The Reporting of Information of Events associated with Islam

The Left Chose Islam Over Gays. Now 100 People Are Dead Or Maimed In Orlando
​

by Milo12 Jun 201612,436
12 Jun, 2016 12 Jun, 2016

Over 100 people have been killed or maimed at a gay dance club in Orlando by Omar Mateen, a Muslim terrorist. How many more innocent gays need to die before we admit that America, and the world, has an Islam problem?

I don’t mean a “radical Islam” problem or an “extremist Islam problem.” Violence is not the extreme in Islam any more: it’s the norm. The public’s patience for comments like the one below, from the dimwitted lesbian Sally Kohn, are wearing thin. As for mine, it’s long since run out.

​

Obama’s response to the tragedy today was similarly limp-wristed. He made no mention of Islam or Muslims, instead condemning “hate and terror” and taking a brazen swipe at gun rights activists by noting “how easy it is to let people get their hands on a weapon.”
He didn’t even address the uniquely homophobic character of the attack. What a good liberal!
There’s no more room for equivocating. The Orlando shooting isn’t just the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. shores since 9/11. It is also, by far, the worst act of violent homophobia in the nation’s history and the deadliest mass shooting in America ever.
According to the murderer’s father, his son became angry after he saw two men kissing in the street. “This had nothing to do with religion,” said the father, Seddique Mateen. “He saw two men kissing each other in front of his wife and kid and he got very angry” — as if that was some kind of excuse.

That same father is on record defending the Taliban.

​

What sort of a man gets so angry by displays of affection, joy, and love that he chooses to gun down innocent people in a nightclub? A Muslim man. And if this one isn’t particularly religious, imagine how much worse the faithful must be.

​

America has to make a choice. Does it want gay rights, women’s emancipation, and tolerance for people of all nonviolent faiths — or does it want Islam?
I hate to say I told you so, but I have been warning about this for years. Here’s me in November expressing concern at mass Muslim immigration.

​

And here’s me on The Rubin Report refusing to make the distinction between Islam and Islamism.

​

These are dirty secrets the progressive Left and social justice warriors would rather you didn’t know. But the cat is now out of the bag.
Omar Mateen wasn’t just a homophobe, by the way. He was also a misogynist – a real one, not someone who offends feminists on Twitter – who repeatedly beat his ex-wife while they were married. Of course, as we saw in Cologne six months ago, this sort of behaviour is also the norm in Muslim cultures.
Needless to say, the Left is silent on the subject.

​

A lot of people laughed at Donald Trump when he suggested a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country. No doubt they thought he was further harming his chances in the general election.
No one is laughing now. What’s more, I expect many are quietly wondering if the “temporary” ban might have to be permanent. Western capitalist democracy gave women and gays equal footing in society; Islam has arrived to roll the clock back.
Only one presidential candidate is being honest about it, which is why, if you are gay, there’s really only one choice in this election. (It was Latino night at the gay club, incidentally — Hispanics may wish to consider that, too.)
We’ve also learned in the past few hours that the killer was already being watched by the FBI. This happened in Brussels, too. Both times, the security services dropped the ball. Something tells me that they’d be a lot more vigilant, and a lot less lenient to their surveillance targets, under a Trump administration.
It’s not just gay people under threat. Atheist satirists in the west now live in fear of being executed because they drew the wrong cartoon. Women face the terrifying prospect of being attacked at night for wearing a short skirt.

The barbaric cultures of Raqqa, Riyadh, and Kabul now prowl the streets of Cologne, Paris, and Orlando, Florida.
Atheists, previously wedded to the political left, have started to grow sick of the constant Islam apologia. Left-leaning atheists like talk show host Dave Rubin and cult YouTuber Carl Benjamin have realised that the right is a greater ally against this barbaric, dark-age ideology than the left ever will be.
The LGBT “community” needs to confront the same problem and make its choice. If it continues to be a part of the left’s Neville Chaimberlain-esque attitude towards Islam, it will effectively be committing suicide.


The Christian Right may not be totally down with homos, and Trump may say things that hurt our delicate feelings, but they aren’t going to kill us or put us in camps. Only Islam would do that — the same Islam that, bizarrely, now stands at the top of the left’s hierarchy of victimhood.

​

Muslims are allowed to get away with almost anything. They can shut down and intimidate prominent ex-Muslims. They’re allowed to engage in the most brazen anti-semitism, even as they run for office in European left-wing political parties.
And, of course, politicians and the media routinely turn a blind eye to the kind of sexism and homophobia that would instantly end the career of a non-Muslim conservative — and perhaps get the latter arrested for hate speech when he dared to object.
We are now living with the consequences of that tolerance. Gays executed in nightclubs. Cartoonists lying in pools of blood. Women abused en masse.
Once again, this isn’t about “radical” Islam. This isn’t a tiny fringe. In Britain, a 2009 Gallup survey found that not one Muslim believed that homosexual acts were acceptable. Not one! And another poll this year revealed that over half of British Muslims believe gay sex should be illegal.
96 per cent of Palestinians believe that homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle choice, according to Pew Global data — making “Queers for Palestine” perhaps the dumbest movement since Semites for National Socialism.

