: Date-stamped: 2018 DEC 05 | Time-stamped: 4:24 PM | Author: Robert Spencer | Article Title: Australia: Imam in court over marriage ceremony involving 14-year-old girl | Article Link: jihadwatch.org

Article Link: The Australian
Date-stamped: 2018 DEC 04.
Author: Tessa Akerman

Article Lead In: An imam who conducted a marriage ceremony between a 14-year-old girl and 34-year-old man has lost his Court of Appeal bid to overturn his conviction.

Ibrahim Omerdic (pictured)

Ibrahim Omerdic was the imam at the Bosnia and Herzegovina Islamic Centre in Noble Park, in Melbourne’s east, when he solemnised the marriage in October 2016.

He contested the charge in the Melbourne Magistrates Court last year, arguing he had only conducted a religious blessing or “Nikah”.

He was convicted and sentenced to two months’ imprisonment but released immediately with a two-year recognisance order.

Omerdic appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court in October last year, claiming the magistrate could not have reasonably found the ceremony was completed or that he had intended to perform a marriage.

The appeal was dismissed in April this year and Omerdic appealed against the decision in the Victorian Court of Appeal, claiming again that it was not a marriage under the Marriage Act and the ceremony was not completed.

Justices Kim Hargrave, Terry Forrest and Karin Emerton this morning found non-compliance with the formal requirements of the Marriage Act did not affect the solemnisation of a marriage.

“A celebrant can intend to solemnise a marriage while having no intention whatsoever of complying with the Marriage Act notice or certification requirements,” the court said in its judgment.

“Moreover, the applicant’s attempt to draw a distinction between an ‘Australian marriage’ and a Nikah is spurious in circumstances where he told the informant that the ceremony for a marriage and the ceremony for a Nikah are the same, except that he does not require ID for the latter,” the court said in its judgment….

2018 DEC 05 FACTS: Saudi’s ~ jihad violence, hatred of Jews and Christians, death for apostasy

JUST IN CASE YOU DID NOT KNOW: Saudi textbooks teach jihad violence, hatred of Jews and Christians, death for apostasy

David Andrew Weinberg of the Anti-Defamation League presents the Saudi textbook material as if it were some aberration, a manifestation of Saudi “extremism.” In reality, however, it’s standard Islam.

“This academic year, once again Saudi Arabia’s high school monotheism textbooks teach that infidels such as Jews and Christians arethe enemies of Islam and its peopleand that proper observance of Islam requires ‘abhorring the infidels’ and ‘enmity’ toward them.

“You will surely find the most intense of the people in enmity toward the believers to be the Jews and those who associate others with Allah…” (Qur’an 5:82)

“There has already been for you an excellent pattern in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, ‘Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah. We have denied you, and there has appeared between us and you animosity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone.’” (Qur’an 60:4)

“These textbooks characterize Shiite Muslims — like those who make up the majority in Iran — as polytheists and declare that Jews, Christians, and polytheists are “the most evil of creatures.

“Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the most vile of creatures.” (Qur’an 98:6)

“Saudi Arabia’s current high school religion textbooks also call for violence against such people.

One textbook urges ‘fighting the infidels and polytheists’ except under limited extenuating circumstances. Another, this one on the subject of sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, calls for jihad through ‘battling with the infidels by proselytizing them and fighting them.’”

A hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…. If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294.)

“Another teaches the importance of ‘exposing the People of the Book,’ meaning Jews and Christians, and ‘urging to fight them.’”

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, and do not forbid what has been forbidden by Allah and his messenger, and do not acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

“But Jews — who are described in the textbooks as devious, deceptive schemers…”

“And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, ‘This is from Allah,’ but it is not from Allah. And they speak untruth about Allah while they know.” (Qur’an 3:78)

“One Saudi textbook advocates the beating of women, teaching that it is ‘a means of discipline’ and ‘permitted when necessary.’”

“Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.” (Qur’an 4:34)


“The kingdom’s introductory high school textbook on Islamic jurisprudence teaches that the penalty for adultery is death by stoning and that people who engage in anal sex or who mock or convert away from Islam should also be killed.

STONING FOR ADULTERY: “Umar said, ‘I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.”’ Sufyan added, ‘I have memorized this narration in this way.’ Umar added, ‘Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.’” (Bukhari 8.82.816)

ANAL SEX: “The Prophet said: If anyone resorts to a diviner and believes in what he says (according) to the version of Musa), or has intercourse with his wife (according to the agreed version) when she is menstruating, or has intercourse with his wife through her anus, he has nothing to do with what has been sent down to Muhammad – according to the version of Musaddad.” (Sunan Abu Dawud 3904)

CONVERTING AWAY FROM ISLAM: a hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Bukhari 9.84.57)

MOCKING ISLAM: “Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.” (Sunan Abu Dawud 4349)


Original Source: Date-stamped: 2018 DEC 04 | Time-stamped: 1400 | Author: Robert Spencer | Article Title: Saudi textbooks teach jihad violence, hatred of Jews and Christians, death for apostasy| Article Link: jihadwatch.org


1.0: Article Title: Saudi textbooks still foment hate: The kingdom’s education materials are rife with anti-Semitism and calls to hurt Shiites, gays, women and more  Article Link: nydailynews.com Author: David Andrew Weinberg Date Published: 2018 NOV 30  | 5:00 AM

2.0: Article Title: Saudi Textbooks Still Foment Hate: The Kingdom’s Education Materials Are Rise with Anti-Semitism and Calls to Hurt Shiites, Gays, Women and More  Article Link: lasvegas.adl.org Author: David Weinberg | Washington Representative for International Affairs Date Published: 2018 DEC 04

Australia: Muslims defy court order to demolish illegal religious compound, say they’re not bound by Australian law.

