Hat Tip: BB
A patriotic march for French values and culture, and against radical Islam, was virtually blacked out by France’s politically correct media.
Over the weekend, protestors chanted against Islamic fascism and about the French victory over Arab invaders in 732 A.D. It was the first march of its kind in France.
A broad coalition of groups from across France came together because they feel they’re losing their country to radical Islam, Sharia law, and a politically correct establishment that encourages the spread of Islam.
“Sharia law is slowly being enforced in our country and we want to march here to protest that because our government is doing nothing,” one French demonstrator said.
“The French people — they want to defend their culture, their history – they are called ‘fascists,’” one woman said.
“I don’t think it’s only a problem of France. It’s a problem of Europe. It’s also a problem for the U.S.A.,” another protestor said.
By: Chris Knowles
In the aftermath of the politically motivated discrimination by Rotherham Council of UKIP supporting foster parents there has been much speculation about a shadowy organisation called Common Purpose. Richard Pendlebury asked some important questions about that organisation in a recent article in the Daily Mail. If what has been said about Common Purpose on a great many websites is true then it would certainly explain some of the things that happened to me.
Back in December 2011 Leeds City Council stated that the reason for my suspension from my job was as follows:
“…the council has received allegations that you may have engaged in political activities, which could be viewed as improper activities for an employee of the council to be engaging in, and contrary to the councils values and equal opportunities policies.”
Leeds City Council has never provided me with evidence that this was indeed the case. Perhaps “which could be viewed” just meant that the political activities that I was accused of engaging in were based on views that senior managers did not agree with. Of course if senior managers are allowed to determine the political views of their subordinates then democracy is rendered obsolete. Perhaps this is what Common Purpose means when it refers to a ‘Post Democratic’ society?
After 7 months of investigating my case all they could come up with was the following as a reason for sacking me:
“The council has concluded that your behaviours and values are so different from the council’s values, that this is a fundamental breach of your employment contract.
The council strongly believes in its values and exists to serve the citizens of Leeds, your own beliefs and behaviours are in opposition to what the council stands for and because of this, the council has chosen to dismiss you without notice and without right of appeal.”
In other words you are sacked because we say so – is this what is meant by the common purpose phrase “Leading Outside Authority”. In terms of the values referred to, who decides what they are – Common Purpose? I certainly do not remember my local Council asking the public what the Council’s values should be! In any event, Leeds City Council did not even tell me which specific values were so different to their own. Perhaps if they had, many Council Tax payers in Leeds would have spoken out in my favour. Could it be that Council values are developed behind closed doors by a group of people who are both anonymous and unaccountable? If values are kept secret or not clearly defined then they are certainly not open to public scrutiny. Perhaps such values allow for open discrimination of people who are members of political parties such as UKIP or campaign against sharia on the basis of human rights!
The equivalent position in the private sector would be for the owner of a company to sack people for belonging to a trade union or socialist political party. It could be argued that the values of both are at odds with the values of the capitalist system on which the private sector is based. Of course there would rightly be an outcry if this sort of logic was applied and people were prevented from earning a living as a result. Should private sector employees be free to bully their workers into sharing their political views? Should employees of such companies be forced to become Conservatives?
Common Purpose does not seem to like Conservative ideas. What if a group of people who did not like socialism decided to set up a work based network designed to develop future leaders? What if members of such a group worked together to ensure that anyone who challenged their world view was made to fear for their livelihood, liberty, or ability to play a full and active party in society? What if people were sacked from their jobs for being unpatriotic? People would rightly call such a regime a tyranny and demand immediate change.
When I turned up for the meeting at which I would eventually be dismissed a Police Chief Inspector was present and intending to be present at the meeting even though it was an internal meeting. Did this police officer and the Council officer meet as part of the Common Purpose ‘old boy’ network. Unfortunately the Chatham House rules that Common Purpose applies means that I will probably never find out.