​

So, most Muslims think I’m unacceptable. Fine. I also think their religion is unacceptable. And not just “radicals” and “extremists” — their entire, barbaric, backwards ideology. 100 million people live in Muslim countries where homosexuality is punishable by death.
We can’t go on like this. We can’t live in an America where gays fear going to night clubs, where satirists fear execution for their speech, where cartoonists consider whether their next drawing might get them killed.
Today’s killings prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we need to give particular scrutiny to certain faiths. Gays, apostates, and women are tired of being abused, harassed, and murdered by followers of the “religion of peace.”
And politicians have to stop lying about the link between Islam and these horrific acts.

​

The gay Establishment, run by far-left wackos, is of course part of the problem too. It constantly makes excuses for Islam instead of sticking up for the people it’s supposed to protect.
Wake up, faggots. The political Left is part of the problem.

​

Follow Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) on Twitter and Facebook. Android users can download Milo Alert! to be notified about new articles when they are published. Hear him every Friday on The Milo Yiannopoulos Show. Write to Milo at milo@breitbart.com.
Read More Stories About:

Jihad, Milo, Social Justice, Gays, Islam, Milo Yiannopoulos, Orlando Shootings, social justice warriors

​

 

Gay Muslim: Islam is no religion of peace

June 16, 2016 2:48 pm By Robert Spencer Leave a Comment
Parvez Sharma engages in some fashionable moral equivalence here — neither Judaism nor Christianity are today calling for the killing of gays — and ignores the fact that Muhammad himself called for the killing of homosexuals, but his words here nonetheless represent a tremendous advance over the denial and deception that usually dominate the mainstream media’s treatment of Islam and jihad.


“Gay Muslim: Islam Is No Religion of Peace,” by Parvez Sharma, Daily Beast, June 16, 2016:
…The same defensive, apologist Muslims are called upon every time something like this happens. I, too, have been called several times, but have so far refused the TV parts because I am not sure what I have to say is palatable. Mateen, the homophobic gay Muslim, is not a new phenomenon. The Muslim religious elite is directly responsible for inspiring the guilt and self-hatred that this man must have felt, needlessly struggling with his sexuality. And then he became a mass murderer, whose actions can never be condoned.

What I do know is this. As a devout gay Muslim I am not going to make a claim that “Islam is a religion of peace.”
Growing up in a small Indian town with a large Muslim population, I heard young men talking about jihad in Kashmir and Palestine. I have even heard such matters discussed in hushed whispers at Manhattan’s 96th St. mosque, where I sometimes go and pray on Fridays and where subjugation of women is discussed in the open without the blink of an eye. The mosque was built largely with Saudi money, and its Imams often come equipped with the perversions of Wahhabi ideology.
A few weeks after September 11th, its Imam at the time, Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha resigned and left hastily for his native Egypt. He was quoted in The New York Times as having said amongst much else including the familiar deriding of “homosexuality” “‘only the Jews’ were capable of destroying the World Trade Center” and added that ‘’if it became known to the American people, they would have done to Jews what Hitler did.”

Calling Islam a religion of peace is dangerous and reductive. Like the other two monotheisms that precede it, it has blood on its hands. It’s time we Muslims start looking inward at our own communities so that the bloodshed can stop. I’m convinced that Mateen’s attitude is not fringe. It can be found everywhere from Mecca to my own mosque in New York City.
The vast canon of Islam that emerged after the Prophet Muhammad’s life has enough sanction for violence, if you know what you are looking for. And there is no lack of homophobic condemnation either. The Quran itself remains vague on the matter, lazily regurgitating the Old and New Testament’s story of the Nation of Lot. And for the majority of 1.6 billion Muslims, many of them plagued by poverty and illiteracy, the debates going on amongst the Western Muslim pundits, will make no sense. What they listen to is Khutba (Friday sermon) after Khutba that talks about homosexuality as a sin amongst other matters of religious import….