Mustapha Kara-Ali is basing his claim to be above Australian law on Australian law:

“The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) Act 2012 stipulates that when it is carrying out religious activities that are related to the practice, study, teaching or propagation of its religious beliefs, or other activities ancillary to them … Diwan Al Dawla, as a basic religious charity is not required to comply with Australian laws.”

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) refutes his claim, but in any case it isn’t surprising that Kara-Ali would make the attempt.

The Qur’an tells Muslims:

You are the best nation produced for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong” (3:110), and says that unbelievers are “the most vile of created beings” (98:6).

So why should one of the best of people have to submit to the laws of the most vile of created beings? Note also that he calls Australian officials “monkeys,” an epithet given to the disobedient Jews in the Qur’an (7:166).

“EXCLUSIVE: Still thumbing their noses at the law: Muslim brothers haven’t demolished their illegal religious hideaway months after being ordered to tear it down,” by Stephen Gibbs, Daily Mail Australia, December 3, 2018 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Two Muslim brothers ordered to demolish an illegal religious compound north of Sydney have done almost nothing to abide by court orders made three months ago.

Mustapha and Diaa Kara-Ali were told to stop all work on the bushland hideaway at Colo in the Hawkesbury region but instead erected more buildings on the site.

On August 27 the Land and Environment Court ordered the pair to demolish and remove sheds, slabs, fences and every other structure they had illegally built on the property within 28 days.

Justice Terry Sheahan’s orders were ignored and the brothers now face jail after each pleaded guilty to four counts of contempt.

Photographs taken last Friday compared with pictures taken in August show the Kara-Ali brothers continued to undertake work at the Putty Road site after the orders were made….

Last month a lawyer for the brothers said they had removed religious signage from the property as well as flags and flagpoles. Little else seems to have been done to comply with Justice Sheahan’s orders….

The Kara-Ali brothers had previously said they would not obey Australia law and indicated they would refuse to abide by any court rulings over their religious retreat.

They refused to acknowledge legal action brought by Hawkesbury City Council and for months ignored all orders of the Land and Environment Court.

He and Diaa refused to attend the court because they did not recognise its authority.

The brothers maintained their resolve after Justice Sheahan found they had undertaken land clearing and earthworks in breach of planning laws and had built structures without approval.

Because of the religious symbolism of the court, that contradicts with my religion,’ Mustapha Kara-Ali said. ‘For my religion to be free I can’t be dictated to by another religion.’…

The Kara-Alis were building the retreat under the auspices of the Diwan Al Dawla Islamic guild, which bought the property for $670,000 in May last year….

The council launched civil action against the brothers alleging they had carried out illegal land clearing and earthworks and built gates, fences and driveways without approval.

The brothers agreed they had not sought approval for the work and said they had no intention of doing so because they did not recognise Australian law.

My main issue is the interference between the secular and the religious,’ Mustapha Kara-Ali said.

‘What we are saying in a nutshell is the country of Australia is entrenched in secular symbolism and religious symbolism that stretches back to the time of the Crusades.

‘This means that this government is not secular. It is religious because it carries these symbols.

‘And we refuse for pagan symbols such as crosses to be on top of our lives.

‘Remove these religious symbols and we can talk about secular government. But not now. For us, this is religious freedom.’

The imam said if government bodies tried to enforce their rules upon him he would resist. ‘I tell you what, people like us will say our God is supreme.’

Dr Kara-Ali believed his guild members were being treated as ‘violent ragheads that know nothing about the world.’

‘We believe in our cause. We believe we are pioneers of religious freedom in this country.

‘It is our way to disconnect. We want to disconnect. We want to be left alone.’

The court heard the conflict turned ugly in July when three council officers attended the property to serve papers on the Kara-Ali brothers. A dashcam video tendered to the court showed the pair confront the officers.

‘Both men were repeatedly yelling obscenities from the other side of the gate, calling out, “You dogs, I step on your cross”, one of the council officers alleged.

However, Dr Kara-Ali said he and his brother were intimidated by the actions of the ‘violent monkeys’ and anyone could enter the site as long as they did not do so under a cross.

Dr Kara-Ali wrote to Hawkesbury City Council in March explaining another reason why he believed government had no authority over his group.

‘The Colo Wilderness site is a religious site that is owned by the members of Diwan Al Dawla for the carrying out of religious activities of devotion, self-discipline, ritual baptism, inter-community prayers, contemplation and religious study, he wrote.

‘The Land with its Colo River access serves as a reclusive place of worship.’