Thankfully I turned up to this meeting with a lawyer and it was acknowledged that the police officer had no right to be in the meeting. I can only assume that the police officer was there to intimidate me, or to use a phrase that they often use themselves – to cause alarm and distress. As it turned out the sole purpose of the meeting was to dismiss me and only lasted a few minutes – goodness knows what had actually been planned prior to my lawyer changing the game!
Fear seems to be something that public bodies increasingly use against the people they are supposed to serve. The aims of those responsible for the Rotherham scandal undoubtedly wanted frighten those who were naturally opposed to their agenda and did not anticipate such a vociferous reaction. Their approach is a classic scenario involving the demonization of ‘the other’.
The application of fear was applied in my case, not just to me but to any other person who wanted to oppose sharia yet at the same time work for a local authority. The message sent out was clear – if you work in the public sector and oppose sharia then you will be sacked. Why local authorities want to encourage something like sharia is beyond me – perhaps it is a case of high officials not bothering to do due diligence about what sharia actually is! It is clearly not something that promotes equality of opportunity. In Rotherham the intended message was also clear. If you are a member of UKIP, which we do not like, then you cannot be foster parents! There are certainly parallels in both cases with the anti-communist ‘witch hunts’ organised Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s against those deemed ‘unpatriotic’.
Of course it is very easy to dismiss justifiable concerns by labeling people ‘conspiracy theorists’. There seems to be a lot of such labeling going on in relation to Richard Pendlebury’s Daily Mail article.
However, if everything is a conspiracy theory then how can actual conspiracies that are working against the public interest be revealed? How can the powerful be held to account when bad behaviour is explained away as a mere conspiracy theory? If there is a shadowy network operating behind the scenes how can we be sure that inquiries into matters of public concern are anything other than cover-ups? The Rotherham scandal is probably not an isolated case, but the inevitable cover up is probably more likely than solving the problem of politically motivated discrimination across the public sector. Common Purpose does appear to be an organisation that should be subject to an independent inquiry, but is such an inquiry even possible if key positions are occupied by Common Purpose ‘graduates’?
It seems that if you don’t share the political views of senior managers you have no right to work for or even benefit fully from the public sector organisations that they control. Those who hold high official positions may claim to represent the whole community but they clearly many of them do not. There definitely seems to be a politicised agenda at work in the public sector in the UK. This is an irrefutable abuse of power and is quite sinister.
When it comes down to it, as the Rotherham issue demonstrates, it is the often the senior officials themselves who cannot leave their politics at the office door. They are the ones with the power to sack their subordinates, even without a proper hearing! Indeed it seems that they are in fact employed specifically for their politics. These are people who can and do significantly influence decisions and determine what services people receive – unlike lowly administrators like me. Yet the senior officers get away with such abuses of power and these abuses actually seem to be official policy. When the furore over the Rotherham scandal dissipates after the forthcoming by-election then things will probably settle back down to business as usual in which modern day Torquemadas can do their work.
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
A former Washington Post reporter is excusing the secret sex life and lies of David Petraeus, the retired general who resigned in disgrace as Obama’s CIA director. Petraeus and his mistress Paul Broadwell are currently under investigation for unauthorized disclosure and possession of classified information.
Thomas E. Ricks, a veteran correspondent who covered the U.S. military for The Washington Post from 2000 through 2008, was invited on CNN on Sunday to blast the media for its coverage of the scandal. This reporter, who is now also a blogger, thinks the cover-up of the affair that was engineered by Petraeus and Broadwell was perfectly proper and that it was nobody else’s business what they were doing together.
But Stephen M. Walt, who is a colleague of Ricks at the journal Foreign Policy, has countered by noting the obvious: “In the world of intelligence, extramarital dalliances are dangerous because they create the obvious potential for blackmail. If some foreign intel service found out that a mid-level intelligence analyst or operative was cheating, they might be able to extract sensitive information by threatening to disclose the indiscretion.”