Robert Spencer in PJ Media: It Was John Brennan Himself Who Halted LEO Training on Islam, Jihad

 

​

 

​

 

In 2009 the 'Political Correctness' of the BBC was a little less 'mainstream'.
​

Hugh Fitzgerald: When a Petulant President Presumes to Give Lessons in Language

June 16, 2016 1:50 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald 51 Comments

And let me make a final point. For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize the administration and me for not using the phrase “radical Islam.” That’s the key, they tell us. We cannot beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists.​

What exactly would using this label would accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this?​

The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction. ​

— Barack Obama, Speech about the Fight Against ISIL and the Orlando Attack, June 14, 2016​

​

Don’t tell me words don’t matter.​

— Barack Obama, “Don’t Tell Me Words Don’t Matter” speech, February 16, 2008​

​

After the Orlando massacre by a man who had been born and raised a Muslim, who never showed the slightest wavering in his Islamic faith, who attended a mosque three or four times a week, whose family was similarly devout, who at the time of his attack pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, and in a 911 call just before his attack mentioned the Boston Marathon bombers whom he admired and whom, he believed, he was about to gloriously emulate, that man, one Omar Mateen, naturally received great deal of attention. For many, he was a puzzlement. What, oh what, might have motivated him? Official brows were furrowed all over Washington. What should he be called? He was a “terrorist.” He was “homophobic.” He was a “lone wolf.” Did I mention he had “assault weapons”? Brows are still furrowed all over Washington trying to figure out what’s going on. We’ve read reports about the terrible threat from “homophobic Christians” with their “anti-queer agenda.” We’ve watched DHS “terrorism experts” on the problem of the putative “lone wolf.” We’ve listened to endless discussions of gun control and the NRA and the Second Amendment. In short, we’ve all endured lots of talk about everything tangential, but very little about the central and most obvious thing – the texts and teachings of Islam.

If we want to ignore Islam, we’ll have to overlook how often Omar Mateen went to the mosque, and how many times he went to Saudi Arabia to perform the Lesser Pilgrimage. We’d have to ignore the reports about the full-throated cries of delight with which he greeted the glad news on 9/11. Instead, let’s find out how many times Omar Mateen visited The Pulse nightclub before the fatal night? Did he make a pass at any male, at any time? Did he go on the homosexual dating site “Jack’d”? Many in the press are having a field day focusing their attention on this theme, using it as the best way to deflect attention from Islam.
But surely we ought to ask ourselves: is it possible that Mateen’s rage, and the murderous way he chose to express his rage at what he called “the dirty ways of the West,” can be traced to specific Islamic texts, not of “extremist” but of mainstream Islam, anathematizing homosexuality and calling for the death of homosexuals? It was this that justified Omar Mateen’s acts of murder at The Pulse to Omar Mateen, whatever other wellsprings of anger he may have had.
Obama is determined, as is his wont, to keep Islam as out of the discussion as possible. In his astonishing tirade of June 14, he self-assuredly reported that some people — he did not identify them — claim that if we use the term “radical Islam,” we win the war against ISIL, and if we fail to use it, we lose that war. All we would be doing, Obama said, would be to “legitimize” ISIS in the eyes of Muslims. But no one has put forth — pace Obama — that absurd claim about the magic effect of using the term “radical Islam.” And who in his right mind would think that ISIS seeks or would welcome so-called “legitimation” from Infidels? ISIS has no interest in our views; why should they care what Infidels think a group of Muslims does, or does not, represent? The simple desire to describe things as they are should not be mocked, nor manipulated, but Obama does both. He becomes irked at the suggestion that “radical Islam” or “radical Islamist” are useful terms of description (though not as accurate as they would be without the modifying adjectives) for Infidels left glumly confused by the confusion in our own government.

In the same speech Obama told us about all the military successes that had been made against ISIS in Iraq, and in Syria, and in Libya. “So far we have taken out more than 120 top ISIL leaders and commanders….ISIL continues to lose ground in Iraq….ISIL continues to lose ground in Syria as well…We believe we’ve cut ISIL’s revenue from oil by millions of dollars per month.” And so on. It all sounded heartening. But there was a sting in the tail: Obama wanted it known that all of these victories were achieved without “calling a threat” by a “different name” from the one he wanted – that is, without calling it “radical Islam.”
The one thing we need to know, in trying to understand Omar Mateen spraying his bullets at The Pulse, is what Islam says about homosexuals.
Robert Spencer the other day did what someone had to do — he adduced the Islamic texts most relevant to Orlando, from both Qur’an and Sunnah (the Hadith):

The Qur’an says: “If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.” (4:16) That seems rather mild, but there’s more. The Qur’an also depicts Allah raining down stones upon people for engaging in homosexual activity: “We also sent Lot. He said to his people: ‘Do you commit lewdness such as no people in creation committed before you? For you practise your lusts on men in preference to women: you are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.’ …And we rained down on them a shower of brimstone: Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!” (7:80)​

Muhammad makes clear that Muslims should be the executors of the wrath of Allah by killing gays. A hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.” (Abu Dawud 38:4447) And: “Stone the upper and the lower, stone them both.” (Ibn Majah 3:20:2562)​