‘Members of Diwan al Dawla… live as a religious guild separated from secular lifetsyles to pursue a religious mode of worship to and an ascetic lifestyle under an oath of self-sacrifice and dedication to the purpose of Diwan Al Dawla.’

Dr Kara-Ali contended Hawkesbury City Council had no power to tell Diwan Al Dawla what to do because it is a ‘basic religious charity’ registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for profits Commission (ACNC).

‘Charities who meet the definition of Basic Religious Charity do not have to submit annual financial reports, and they do not have to comply with the ACNC governance standards which include… “Compliance with Australian laws”,’ Dr Kara-Ali wrote.

According to the imam, that also put his guild above the law….

Original Source: Date-stamped: 2018 DEC 03 | Time-stamped: 10:40 am | Author: Robert Spencer | Article Title: Australia: Muslims defy court order to demolish illegal religious compound, say they’re not bound by Australian law | Article Link: jihadwatch.org

Go To Jail: Robert Mueller Forfeit All Pensions And Government Privileges (TREASON = MILITARY COURTS)


……..(Main Players were Obama / Clinton’s / Mueller / Rosenstein for the sale of Uranium to Russia: Mueller was FBI director, one of the
……..members of an interagency committee working under the Obama administration facilitated this sale

……..ie (to spy on Candidate Trump etc)
……..(aka. Mueller Russia investigation in elections To Bring Down The Incumbent President Since Day One)

Breaking: Mueller Withheld Exculpatory Evidence from Court to Exonerate Trump – Mueller LIED to the Court!… Will He Be Sent to Jail Too?


Is justice still alive in America? Will Robert Mueller see jail time?

A new report by journalist Paul Sperry says conflicted Robert Mueller withheld evidence from the court that would exonerate President Trump from the latest accusations of Russian collusion during the 2016 election.


Mueller withheld information to the court that would exonerate President Trump.

Will Mueller be tossed in prison for lying?

Or do only Trump associates got to jail for lying to the court?

FACT: Dirty Cop Robert Mueller LIED to the court!

EXTRACT BELOW: (For Trump, Cohen Plea Deal’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Exoneration) By Paul Sperry, RealClear Investigations
December 03, 2018

Contrary to media speculation that Robert Mueller is closing in on President Trump, the special prosecutor’s plea deal with Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen offers further evidence that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russians during the 2016 election, according to congressional investigators and former prosecutors.

Cohen pleaded guilty last week to making false statements in 2017 to the Senate intelligence committee about the Trump Organization’s failed efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Discussions about the so-called Moscow Project continued five months longer in 2016 than Cohen had initially stated under oath.

The nine-page charging document filed with the plea deal suggests that the special counsel is using the Moscow tower talks to connect Trump to Russia. But congressional investigators with House and Senate committees leading inquiries on the Russia question told RealClear Investigations that it looks like Mueller withheld from the court details that would exonerate the president. They made this assessment in light of the charging document, known as a statement of “criminal information” (filed in lieu of an indictment when a defendant agrees to plead guilty); a fuller accounting of Cohen’s emails and text messages that Capitol Hill sources have seen; and the still-secret transcripts of closed-door testimony provided by a business associate of Cohen.

On page 7 of the statement of criminal information filed against Cohen, which is separate from but related to the plea agreement, Mueller mentions that Cohen tried to email Russian President Vladimir Putin’s office on Jan. 14, 2016, and again on Jan. 16, 2016. But Mueller, who personally signed the document, omitted the fact that Cohen did not have any direct points of contact at the Kremlin, and had resorted to sending the emails to a general press mailbox. Sources who have seen these additional emails point out that this omitted information undercuts the idea of a “back channel” and thus the special counsel’s collusion case.

Read the rest (For Trump, Cohen Plea Deal’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Exoneration).

The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS (1400 Years) “Have we Learnt Yet”

Editor’s note: Below are the video and transcript of remarks given by Robert Spencer at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 2018 Restoration Weekend. The event was held Nov. 15th-18th at the Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, Florida.

Transcript: Below

Thank you very much, and yes indeed:

The History of Jihad[1]see URL https://www.amazon.com/dp/1682616592/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520858729 is the first book that chronicles the entirety of the phenomenon of jihad for 1,400 years. Not just the jihad against Europe, although that’s very much a part of the book, but also the jihad against India and the jihad elsewhere, also tying in the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is itself a jihad, and of course, the people who struck us on 9/11 were motivated by the exact same ideology that has motivated the jihad conquests of the distant past and is still with us very much today. 

Of course, one of the reasons why anybody is interested in reading history or studying history is because of the old adage “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” More to the point, really, is that if you do not learn from your mistakes, you keep making the same mistakes again and again and again. That’s U.S. foreign policy today, because of, in large part, a lack of awareness and understanding of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat and of a complete lack of knowledge of the history of jihad. 


So I thought this morning very briefly I’d give you three lessons from history that could have a very great impact on foreign policy today in the United States, were there to be sanity in the State Department, which, of course, I know is at a premium.

Now, the first one is that nowhere in history, and this is something to bear in mind when you’re thinking about the case of Jamal Khashoggi, who is, of course, the sainted and martyred journalist who was killed by the Saudis. He was actually a pro-Al Qaeda Muslim Brotherhood operative who was killed by the Saudis, so there are no good guys in that story. 