This is why the media must get to the bottom of the scandal in terms of whether Petraeus was blackmailed or pressured by someone in the Obama Administration or a foreign intelligence service.
The Ricks appearance on CNN was notable for his failure to explain why Petraeus changed his testimony regarding terrorist involvement in the attack on 9/11 that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Before his affair became public, when he was under pressure from Attorney General Eric Holder and the FBI, he had insisted that al-Qaeda was not involved. This was consistent with the Obama Administration line. After the scandal emerged and he was apparently free to speak the truth, he insisted that he knew it was al-Qaeda all along.
Ignoring all of this, Ricks was invited on Fox News on Monday, where he used the opportunity not to urge more reporting on the matter but to attack the channel as a “wing of the Republican Party” for trying to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi. Ricks called the murders of the four Americans, including the American Ambassador, a “small firefight” and complained that the killings of American security contractors in Iraq had not received adequate attention from the media.
Host Jon Scott was so taken aback that he abruptly ended the interview. He should have asked why on earth Ricks thinks an attack from an international terrorist organization amounts to a “small firefight.”
Ricks has made it plain that he believes the Obama Administration’s Benghazi cover-up is not a scandal, but that the media have gone too far in their coverage of the Petraeus scandal and should back off.
In fact, Ricks told CNN’s “Reliable Sources” program that Petraeus should have remained on the job rather than quit under pressure. “These were consenting adults engaged in private acts,” he said. “The lack of decency, I think, is kind of appalling to me. I mean, also the consequences of what’s happened to these people.”
Ricks was saying that the lack of decency was not on the part of Petraeus or his lover Paula Broadwell, both of whom are married and have children, but in the FBI uncovering this relationship and then the media covering it as a news story with national security implications.
He explained that Petraeus “was in a relationship with a consenting adult who was not in his chain of command. He’s hardly, I think, probably the first CIA director to have had an affair.”
Despite his sensational suggestion, Ricks didn’t name any other CIA director with a scandalous personal life who had an affair.
Fortunately, members of the public are not buying the effort to whitewash Petraeus.
In a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, John M. Dowd noted that Petraeus “violated his fidelity to his wife, breached his oath of office to his country, and was unfaithful to the West Point motto of ‘duty, honor, country.’ The general should have exited years ago when he lost control of himself and hubris took hold of him.”
Another letter writer, Ed Karkut, noted, “Why did the chief spy of the U.S., with all his schooling, training and exposure to the craft of spying, choose to use emails as a form of communication with his lover? Everyone knows that emails can be compromised. Yet Mr. Petraeus exposed his frailty as a human being, and this unfortunately led to his downfall.”
These letter writers displayed far more intelligence than Ricks, who told CNN’s “Reliable Sources” program host Howard Kurtz, “It’s a matter that should have remained private, first of all. It’s not a criminal act. There’s no allegation that he’s committed a crime here, as far as I know. You know, it could always change, more information could come out.”
As we noted in a recent column, the Post, which is Ricks’s and Kurtz’s old paper, has already documented that classified information was found in Broadwell’s possession and there is evidence that Petraeus ordered that she be given access to it. Ricks seemed unfamiliar with the facts of the case and Kurtz did not bother to point this out.
Kurtz, now with The Daily Beast, asked Ricks if he is an admirer of Petraeus. “Yes, and I remain so,” he said.
Ricks went on, “…I’m glad I’m no longer in ‘The Washington Post’ because I would have been pressured to cover this. I would have had to cover this.”
But he has covered it in his new job, as a blogger for Foreign Policy magazine, where he has complained about the coverage. He also says that he fears that the military brass will come to a number of questionable conclusions from the scandal, including that “You can be mediocre as long as you keep your pants on.”
He never explains why a good general like Petraeus could not keep his pants on.