That is the heart of the matter. That explains the official Muslim hostility to homosexuality. No one in the government, no journalist in the mainstream media, had in the first days after the attack bothered to ask the simple question: what exactly does Islam teach about homosexuality, about how to treat homosexuals? If it is not tolerance but hate, how and why and when and against whom is the hate to be acted on? Are we really not able to look at these texts steadily, grasp their meaning, and make an obvious distinction (that so many don’t wish to make) between the historic Christian “disapproval” of homosexuality and the severe punishments for homosexual acts that Islam counsels and many Muslim states (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, and six others) enforce, and even individual Muslims feel themselves able to act on with approval or at least impunity, still today? Isn’t this something that we who are trying to grasp the nature of Islam have a right to learn about? Why are we made to feel that some things are being kept hidden from us, for as long as possible, so as to avoid that “clash of civilizations” that will be conducted by the Muslim side no matter what we do?

Whatever Omar Mateen’s secret proclivities, had he not been a Muslim, eager to do the (virtual) bidding of the Islamic State, would he have gunned down nearly 50 people? And if those Qur’anic verses and the Hadith, quoted above by Spencer, did not exist? He might still want to murder Infidels, but not necessarily homosexual Infidels. And isn’t it conceivable, even to Obama and his advisors, that Mateen’s hate was channeled and encouraged by Islam, and he meted out his punishment with such murderous enthusiasm because he realized, as, a True Believer, that he was merely carrying out the commands of the Islamic texts?

The other day, Barack Obama delivered himself of a tirade against all those who wanted to focus on the “Islamic” aspect of the Orlando murders, by holding up for criticism the phrase – horribile dictu – “radical Islam.” Obama claimed that “that’s the key, they tell us. We cannot beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists.”


Let’s stop right there for a minute. Name names, do tell us please, who said that the “key” to victory over ISIS is to use the phrase “radical Islam”? And are they the same people who, according to Obama, tell us that “we cannot beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists”? Who has said that? Where? We demand chapter and verse.

And Obama continues, “What exactly would using this label would [sic] accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans?”

Obama needs to be challenged on this. The claim that is made by others, and with which Obama finds fault, is a much more intelligible one: to wit, that it is not possible to defend oneself if one is incapable of recognizing or understanding the enemy. We are not being allowed to call things by their right names. Obama presumes, as president, to instruct and protect us, but we are getting neither the instruction, nor the protection, we deserve.
Could we stop there? Using the descriptive term (notice that Obama affixes the pejorative “label”) “radical Islam” would do many things. It would sweep away the cobwebs of confusion. It would clear our minds of cant. It would allow people in America (and Europe too) to understand the ideology that is making war on them, and will continue to do so no matter what they do, short of accepting Islam or permanent subservience, as dhimmis, to Muslims.

Obama focused in his tirade on the military campaign against ISIS, where there have been gains, but that is but is only a small part of the war, and looms larger than it should. The demographic jihad in North America and Europe is already underway, and is more of a threat to the advanced West than ISIS ever was. If we keep claiming that there is nothing worrisome about Islam, and continue to make it hard for those, in the government or in the media, who would like to present the contrary evidence, it will be harder to fight. Were we all to be made aware of what Islam teaches about homosexuality, and how that certainly played a role – many would say the decisive role – in Mateen’s cold-blooded rampage, how would that make ISIS or any other group of Muslims even more enraged at Infidels? The Qur’an and Hadith are there to whip up Muslims against non-Muslims and to instruct them to act on the path of Allah (fi sabil Allah) whenever that proves possible. Nothing we say in America, or in Europe, will change that; nothing Infidels do will make ISIS either more or “less committed to killing Americans.”

Those who want to properly identify the Islamic sources of the aggression and hatred demonstrated by some – not all – Muslims, do not assume that thereby those wellsprings will dry up. As long as the Qur’an and Hadith and Sira exist, there will be those who take their Islam completely to heart, and it is they – not the “moderate” or bad or unobservant or lapsed Muslims – who will forever remain a danger. But dangers can be mitigated, can be held to a manageable size. That’s all the West, or the Rest (of the non-Islamic world) can hope for in this War Without End. But it requires an unvarnished understanding of Islam, and a willingness to publicly explain what Islam teaches.

Obama thinks it a mistake to make Muslims think that we – America, the West – have something against Islam. Shouldn’t we? Haven’t we – America, the West – been on the receiving end of Muslim aggression, by “states” (IS), or groups (Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizballah, Al-Nusra), or individuals (the so-called “lone wolves” who take their inspiration and guidance from Islamic cites on the Internet) practically uninterruptedly the past 16 years? Is there no limit to turning the other cheek? Obama thinks that we must condemn ourselves to public silence about what Islam teaches (which is not the same thing as what every Muslim believes, only what he should believe). Haven’t the American government, and other Western governments, to various degrees, been bending over backwards not to impugn Islam as a whole, and have received no observable benefit in return? Do our textbooks, our clerics, our prayers, talk about Muslims the way Muslim textbooks, clerics, prayers, talk about non-Muslims? Of course not. Do we find Muslims demanding in great numbers that Islam be “reformed,” so that the many offending and dangerous Qur’anic passages, for example, be “interpreted” out of their current meaning? We do not. And it certainly won’t happen if we behave as if there is nothing that need be reformed. Obama has it backwards: he wants us never to “blame Islam” because “that would only push more Muslims” to “hate us,” and that would mean still more recruits to that “twisted ideology” which, while it appeals only to Muslims, and is directed only against non-Muslims, “has nothing to do with Islam.”