But in light of it, it is important to remember that when you look through and examine and study the history of Islam for 1,400 years, there has never been a lasting alliance between a Muslim state and a non‑Muslim state. It would be nice if there had been. There were some sort-term alliances of convenience, but that’s another problem as well.


(JIHAD IMPERATIVE: Even whilst in alliance the Ottomans never gave up trying to destroy the Byzantine Empire.)

For example, John VI Kantakouzenos was a Byzantine emperor in the middle of the 14th century. There was a claimant to the Byzantine imperial throne who disputed his claim, so he asked his pal, the Ottoman sultan, to help him by sending some armies into Europe to fight against the rival claimant. 

Very fruitful alliance for John VI Kantakouzenos, except that the Ottomans entered Europe. They have not left yet. 

The Turks still control the area around what was known as the City of Adrianople. That is their claim to be part of the European Union, which they are still pushing. More to the point, the Ottomans never gave up trying to destroy the Byzantine Empire, even though they had made various alliances with not just John VI, but other Byzantine emperors.

The Byzantine emperors were not thinking about the reality of the jihad imperative, that an Islamic state that is avowedly an Islamic state and is dedicated to Islamic principles is going to be aware of the Islamic imperative to wage war against unbelievers, and to conquer and subjugate them. It may well make use of those unbelievers at various points for its own advantage, but it will never be friends with those unbelievers. 



As a matter of, there’s a famous passage in the Koran that says, “Do not take Jews and Christians as your friends.[2]see url: Q5:51 This has often been dismissed by Islamic apologists, who say that doesn’t mean that any individual Muslim won’t be your pal. That it means that an Islamic state must not ally with a non-Muslim state. Well, okay, that’s a lesson in itself as well.

So when we consider Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia finds the United States useful. The United States finds Saudi Arabia useful. President Trump may have some very good reasons right now to maintain the alliance with Saudi Arabia because of his predecessor’s disastrous policies that empowered and enabled and strengthened the Islamic Republic of Iran.

SUNNIS AND SHIA HATE EACH OTHER & They hate infidels more.

Another lesson from history is that Sunnis and Shia hate each other. They hate infidels more, but they do hate each other, and have been waging jihad against each other for 1,400 years, as well as against infidels. 

So the Saudis and the Iranians will never be friends. They will always be rivals. They will always be at odds.

So when Iran was so strengthened and it used the billions that Obama showered upon it to finance Hezbollah and Hamas and Islamic jihad and even Al Qaeda and the Taliban, then the President is right to try to keep the Saudis on our side and make sure that they stand as a bulwark against Iran.

Otherwise, Iranian power could directly threaten the survival of the free world.

The Saudis, however, are not a benign thing. I think that anybody who might have been carried away and thought that Mohammad bin Salman was a genuine reformer ought to have been awakened by the fact that not only was Khashoggi killed, but he’s not the only journalist who the Saudis have recently killed. Mohammad bin Salman has also imprisoned the activists who called for women to be able to drive. So you see, he allowed women to drive, then he arrested everybody who wanted it.

Now, why would he do that? You see, it’s crazy, but he’s not nuts. What he’s doing is trying to present Saudi Arabia as a more benign nation to encourage foreign investment, especially when the long-term trends for oil prices are going down. Then he can attract business into Saudi Arabia, but that doesn’t mean that he wants any dissenters of any kind or any challenges of any kind to the rule of the House of Saud.


That brings me to the second lesson from Islamic history. There has never been a Western-style secular republic that was based on Islamic principles. Now, that is very carefully worded, because Turkey, of course, was a Western-style secular republic up until quite recently. You might have thought it still was, but actually Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the president of Turkey, has been very systematically and persistently dismantling Kemalist secularism and restoring Turkey as an Islamic state. 

One of the ways he did that was to decapitate the military, which had always been the guardians of Turkish secularism. Now, talking about learning the lessons of history, consider this. Secularism was imposed upon Turkey; it was never a ground up, ground roots movement. Talk about astroturfing, it’s an excellent example of it.

What happened was this. Kemal Ataturk, after World War I, though he was unique in the Islamic world, unique in Islamic history, in saying the reason why our country is in the dumpster right now is because of Islam. 

So if we’re going to proper, we need to imitate the nations that have prospered, and that’s the West. So we’re going to limit the power of political Islam and imitate the West. This is the only time this has happened in Islamic history, and he established secular Turkey on that basis. What he did was very popular at the time in Constantinople and Ankara, the two largest cities in Turkey, and not popular at all in the countryside. 

There were several times before Erdogan was elected that other people who wanted to restore Islamic law were elected to positions of power in Turkey. Every time that happened, the military would topple them from power. So the military preserved Turkey as a Western-style secular republic for the large part of the 20th century. Then what happened?

Early in the 21st century, there were very large indications that there was going to be another military coup in Turkey. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned the Turkish military that the United States was the guardian of democracy and would not accept any military coup in Turkey. 

Because of that now, Turkey has become not an ally of the United States, but a rapidly re‑Islamizing nation that directly aided ISIS. 