Perhaps Ricks is embarrassed that he gave such a glowing review of Broadwell’s book. He wrote, “It is written with an insider’s lively understanding of the workings of today’s Army.” Indeed, Broadwell was a true insider.
Ricks added that the book, All In, about how Petraeus functioned as a military commander, “feels at times like we are sitting at his side in Afghanistan, reading his e-mails over his shoulder.”
Those emails in fact are what led to the Petraeus’ resignation.
Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].
Hat Tip: BB
By: Sher Zieve
The truth about the Obama syndicate’s “victory” in November due to the most massive voter fraud in American history has become increasingly dire and overwhelming. It is also merely the latest treasonous act perpetrated upon We-the-People by our slave masters. And–with the exception of the still-sycophantic Obama-media who enthusiastically embrace totalitarianism–said “win” by Obama shows how quickly he and the Marxist Democrat Party (with the help of willing RINO Senators and incorrectly named “representatives” of the people) affected the complete overthrow of the United States government…and We-the-People.
If you are uncomfortable with these truths and believe that the telling of them constitutes defeatism, I suggest you stop reading now. My message will not get any rosier.
For those of you still reading, let’s jump in without further ado–or adieu as it were–shall we?
Facts already in Place
— First and foremost, Obama lost in each and every US State where voter ID laws were in place
— Massive Obama voter fraud occurred in multiple States–especially the “swing states”
— In 59 Philadelphia precincts, Mitt Romney received no votes and Obama received 100% of the votes–or even higher. This fact, alone, should have raised red flags and set off all manner of bells, whistles and sirens. But, the Republican Establishment (aka Marxist-lite) has remained silent
— In Florida, St. Lucie County and other counties experienced unprecedented voter fraud, with St. Lucie reporting in at a141% turnout–which is impossible
— In Ohio, Obama “won” the county by 108% of registered voters–another impossibility, of course, except with well-planned and implemented election fraud
— The military vote was almost totally suppressed in the November elections
— People were openly reported to have voted twice–or more
— Republican poll watchers in multiple states were either turned away and not allowed to enter the precincts or thrown out once they had done so
— Voters in multiple voting booths across the country reported their votes for Romney were automatically changed to Obama (video below)
— Votes for Romney/Ryan were either changed to Obama./Biden by poll workers or thrown out entirely
— Democrats bussed non-US citizen voters, many of whom could not speak English, from state to state to vote for Obama
— Lastly, as RNLA reported:
11/8/12: NEW YORK: Sang Soo Park: improper influence
“A case of election fraud occurred in Flushing when a Korean-American translator helping voters at PS 20 was caught directing them to vote for Democratic candidates. A volunteer poll watcher confirmed the incident (continues)
11/5/12: NORTH CAROLINA: improper influence of mentally disabled
“The father of a mentally handicapped woman claims his daughter and others were “carted off” to a North Carolina polling site last week and “coaxed” into voting for President Obama by workers of the group home where she stays Judson Berger, Group home accused of taking patients to vote for Obama, Fox News, Nov. 5, 2012.
11/5/12: MASSACHUSETTS: Joel Santiago-Vazquez, Bruno Paulino, Jose Jimenez, Marcos Acosta: noncitizen voter registration fraud
“FOX Undercover found out something else about Santiago-Vazquez. He’s been registered to vote from his home address in Lawrence since 2010. Our investigation shows he’s not the only registered voter in Lawrence who is not a citizen. By cross-checking Lawrence voter records with criminal records that included records indicating lack of citizenship, we found three others: * Bruno Paulino is a legal resident detained by immigration authorities earlier this year, has been a registered Lawrence voter since 2009; * Jose Jimenez, a legal resident who faces “potential deportation to the Dominican Republic”, according to federal court records, has been a registered Republican in Lawrence since 2010; * and Marcos Acosta, picked up during a recent immigration sweep, has been a registered voter in Lawrence since 2008.” Non-citizens registered to vote in Lawrence but officials shrug, Fox Boston, Nov. 5, 2012.