When, in what war, did it ever redound to one side’s advantage not to recognize, but to deliberately fail to recognize, the nature of the enemy? But our government officials, even in DHS, are not allowed to discuss the Qur’an, and Hadith, and are told by a petulant president that he knows best – that talking about “radical Islam” just inflames Muslims who would otherwise be on our side, or at least not be against us.
If someone has taken Islam to heart, as Omar Mateen always did, nothing the Infidels do or say about Islam will matter. Representatives of CAIR solemnly declare their horror and outrage and amazement at the latest Muslim massacre of the innocents, but this is merely the stage patter kept up to confuse people and keep them from looking in the right direction. We must study the Qur’an and Hadith and Sira if we want to make sense of Omar Mateen, Nidal Hassan, Mohammed Atta, and the more than 28,500 participants in Muslim terror attacks since 9/11.
Obama deserves the last word, as long as we apply those words correctly:

Since before I was president, I have been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism.​

I’ve tried, I’ve googled, but I can’t think of a single time when Obama has “been clear about how extremist groups” have “perverted Islam.” Can you think of any evidence, textual or otherwise, that Obama has presented, to demonstrate that “extremist groups” have perverted Islam? It’s not too late to question Obama. Surely there must be at least one intrepid interviewer or reporter who can ask him exactly in what way Islam has been “perverted.” Let Obama tell us what parts of the Qur’an, what stories in the Hadith, what details in the Life of Muhammad, are evidence that Omar Mateen, and all the other tens of thousands of Muslim terrorists who since 9/11 have been plying their terrifying trade, have “perverted one of the world’s great religions.” He should be asked to do this, so that his own confusions and prevarications are put on undeniable display.
And let Obama have the last word(s), as long as we can apply them to Obama himself:
“Don’t tell me words don’t matter.”

“Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”
Ipse dixit.

Robert Spencer in PJ Media: It Was John Brennan Himself Who Halted LEO Training on Islam, Jihad
Ben Rhodes: "Will be more effective combating ideology" of Islamic State "if we don't describe them as religious org"

 

False Flags?
James Holmes and Tommy Mair?
Where did the guns come from, the literature - his garden?





Remember 'Golden Dawn', when Greece wanted to exit the EU?



​

Sirebard said...

It is all about the most exciting times to be an Australian and 'jobs and growth and opportuniies'. But the 'dangerous' vox populi must be silenced.
Just look at Italy's Prato with its 'ex' textile industry.
Do you know what a Precariate is?

​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj2sPIpc1E4




Sirebard said...

Whether labor or ex-liberal, the quasi-representative political class in Australia has become islamophilic in an ever accelerating tempo.
Some friends of the labor clan have been found to be 'extreme non-assimilating radical muslims'; whilst Kirribilli House serves halal cuisine to 'assimilated and friendly taqqia muslims'.

It is no wonder that the voice of any alternative culture honouring political movement like the ALA must be suppressed by that class or hindered as much as possible to express its obscured right to free speech.
On a more sinister note, the mind manipulation of the global UN/EU elitist and unelectable commissars considers a 'drug induced subliminal mental memeplexification' acceptable to further its political agendas - even if this 'brain washing' of perpetrator-victims and the 'sentimental feeling populus' results in the murder of innocent quasi-sacrificial members of their own.

But is not the group more important than the individual? Is this not a common thema of the old style communism, the social engineers and the fake guardians of the environments encountered?

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...on-commercial-not-approved-for-broadcast.html

 

​

 

Sunday, 19 June 2016

The Australian Liberty Alliance television commercial not approved for broadcast

This is an extract from an internal Australian Liberty Alliance email dated today.