John Kerry went to Turkey a few years ago when he was Secretary of State and he said, “Could you please stop buying ISIS oil?,” and they refused. Erdogan is famous for having allowed thousands of foreign jihadis to cross through Turkey into the ISIS domains in Iraq and Syria. They would say, “You have to fight ISIS. You’re in NATO. You have to do something about this.” He would say okay, and bomb the Kurds. 

He never fought ISIS, because he wanted to co-opt their caliphate into his own restored caliphate. But since in the State Department they don’t know what a caliphate is, they don’t know anything about history, and they don’t what the pillars of Turkish secularism were, they set this up. They made this happen. That’s what is a classic example of not knowing the past and thus repeating the same mistakes, and being condemned to repeat the same misery all over again.


The third lesson from Islamic history is that there’s never been a shortage of non‑Muslims who are willing to help the jihad. There have always been plenty of them, and it never works out for them. 

Take, for example, the conquest of Spain. All of us in the room here know probably that Spain was conquered by Islamic armies staring in the year 711. They had the whole country conquered by 718 and they ruled it for 700 years until they themselves were – this is one of the few times this has happened in history — pushed out of Spain, and by 1492 Spain was an entirely Christian nation, as it had been before the conquest. But fewer people know how the conquest came about.

What happened was there was a Christian leader, Count Julian of Ceuta. Ceuta is in what is now Morocco, and it’s still a Spanish possession. 

Many of you are no doubt aware that Ceuta and Melilla are two enclaves that are in Morocco, in North Africa, but they’re part of Spain. Right now, they’re being overrun by migrants from Africa, who go and climb the fence in Ceuta, and then they’re in Europe even though they’re not. They’re in North Africa. 

They’re in Spain, and so they are entitled to all the guarantees of protection that the European Union is giving to the migrants. But Count Julian of Ceuta, long ago, he sent his daughter to the court of King Roderick, the Visigothic king of Spain, in order to have her educated. 

But King Roderick, the Visigothic king of Spain, treated interns rather like Bill Clinton did. So Count Julian was enraged and appalled when he heard what had happened. So he went to his friend Tarek ibn Ziyad, who was the leader of the local Muslim region of Morocco right next to Ceuta. He said, “I’ll help you get across the strait,” because this is what had stymied the Muslims. They had boats, but every time they set sail across the Strait of Gibraltar, then they would find that the Spanish would put their defenses up, because they would see them coming. They weren’t moving all that fast in those days.

So Count Julian gave them his boats, so that when the Spanish who were manning the defenses saw them coming they thought, “Oh that’s our friend Count Julian,” and they did not put up their defenses or have the army ready. 

So Tarek ibn Ziyad got to Spain and he decamped his army, and then he had ordered the boats burned, which I think was rather ungracious of him, since they were a loaner. 

But what he was saying was, “We’re here to stay. 

We’re going to stay here. 

We’re going to conquer this place or we’re going to die here, but we’re not going back,” and he conquered Spain courtesy of County Julian.

Interestingly enough, a few years back there was a big controversy some of you may recall in Minneapolis, about a charter school, a public school that got public funds but was essentially a madrassa, an Islamic school. It got public funds and was a public school, but they had Qur’an study. 

They had prayers during school time, and so on. People got wind of this. There was a controversy. Ultimately, the school was shut down although it started right back up again, but that’s another story. 

The controversy was raging all this time, I was puzzled because nobody ever in any of the coverage that I ever saw about the controversy, nobody ever stopped to ask, “Wait, a minute, who is this Tarek ibn Ziyad that the school is named for? 

Why is it called Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy?” 

Tarek ibn Ziyad, remember, was the Muslim conqueror of Spain who burned the boats. Probably anybody in Minneapolis who ever gave it a moment’s thought, thought that he was some Muslim John Dewey or something, some sort of great educator. But in reality, he was the great conqueror of Spain, the guy who burned the boats and said, “We’re here to conquer or die.”

Now, why do you think a Muslim school in Minneapolis would call itself Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy? 

What could be the lesson there? 

What do you think they were trying to say? 

But of course, nobody knows who Tarek ibn Ziyad was, and so nobody thought to ponder the significance of the name. Now in any case, Count Julian was by no means alone in his sponsorship of the Islamic jihad and his aid for its advance. There have been numerous non‑Muslims who have been similarly helpful to the jihad cause throughout history.

Was he Really?

Another primary example came in Arabia at the end of the 18th century and along into the middle of the 19th. 

At that time, Arabia was nominally under the control of the Ottoman Empire. But there came to be a revivalist movement in Arabia at that time, and there was a gentleman who claimed to be the great Muslim reformer. A lot of people say, “We have to put our hopes on Islamic reform and we can hope that Islamic reform will happen, and then all our troubles will be over.” Well, I got news for you. Islamic reform has already happened. It happened it started in the middle part of the 18th century in Arabia. 

This guy said the Ottomans had added all these things into Islam. He was going to strip them out and get back to the basics. He personally stoned an adulteress to death and showed how eager he was in doing so to enforce Islamic law. He got a wide following because he did that. He gained the aid of a local chieftain in Arabia, and they began to make war against the Ottomans and the other Arab chieftains in the area.

[Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab] In the middle of the 19th century, this man’s movement — it became known as the Wahhabi movement because his name was Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and the chieftain who helped him was Ibn Saud who, of course, later became recognized as founder of the Saudi clan which today rules Saudi Arabia. But they were just one of a number rival Arab chieftains at the time, and Muslim preachers who were vying for control of Arabia and all fighting the Ottomans, but they got noticed by the British. 

The British thought, “Hey, we want to fight the Ottomans. We can use these guys,” and it seemed like a good idea, right?

Because the Ottoman Empire is the global caliphate, which is the foremost exponent of offensive and aggressive jihad. So the British started paying money to the Wahhabis in the middle of the 19th century. They sponsored the Saudis to create Saudi Arabia after World War I. They actually decided who was going to be in power in Arabia and gave Jordan to the loser. 

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan — the Hashemites are not from that area. They’re Arabs, Arabians, but they lost the struggle with the Saudis, and so they got Jordan as a consolation prize. The Saudis, meanwhile, struck oil in 1938, and they used their billions to finance this virulent and violent understanding of Islam that Wahhab had originated. They spread it all around the world in areas where a cultural form of Islam had become a little bit more benign. 

Courtesy of the British that we have the revival of global jihad and the creation of jihad terrorist groups in the middle of the 20th century

So it’s really courtesy of the British that we have the revival of global jihad and the creation of jihad terrorist groups in the middle of the 20th century, because had it not been for the British, the Saudis would never have been much of anything and then they would never have been the beneficiaries of the oil strike, and never would have been able to finance the global jihad today. So I think we owe the British government a great debt of gratitude for that.

In any case, I hope that this has briefly made it clear why it’s so important to understand history and particularly this very, very untraveled bit of history, the history of jihad, which I think is one of the most crucial stories of all human history and one of the least known.

So this is one of the reasons why I wrote the book. I’m hoping that there will be a genuine change in the public discussion as a result of some of the things that are made clear in the book, that will in turn themselves make clear that a great deal of our foreign and also domestic policy is based on false assumptions, wrong assumptions, wishful thinking and outright fantasy. Thank you very much.


Original Source: Date-stamped: 2018 NOV 29 | Time-stamped: 4:46 PM  | Author: Robert Spencer | Article Title: Robert Spencer Video: Lessons for Today’s Foreign Policy from 1400 Years of Jihad | Article Link: jihadwatch.org


Original Source: Date-stamped: 2018 NOV 29 | Author: Robert Spencer | Article Title: Robert Spencer At Horowitz'S Restoration Weekend Lessons from 1,400 years of jihad. | Article Link: frontpagemag.com


1 see URL https://www.amazon.com/dp/1682616592/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520858729
2 see url: Q5:51

UK MP’s want “Islamophobia” to be classed as “racism,” [Surely Insanity is on the Loose in the UK Parliament]

UK MP’s call for “Islamophobia” to be classed as “racism,” want to criminalize claims that Islam spread by the sword




The Facts Would Justify the Fear Folks “Islamophobia”

“However, the report cites other arguments from Oxford University student Bertie Vidgen, that ‘giving up the term Islamophobia – and with it the possibility of creating legal instruments to tackle it – simply because of the perceived risk that may limit free speech would be highly misguided.’”

Why is the UK Parliament citing a university student? In any case, Bertie asserts that it “would be highly misguided” to refraining from criminalizing “Islamophobia” “simply because of the perceived risk that may limit free speech.” At least in this article, he does not support his assertion with either evidence or argument. In reality, forbidding criticism of any individual, group or idea in itself means the end of the freedom of speech, as the one rendered immune from criticism is then free to do whatever he, she, or it wants without fear of any opposition at all, and that is the very definition of tyranny.

“University lecturer Ben Whitham highlights ‘the concept of inseparability of race and religion, whereby an attack on the religion cannot be separated from an attack on the race,’ the report also says.”

Ben Whitham


Muslims aren’t only of one race.

There are white people who are fervent believers in Islam, such has Hamas-linked CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper, the late al-Qaeda jihadi Adam Gadahn, the Marin County Taliban John Walker Lindh, North Carolina jihad plotters Justin Sullivan and Donald Ray Morgan, would-be Wichita jihad bomber Terry Lee Loewen, Boston Marathon jihad bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, UK “Sharia patrol” leader Jordan Horner, failed former Brandeis Professor Joseph Lumbard, and many, many others. Is criticizing any of them “racist”?

“Examples of ‘Islamophobia’ listed including claiming it is terrorism to support an independent Palestine, calling Muhammad a paedophile, and ‘claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule.’” [SHAME FOR ISLAM THAT THESE A RE ALL FACTS]

This demonstrates that this entire initiative is a totalitarian war against reality.

The “Palestinian” jihad is inextricably tied to terrorism (scroll the articles here if you doubt that); Islamic sources themselves state that Muhammad raped a nine-year-old girl when he was 54 (evidence here); and Muslims did spread Islam by the sword and subjugated minority groups under their rule. The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS is full of evidence, mostly from Islamic sources, that for 1,400 years, everywhere they went from Spain to India, Muslims spread Islam by the sword and subjugated minority groups under their rule. I challenge Baroness Warsi or anyone else to prove from the historical record that this statement is false. No one, of course, will take up that challenge, because Warsi and her cohorts doubtless know that Muslims did spread Islam by the sword and subjugate minority groups under its rule.