There are hundreds and thousands of the above reports on the Net, many of which can be viewed in my source material below. The central and grave problem we now face is that with the “new-normal” massive election fraud either being ignored (accepted) or discounted by the two major political parties we have, indeed, lost our Republic.
Bear in mind that without our founding legal document, the US Constitution, being protected, observed and followed to the letter by our political and judicial leaders the Republic is moot. And the majority of our political leaders have not followed the US Constitution for decades. If they had, said “leaders” would not have been able to affect the unconscionable theft of the fruits of our labors which they have unethically and with abject turpitude ‘redistributed’ into their own pockets and they would certainly not have been able to strip us of our liberties one-by-one; so that we are now left with none. However, it was our own lack of attention to what they were actually doing and our own inaction in stopping them that–in great measure–allowed these atrocities to occur.
Before the last stage of our options is forced into implementation, there may be a couple of things we can do to stop the complete destruction and chaotic onslaught by our once-fellow citizen leaders. The first is to file a treason complaint against Obama and see if you can find a grand jury in your state that will agree to pursue it. We only need one, at this juncture.
Multiple treason complaints have already been filed by LCDR Walter Fitzpatrick III and have been accepted by the courts as “meritorious.” The second is to get to the electors in each of your/our home states and beg them, in light of the unprecedented November voter fraud, not to cast their vote for Obama until a recount is affected. This must be accomplished before 17 December 2012. Information on both of these items may be accessed at the Jag Hunter and The Electoral College–both links below.
By now, we all know our last course of action. It is the same one into which our Founders were forced. May we pray to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that we are successful in our endeavors for God, family and country. In the end–as always–it is God who will bring us through the darkness and, once again, into the light.
God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”
–1787 Jefferson letter to William Smith
“Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you”
Barack Obama Voter Fraud 2012:
Massive Voter Fraud St. Lucie County, FL–141% turnout:
Vote Fraud News:
Ohio Vote Totals (108%) For Barack Obama A Statistical Miracle!:
Massive Voter Fraud: Military Vote suppressed:
Massive Voter fraud Virginia:
In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes:
Romney earned zero votes in some urban precincts:
Busloads of Somali immigrants bussed in to vote by Democrats in Ohio, most of whom were not citizens and could not speak English:
“The List”, Obama Voter Fraud:
Ohio Man Allowed to Vote Twice:
Obama Lost in Every State with Photo-ID Laws:
UPDATING: Certified GOP Poll Watchers Turned Away in Florida:
Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia Republican election officials:
Watch Voting Machine Change Obama Votes To Romney Votes (video):
Poll watcher sees Romney ballots changed:
The Jag Hunter:
By: Against All Enemies
Most crimes are objective in nature, as they can be observed or measured. For instance, murder means someone is dead. Theft means something was taken (can be electronic as well as physical, but there is a record). Speeding means that there is a limit to the maximum speed and it can be accurately measured. Assault means someone was physically attacked, or verbally threatened with physical attack. When it comes to objective crimes, their definitions remain consistent over time.
However, the introduction of “hate speech” into the legal system is purely subjective and can be manipulated to serve the causes and ideology of the State. Once hate speech laws are enacted, it gives the government the ability to classify almost anything as “hate speech,” up to and including opposition to the State. The criminalization of hate speech directly contradicts freedom of speech rights granted by the First Amendment, and will ultimately result in State-sponsored censorship.
Here are two examples of how “hate speech” thinking is applied. Through them it will be clear how the government decides what is hate speech and what is not based on their own ideology and political goals, and not on any higher standard of moral conduct.
Islam by it’s very nature and conduct is replete with hate speech, and is in fact genocidal against those who do not accept Islam. However, our government gives them a pass and labels them the “religion of peace.” In fact, the government goes so far as to label jihadic violence in the name of Islam “workplace violence.” Our Administration is even voicing their support for international law (Human Rights Council Resolution 1618) that prohibits that speech which incites religious violence in order to protect the Islamic faith (see David Horowitz’s speech on the matter).