The following is the link to a 15 second TV advertisement you are not allowed to see:

​

Are you fed up with spineless politicians? from Australian Liberty Alliance on Vimeo.
https://vimeo.com/171165936


The advertisement was scheduled to go to air tonight on GWN 7 in regional Western Australia on prime time programs.
I received word late on Friday that CAD had not given approval for the advertisement. CAD is independent of the television station and reviews election advertisments prior to broadcast. No reason has been given. As a result the prime time slots which were paid for on May 26th have been lost. I now have to wait until Monday to find out what they are concerned about.
This is yet another attempt to silence us and prevent Australian Liberty Alliance from spreading the word. It is extremely frustrating and reinforces the reason we need to ensure our party grows and becomes a strong voice in Canberra.
On a final note thank you again to all the wonderful hardworking loyal members and supporters who are working diligently to promote us. We would not be able to do this without your help.
I have attached a few photos from earlier this week of candidates outside Parliament House. Mr David Archibald is WA’s Lower house candidate in the seat of Curtin. Dr Marion Hercock is running as second Senate candidate for WA.
Marion and I will visit our manned polling booths in and around Perth next week to catch up with members.
Yours in Liberty
Debbie Robinson
National President

I don't know anything about the process, about CAD or about the reasons for this ad not being approved for broadcast.
I don't know whether the ad was submitted in time for approval or not.
I don't see anything offensive with the ad - but I'd bet London to a brick that the ALA's promise to stop the Islamisation of Australia has something to do with it.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...on-commercial-not-approved-for-broadcast.html

 

Why won’t the Left admit the inconvenient truth about Islam? It hates everything else they love

By Katie Hopkins for MailOnline
Published: 00:48 EST, 15 June 2016 | Updated: 06:01 EST, 15 June 2016


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3641118/KATIE-HOPKINS-won-t-Left-admit-inconvenient-truth-Islam-hates-love.html#ixzz4C1wCE2aJ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Sometimes the build-up of pressure is just too much. You see it in nature - the force of two tectonic plates converging along a fault line. Shuddering out earthquakes, forcing up mountains, causing volcanoes to scream and spew lava down themselves.
Society is just the same. Simmering tensions boiling over into road rage, an angry exchange, knives drawn in the street.
Opposing forces shunting against each other so violently, eventually something gives. Someone gives.




Mass killing: Some 49 people died and 51 were injured in the shooting at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida

And so it has been with Orlando. Islam against homosexuality.
Forty nine dead. Fifty one injured.
And the shock waves of this human earthquake spread fast. The ground whipped out from under the feet of a hundred sleeping mothers, some clutching phones, still listening to their frightened children's last, terrified messages.

How much longer can we continue to deny a fault line has been drawn? On one side Islam and Muslims defined by it. On the other the LGBT community, defined by their right to love as they please.
Over the last two days, the deference of the liberal Left to Muslims over the LGBT community has been excruciating to watch. Unable to reconcile the two causes they champion, they have an awkward inconvenience they dare not face. An ex-wife at a wedding, acknowledged with an invitation, but sat at the back, facing the air-con unit.




Mourners attend a candlelight vigil in Orlando yesterday, the day after the deadly attack on a gay nightclub


Predictably they have chosen Islam.
And don’t tell me the ‘acts of a few extremists do not represent Islam’, because I am sick of hearing it. Every time another Islamist takes down a club, knocks out an airport or wipes out the subway, we are supposed to embrace Muslims and spread the love.
Obama saunters off a golf course and refuses to even acknowledge the role of religion in the debate. Hillary Clinton wants to be clear Islam is not the enemy. But that’s precisely where she is wrong.
As I wrote just after Paris:




And here we are, less than three months later, doing exactly that. A hashtag #lovewins, a logo, vigils in public squares all over the world. Reaction to terror now has a global format to which, in the absence of an actual solution, many of you adhere.


A hashtag #lovewins, a logo, vigils in public squares all over the world (including this one in Miami, Florida)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dmit-inconvenient-truth-Islam-hates-love.html

But I am not a sheep in this. We need a solution. And for that we need to be honest enough to face the cause. Because the elephant in the room, the blatant reality in a world turned queer is obvious: Islam is the problem.
A backward religion which does not tolerate the rights of gays is the problem.

Do not allow yourself to be distracted. This is not about guns. If it were, after 9/11 we should have banned aeroplanes.

"A backward religion which does not tolerate the rights of gays is the problem!"

It is not about the mental health of the gunman, his ex-wife, his apartment or his job, whether he was a loner or a budding footballer or a self-loathing gay himself.
And it is certainly not about terror against the West as a whole.
As much as the UK writer Owen Jones and I are sworn enemies, I can understand why he stormed off an interview on Sky News when no one would acknowledge this was a hate crime against the gay community. A professional self-publicist on the sofa with him said ‘you don’t own this horror because you are gay’. She was certainly trying to own it for her own advancement.
Owen is caught on a human fault line partly of his own making - he writes for the Guardian and is a cheerleader for Labour who prioritise Islam over the LGBT cause far closer to his own hurting heart.