Yet now they’re seeking to criminalize stating this truth. If Britain implements this proposal, it will be officially dead as a free society. This has been a long time coming, and is perhaps inevitable at this point.

“UK Lawmakers Call for ‘Islamophobia’ to Be Officially Classed as Racism,”
by Liam Deacon, Breitbart, November 27, 2018:

A group of British Parliamentarians have demanded “Islamophobia” be officially classed as a form of racism in the UK, claiming the country is deeply prejudiced and unfair towards Muslims.

The new parliamentary report blames “prevalent” Islamophobia for divisions, hate crimes, and even terror attacks. It also appears to reject claims criminalising comments about Islam will restrict free speech and calls for an official definition of “Islamophobia.”

Examples of “Islamophobia” listed including claiming it is terrorism to support an independent Palestine, calling Muhammad a paedophile, and “claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule.”

The document comes from the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims, which is led by leading anti-Brexit Tory MP Anna Soubry.

Tory Peer Baroness Warsi, the group’s Treasurer, commented on the document release: “Islamophobia is a form of racism – like antisemitism it’s time it got its own definition.”

Labour MP Wes Streeting added: “Islamophobia isn’t just anti-Muslim hatred. It’s about everyday discrimination that takes place — targeting Muslimness or perceived Muslimness. It is rooted in racism and is a type of racism. It can be deliberate or unconscious bias.”

The findings were also backed by the Muslim Council of Britain, linked to the pro-Caliphate Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, which was recently criticised for working withgroups calling for apostates to be killed.

When consultation for the report was launched, a UKIP spokesman criticised the parliamentary group for taking evidence from groups allegedly linked to Islamism and extremism and “making rules and definitions which are likely to curtail the freedoms which have been hard-won over centuries of British history.”

The document also claims Muslims are widely oppressed in the UK and blames British society for Muslims not being as economically successful as some other groups.

It says: “British society at large, by virtue of normalised prejudice against Muslim beliefs and practice, have come to imbibe a panoply of falsehoods or misrepresentations and discriminatory outlooks.”

Adding: “Academic research has consistently shown that British Muslims face considerably high levels of economic disadvantage than other groups in Britain.”…

However, the report cites other arguments from Oxford University student Bertie Vidgen, that “giving up the term Islamophobia – and with it the possibility of creating legal instruments to tackle it – simply because of the perceived risk that may limit free speech would be highly misguided.”

University lecturer Ben Whitham highlights “the concept of inseparability of race and religion, whereby an attack on the religion cannot be separated from an attack on the race,” the report also says….

Original Source: Date-stamped: 2018 NOV 28 | Time-stamped: 11:19 AM | Author: Robert Spencer | Article Title: UK MP’s call for “Islamophobia” to be classed as “racism,” want to criminalize claims that Islam spread by the sword  Article Link: jihadwatch.org

UK: POLICE ignored Muslim gangs’ sexual exploitation of Sikh girls for FIFTY YEARS for fear of “Islamophobia” charges

These revelations come after it has long been known that 1,400[1]SEE url http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/uk-1400-non-muslim-children-exploited-by-muslim-rape-gangs-authorities-did-nothing-for-fear-of-being-thought-as-racist British non-Muslim children were gang-raped and brutalized by Muslims in one city alone, and “several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.” Why did they fear being thought of as racist?

The Muslim rape gangs went unreported, unprosecuted, and in general unstopped because of far-Left organizations including Hope Not Hate, Faith Matters, and Tell Mama, which waged relentless war against anyone and everyone who spoke out about these issue. They demonized as “Islamophobic,” “hateful” and “bigoted” anyone who said that there were Muslim rape gangs at all, and that they had to be stopped. They led the campaign to ban Pamela Geller and me from entering the country, when one of the events we had discussed going to was a rally against the Muslim rape gangs.

Hope Not Hate has scrubbed the evidence, but it used to be possible to search for “grooming” (as these gangs are usually called “grooming gangs” in the British media) at Hope Not Hate’s site. You would have seen that the vast majority of the articles mentioning this practice were attacking those who were calling attention to it and protesting against it.

Who is responsible for the mass gang-rape of British girls by Muslims? The British Left — in particular the “anti-hate” crusaders Nick Lowles and Matthew Collins of Hope Not Hate, Fiyaz Mughal of Faith Matters and Tell Mama, and their friends, supporters, and allies.

The lives of at least 1,400 girls are ruined today because of these men. If Britain were even close to being a sane society today, these people would be being subjected to scorching criticism, and there would be a thorough public reevaluation of how much the Left’s alliance with Islamic supremacism and smear campaign against foes of jihad terror has harmed the nation and its people.

But Britain is not a sane society today, and these sinister individuals — Lowles, Mughal, and the rest of them — continue to wield their considerable power and influence in British society. If Britain is ever to recover itself and stave off chaos, civil war and Sharia, Lowles, Collins, Mughal and others like them would be arrested and tried. But that is not going to happen.