Christianity, on the other hand, is not given such a pass. The assault on the Word of God and Christians is just beginning, as preachers are starting to come under scrutiny for preaching against homosexual behavior. This teaching of the Word will eventually be categorized as “hate speech” and criminalized. Then Christians will be forced to either edit any such “hate speech” out of their Bibles, or get rid of them altogether. Leaders and pundits may even compare the Bible to Mein Kampf in its “intolerance.”
Why does the government find this necessary? Because the government wants to be god on earth, dictating what is right and wrong. Just look at some of our government’s actions that contradict the will of God:
- open support for, and encouragement of, homosexual behavior
- encouragement of sexual promiscuity through education, birth control, and murder (abortion)
- discouragement of personal responsibility through bailouts, grants, “free stuff,” etc.
- idol worship through the explicit legitimization of other religions and rejection of the God of the Bible
- destruction of the family unit through social programs and propaganda; employment of the educational system to perpetuate lies (such as the specious theories of evolution and man-made climate change) and encourage immoral behavior that undermine parents’ teachings of morality, truth and religion; and ultimately replacing the authority of parents with the authority of the State
- encouraging taking from some to give to others, and that the government can provide everything that you need (coveting and theft)
All of these actions are designed to appeal to the carnal nature of man so that Americans will want to seek the baser, lower road that is encouraged by the government rather than seek the higher road as laid out by God. The American government is making America safe for sinners, and pushing the Word of God aside to do so. They may eventually make the Word of God illegal because it is “hateful” against those who follow the depraved guidance of the government. Once the people worship the false idol of the humanist government, they will submit as slaves and liberty will have died in America.
“Your God is hateful and won’t let you do what you want! We, as your government, are much more benevolent…worship us!”
(And a final note: the criminalization of “hate speech” is a means to controlling the content of the Internet and suppress dissent amongst the population.)
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.
By: Against All Enemies
The first thought that came to mind when I saw this article from Logan’s Warning was “it’s about time…what took you so long?” Frankly, I have been waiting to see a backlash from Europeans against the Islamists who have been flooding their nations yet refusing to assimilate into their cultures (they have actually been calling for European cultures to submit to Islam).
I believe Generation Identitaire will be the movement that brings about revolution in Europe against the multiculturalists, and eventually brings about a clash of civilizations between Europe and the developing Caliphate in the Middle East. Quite timely that both events are happening almost simultaneously, as if it was by design.
Make sure you watch the “A Declaration of War” video.
Generation Identitaire: French Youth’s Declare war on Multiculturalism & Islam Being Forced Down Their Throats!
November 18, 2012
Infidel friends it has been awhile since I have been able to some goods news, but today I am posting a video that will hopefully make your day! Although our mate Tommy Robinson has been taken as a political prisoner, it is clear there is a growing anti-Islam campaign taking place across the West. A campaign that is lead by infidels across different generations. From the UK’s Law and Freedom Foundation, stopping new Mosques from being constructed,to the the new youth movement that is making headlines across France! They go by the name Generation Identitaire (GI), andunlike the youth of OWS , they actually see the dangers of Islam and multiculturalism.
GI first made headlines back in October, when they took to the roof of one of the enemy’s headquarters….errrr….I mean a Mosque.
The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers…Hat tip on the video to our friends at the Christian Defense League.
Link to mosque video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFr-uM62LPQ
Since that grand opening statement the youth movement has stepped up their message. A Declaration of War on the wanna be “elitists” who are allowing Islam to run wild across their country!
Link to Generation Identitaire video:
Yes, “elitists” and self-centered Muslims….Islam is stuck in the past and that is where it belongs. Victory will belong to the infidel. Count on it!
(This is not a call to violence, it is a call for the unity of the infidels.)
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.