As much as the UK writer Owen Jones (centre) and I are sworn enemies, I can understand why he stormed off an interview on Sky News when no one would acknowledge this was a hate crime
against the gay community

The problem becomes clear when you look at the gunman's pro-Taliban father, an utter b****** of a man - who released a video saying all homosexuals must be punished just hours after his son slaughtered 49 people in the club.
Over time, I’ve watched the pressure plates slowly creeping towards each other. I’ve been no-platformed from every university with a strong Islamic Faith Community. Students staged a walk-out at a talk I gave on campus at Brunel, a London university which cheerfully hosted Islamic extremists and bans Israeli goods on campus.


This is not about the mental health of gunman Omar Mateen, who attacked the club in Orlando on Sunday


And I have watched British state services and broadcasters prioritise Muslim culture over our own, turning a blind eye to the blatant homophobia it embodies, with a Muslim mayor now removing images of bikini-clad women from our own underground. Stand by for adverts for burkinis.
The Left has embraced the Muslim body even though a big part of it is a dark cancerous tumour, homophobic, regressive and contrary to everything we believe in our tolerant society.
I watch Hillary Clinton try to simultaneously embrace the gay community and support Muslims, like two kids, one of whom is adopted and clearly hates the other. She is Obama-lite.

The Left-wing media may well offer up a couple of gay Muslims to try to contradict this obvious truth - that Muslims hate gays. And I accept there are some truly tolerant amongst the Muslim worthy and respect those who are out and proud.
I've seen the supposed condemnation of the attack from the Muslim community.
But where are the leaders of the British Muslim Council condemning homophobia? Where is a Muslim leader prepared to stand up and say our religion has no place in the West if we cannot accept the rights of people to live, love and laugh with whom they choose?
Where is the support for LGBT rights?
A British Imam was hosted by a mosque in Orlando, just days before the attack, saying that death is the answer to the problem of homosexuality, facilitating the spread of hate.
If you want a solution to this killing you have to identify the cause. And for that you have to choose: Islam or the freedom to be gay.


I watch Hillary Clinton try to simultaneously embrace the gay community and support Muslims, like two kids, one of whom is adopted and clearly hates the other. She is Obama-lite


Someone has to call this thing. Until Islam is tolerant of gay rights, we cannot tolerate Islam. In any sense. You have to choose.
LGBT rights or Islam. Black or white. Yes or no. Stop or go. It is a binary thing. You need to decide.

Meanwhile, the Left will continue writing sick-notes for Islam instead of sticking up for the gay community it is supposed to protect.

"Someone has to call this thing. Until Islam is tolerant of gay rights, we cannot tolerate Islam. In any sense. You have to choose. LGBT rights or Islam!"

It is too late for Britain. It has already made its choice. Over 50 per cent of British Muslims believe gay sex should be made illegal. And the Left still puts these people first. The British Left has chosen Islam.

Ninety-six per cent of Palestinians believe homosexuality is unacceptable. Yet our state media would like us to believe Israel is supposed to be the bad guy. It is too late for the UK.
But it is not too late for America.
It is ironic perhaps given the perception of Donald, but under Trump you can choose tolerance. He says ‘this attack is an assault on people’s ability to love who they want’. And he is right.
This was a crime of hate against the LGBT community. Islam is to blame.
Perhaps it is those who preach tolerance that we should be most afraid of. Democrats and liberals preach tolerance. But in doing so they have chosen to ignore the dark truths of a religion which is the most intolerant of all.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3641118/KATIE-HOPKINS-won-t-Left-admit-inconvenient-truth-Islam-hates-love.html#ixzz4C1wptIDR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

Hugh Fitzgerald: The Ethnic Turks of Germany, Or “We Didn’t Expect That”

June 19, 2016 1:50 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald Leave a Comment



The Turks were the first large group of Muslims to move into Western Europe, beginning in the early 1960s, when Turkish men were brought to Germany as Gastarbeiter (“Guest Workers”) at the time of Germany’s boom or “economic miracle.” Later, the Germans decided that because of social problems with those guest workers (single males behaving badly), they should be allowed to bring with them their wives and children, in the expectation that this would calm the Turkish males down. But now those Gastarbeiter who had originally been expected to work for some years and then return to Turkey, instead were allowed, accompanied by their families, to become permanent residents, or even, in many cases, citizens. There are now more than three million ethnic Turks in Germany, and another two million Muslims of non-Turkish origin.

The results of two recent studies of Turks in Germany (the first, by the University of Münster, is “Integration and Religion From the Viewpoint of the Turkish Germans in Germany”; the second is “German-Turkish Life and Values,” and was jointly produced by the Berlin-based INFO polling institute and the Liljeberg research firm) are cause for alarm, and will certainly surprise many; they certainly came as a surprise to those conducting the two polls (“we didn’t expect that,” said Detlef Pollack, spokesman for the “Religion and Politics” group at Münster). What they discovered is that almost half (47 per cent) of the ethnic Turks polled said that following their “religious dogmas” – that is, the dictates of Islam – was “more important” to them than “obeying the laws of the land in which I live,” especially if they believed the German laws were in any way incompatible with Islam. Still more disturbing, one-third of the Muslims queried said that they yearned to “live in the society” of the times of the Prophet Muhammad – in other words, to erase the last 1400 years of cultural and intellectual progress in the West.