“Sexual exploitation of British Sikh girls by grooming gangs has been ‘recklessly ignored’ by police due to ‘political correctness’, claims report,”

Gangs of predominantly Pakistani men have been grooming British Sikh girls for decades, according to claims in a bombshell report.

The study alleges that young Sikh women have been ‘targeted’ by Muslim men who subjected them to sexual abuse.

The report by the Sikh Mediation and Rehabilitation Team charity found that police ‘recklessly ignored’ complaints – often for reasons of ‘political correctness’.

In many cases, according to the report, the men would groom a girl before passing her round to other members of their family.

The girls would be snared by ‘fashionably dressed adult Pakistani men travelling in flamboyant vehicles to predominantly Sikh dominated areas and schools’, it claimed.

The report said that while the revelation of grooming gangs targeting white girls in Rochdale shocked the nation in 2012, similar instances had long been taking place under the radar in Britain’s Sikh communities.

Sikh community leaders say the problem started in the 1960s. The charity said the report was not a ‘witch-hunt against any individual, community, culture or faith’ – but said nothing would change unless the facts were known….

The report said: ‘The research has found verification demonstrating a history of predominantly Pakistani grooming gangs targeting young Sikh females for over 50 years.

‘The over representation of such perpetrators in selecting non-Muslim victims would appear to be indicative of a wider acceptability in certain sections of the community towards the targeting of young females from outside of the Pakistani community and/or Muslim faith.

‘Due to the failures of law enforcement agencies and local authorities in addressing the problem, such networks have continued to flourish.’

The study included a case in 1971 when an 11-year-old was jailed for imprisoning a Sikh girl in Slough.

In other reports in the 1980s, Sikhs were complaining about Muslims ‘pestering’ their girls or that their girls were being ‘used as sex slaves’….

Original Source: Date-stamped: 2018 NOV 26' | Time-stamped: 15:30 | Author: Robert Spencer | Article Title: UK: Cops ignored Muslim gangs’ sexual exploitation of Sikh girls for FIFTY YEARS for fear of “Islamophobia” charges | Article Link: jihadwatch.org


1 SEE url http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/uk-1400-non-muslim-children-exploited-by-muslim-rape-gangs-authorities-did-nothing-for-fear-of-being-thought-as-racist

Has Theresa May signed her Imminent Political DEMISE “UN Migration Pact”?

Theresa May:

While debate on the UN migration pact rages worldwide, with a growing number of nations following the United States in withdrawing, the major deal has seen little discussion in the United Kingdom.

Britain’s ruling Conservative Party made pledges to reduce immigration “from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands” in the 2010, 2015, and 2017 general elections, a promise they have not yet made significant progress in keeping.

Indeed, net migration to Britain still runs at over 270,000 a year, and former Tory chancellor George Osborne has suggested the party’s leadership never intended to honour the pledge.

Either way, signing the United Nations’ so-called Global Compact on Migration for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration would be a major step away from ever realising that commitment, a campaign group has said.


British peer Lord Green of Deddington submitted two parliamentary questions to the government this week in which he requested information on whether, and how, the globalist pledge to ease and “enhance” migration would fit with the Conservatives’ long-standing promise to bring it under control and reduce it.

Several recent polls have indicated that controlling immigration levels remains an important topic for British voters.

A press release by Migration Watch UK, the London-based campaign group which Lord Green leads, said of the pact: 

“The UK Government should make it clear that it will not sign… If they have any regard for their election promises it would be entirely hypocritical to do so.”


“The Compact appears to have been drafted by diplomats whose aim seems to be to ‘normalise’ mass immigration from the developing world to the West at a time when the public are very clear that they find the scale and pace of such flows to be unsustainable and unacceptable.”

Alp Mehmet, vice-chairman of Migration Watch UK, remarked on the UN deal itself, saying

During drafting, British negotiators called for clauses recognising that it is the right and obligation of states to control their own borders, and that there should be a distinction between refugees and economic migrants, but they were not incorporated into the final text.

While legal professionals have said the compact acts l will create a legal framework that lawyers will interpret at the national level to advance mass migration, it has received little attention or debate in the United Kingdom, where the political space remains consumed by Brexit.


Yet as the UK works to extract itself from one multinational framework and makes a bid for freedom, it may have inadvertently sleepwalked into another, signed by an ostensibly conservative government which pledged to the people in three consecutive elections to control immigration levels.

Breitbart London has reported on the several nations which have decided the document makes an unacceptable grab on national sovereignty and the right to self-determination, however, following the decision of U.S. President Donald Trump to withdraw his country from the compact in December 2017.


President Trump said at the body’s New York headquarters in September: “Migration should not be governed by an international body unaccountable to our own citizens.

“Ultimately, the only long-term solution to the migration crisis is to help people build more hopeful futures in their home countries: make their countries great again.”

Others nations withdrew after the final text of the agreement was set, declaring they would not be signing up to the compact in December. Among those that have confirmed, or indicated they are rethinking joining, are AustraliaPolandIsraelSwitzerlandAustriaHungary, the Czech RepublicBulgaria, and Croatia.