At the same time, the ethnic Turks were not discontented with the quality of their lives from the material point of view. 90 per cent of them responded that they were “pleased” with their life in Germany. However, there was one repeated complaint: over half reported that they were “second-class citizens” and had no chance to integrate fully, even though 70% of them “expressed a readiness to integrate ‘absolutely and unconditionally.’” More than half (54%) of the ethnic Turks also complained that “no matter what I do, I will never be recognized as a part of German society.” But who, after all, is preventing integration? Is it the Germans? Or is it, rather, those one out of three Turks who want to return to the time of Muhammad, or one out of two Turks who place Islamic law above the German one, or the nearly two out of three Turks – 62%, up from 40% in 2010 – who (in the second poll) say that even if they must associate with Germans at school or at work, they would much rather be around other Turks? And 95% of the Turks surveyed said it is absolutely necessary for them to preserve their Turkish identity; only slightly less, or 87% of those surveyed, said they believed that German society should make a great effort to be considerate of the customs and traditions of Turkish immigrants. Presumably almost all those Turks will be holding on for dear life to their Turkish identity, while at the same time somehow doing everything they can to integrate “absolutely and unconditionally” into German society.

The questioned Turks don’t appear to understand the significance of their own responses. What are the poor Germans to make of these contradictory answers?
But there’s still more to disturb. 20% of the Turks polled said that “the threat to Islam posed by the Western world” could justify Muslim violence to “defend” themselves against the West. In Islam, the definition of a “defensive” war is most peculiar: when non-Muslims refuse to yield to, or place obstacles in the way of, Muslim demands, or the Muslim call to Islam, this is considered an attack on Islam, and Muslims have a right to “defend” themselves. And 7% of the ethnic Turks in Germany, when queried, said that the use of violence to spread Islam was justified in every case. Of the Turks surveyed, 72% believe that Islam is the only true religion (in the 2010 survey, it was 69%).

Ethnic Turks and Germans in Germany view Islam quite differently. 57% of Turks link the protection of human rights to Islam; only 6% of German nationals do so. 56% of Turks associate Islam with tolerance, while only 5% of Germans do. It is clear that despite the massive efforts of the German state to make Turks (and other Muslims) understand the Western notions of “tolerance” and “human rights” that have so little to do with the Islamic conceptions of either, those efforts have failed. Or rather, the German state took on an impossible task, which was to change how Muslims in Germany interpreted Islam, so that it might be made compatible with Western ideas of human rights and tolerance. It hasn’t happened in Germany, and it hasn’t happened anywhere else.

Just as worrisome as the one out of three Turks who wanted to live in a society like that inhabited by the Prophet Muhammad was this: nearly half, or 46%, of the ethnic Turks in Germany expressed their devout wish that some day there would be more Muslims than Christians in Germany.
If present birth and immigration trends continue, their wish is likely to be granted. Muslims, Turk and non-Turk, could outnumber Germans in Germany within two generations, by 2050. That’s not far away. When Europeans hear about this grim future that conceivably awaits them, many become so upset that they simply shut their ears. Like Dickens’ Podsnap, they collectively exclaim: “I don’t want to know about it; I don’t choose to discuss it; I don’t admit it!”

But there’s no avoiding it. And if they were “to discuss it,” they might find ways – beginning with prudently shutting the door on Muslim immigration, and cutting extravagant benefits of all kinds to Muslim migrants already present – that would allow them to believe in a real future for their children, a future outside dar al-Islam.
60% of Germans in a recent poll declared that Islam “has no place in Germany,” up from 47% a few years ago. 60% of Germans cannot all be so easily cast into the outer darkness of putatively “far-right” Pegida. What happened to concentrate German minds? A million more Muslim migrants in just the past year happened, that’s what happened.
And it is not only Germans who are alarmed about the size of the Muslim population in Germany. In an interview on May 31 with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a world-renowned figure declared that Germany has already accepted “too many” migrants and that they should eventually be returned to help rebuild their home countries. “Germany cannot become an Arab [i.e., Muslim] country,” he said. “Germany is Germany.”

Who said that? Not a member of Pegida. But, rather, someone who has been lionized by the Left for more than half a century, someone who always ranks first or second in any poll of the “most popular world leaders.” Having awakened to reality just in time, he is now inveighing against the Islamization of Germany. It’s not Geert Wilders, not Marine Le Pen, not Magdi Allam, not Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Hearteningly, it turns out to be the Dalai Lama. Which means one thing: All is not lost — at least not yet.

Jordan News Agency claims hackers planted story of Saudis funding Hillary

​