Said Ramadan (Arabic: سعيد رمضان; April 12, 1926 – August 4, 1995)
was the son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Said Ramadan was a major figure in that organization and was expelled from Egypt by Gamal Abdul Nasser for his activities. He moved to Saudi Arabia where he founded the World Islamic League, a charity and missionary group. He then moved to Geneva, Switzerland, before finishing a dissertation at the University of Cologne in 1959. In 1961 he founded the Islamic Center in Geneva, a combination mosque, think tank, and community center. His son Hani Ramadan now runs that center. Another son, Tariq Ramadan is prominent in international Islamic affairs and academics.
Said Ramadan’s US connections included Malcolm X and Dawud Salahuddin.
MISSION
Drawing on the relevant resolutions of the ICFM’s, an OIC Group in Geneva has been established to help further improvement of Solidarity and Coordination among Member States.
The objectives of establishing this group, are: to consolidated the spirit of solidarity among the Members States; to enhance the Group’s potential by the involvement of their Ambassadors and experts in negotiations and decision making process; to coordinate the position and views of the OIC countries and harmonize their positions in the different foras and International meetings of the UN Agencies and specialized institutions, to contribute, as cross-regional Group to international decision making process.
The OIC Group in Geneva was also established to increase the effectiveness of the work of the OIC Missions aimed at promoting efficient cooperation and coordination among Members States on issues concerning Muslim Ummah.
Some keys factors in advancing the objectives of the Group are:
– Maintaining a clear vision on the work of the OIC Group
The principles and goals enshrined in the OIC Charter, the guidance of the OIC conferences; and the indicative spirit of the Group, materialized through its dealing with United Nations Agenda in Geneva constitutes the main component of the vision. In addition, resolution n° 40/30-P of the 31ICFM, entitled “Adoption by the Islamic States of a Unified Stand at International For a” also serves as a directive on Various aspect of the Group’s activities including defining mandates and scope of work as well as setting priorities and submitting of recommendations.
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has long been on the forefront of the Islamist mission to establish the equivalent of Islamic blasphemy laws in the West. Now, during its 12th Islamic Summit held in Cairo February 7-8, 2013, the OIC set forth new and creative ways to silence, and ultimately criminalize criticism of Islam.
The OIC is a 57-member state organization that claims to represent 1.5 billion Muslims around the globe. As the second largest international organization in the world, behind only the UN, and as the largest Islamic organization in the world, it is obviously quite powerful. Though it is arguably the largest voting block in the UN, most people have never heard of it.
One of the OIC’s primary aims for at least the last fourteen years has been the international criminalization of speech that is critical of any Islam-related topic, including Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam.
Since 1999, the OIC has set forth UN resolutions that would “combat defamation of religions.” These resolutions condemned criticism of religion, but in the OIC’s interpretation, it applied only to Islam. True statements of fact constituted no exception.
Support for the resolutions declined once the United States and other Western countries caught wind of the true meaning of “defamation of religions” and its inevitable chilling effect on freedom of expression.
In 2011, at the State Department’s request, the OIC drafted an alternative resolution that was intended to retain freedom of expression and still address the OIC’s concerns about alleged Islamophobia. The result was Resolution 16/18 to Combat Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief.
The US State Department and numerous Christian organizations were elated, believing that the OIC had abandoned its mission to protect Islam from so-called “defamation,” and instead replaced it with the goal of protecting persecuted religious minorities from discrimination and violence. In other words, many assumed a paradigm shift away from providing legal protections to a religion and toward legal protections for people.
But the OIC had some very creative interpretations of the language embodied in the new resolution. By its manipulation of words such as intolerance and incitement, giving new meanings to what many thought was plain English, the OIC made it clear that it had not dropped its ultimate goal of protecting Islam from “defamation.”
Almost immediately upon its passage and the passage of a similar resolution in the General Assembly, the OIC set out on the unconventional task of “implementing” Resolution 16/18, contrary to the norm of leaving UN resolutions in the realm of the theoretical.
Unfortunately, the U.S. State Department acted as a willing accomplice in this effort, holding the second “Istanbul Conference” in December of 2011. But, in its implementation phase, rather than moving toward the preservation of free expression, the OIC successfully moved the process in the opposite direction: toward speech restrictive policies.
Though the U.S., thus far, has not pushed for the enactment of “hate speech” laws, it has “advocated for other measures to achieve the same result.” Indeed, at this Administration’s behest, all national security training materials and policies “de-link” any interpretation of Islam from Islamic terrorism. Many U.S. government agencies have now made it verboten to mention Islamic terrorism or assert anything negative about Islam.
The OIC’s task is easier in the EU countries, most of which already have some sort of hate speech restrictions. They vary from country to country. Some are cast as laws against the “denigration of religions”; some are “hate speech” laws; some are “public order” laws and some are “incitement to religious hatred” laws. Additionally, the penalties can range from civil fines to jail time depending on the country. The U.S. is the last hold out on retaining true freedom when it comes to matters of speech.
This past February, the OIC held an Islamic Summit, a high-level meeting held every three years. It is the OIC’s largest meeting. Heads of State and high ranking officials from member states attend. The purpose of the meeting is to provide guidance pertinent to the realization of the objectives provided for in the OIC Charter and to consider other issues of importance to member states and the Islamic Ummah. This year’s theme for the agenda was “The Muslim World: New Challenges and Expanding Opportunities.”
Though the summit focused largely on Syria, Mali, and the “Palestinian issue,” the OIC also made it clear that it would ramp up its efforts to defeat “Islamophobia.”
The OIC is fastidiously working on the creation of legal instruments to address and combat “Islamophobia.” Renewing its commitment to mobilize the West to comply with Islamic blasphemy laws, the OIC vowed to push for nation states to enact laws that will criminalize the “denigration of religions” during in its next Istanbul conference, anticipated to take place this June.
Further, it is requesting that the UN start an international mechanism that could serve as an “early warning system” against instances of discrimination and intolerance on religious grounds. Specifically, the OIC is proposing the creation of an observatory at the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, presumably analogous to the Observatory on Islamophobia that the OIC already maintains. The difference would be that the new observatory would be overseen by an internationally sanctioned entity (the UN) and would expand to all religions.
It is fair to say that since Islamist organizations have coordinated campaigns across the world that encourage and solicit reports of either real, feigned, staged or imagined incidents of “Islamophobia,” the new “empirical data” that such an observatory would collect, would still be drastically skewed. No other religion has a worldwide campaign instructing its members to report unpleasant truths as “bigotry” or to complain about slights as minor as “hostile looks.”
Additionally, the OIC is continuing to use the language embodied in pre-existing legal instruments in order to make it harder for Western countries to object. For example, Resolution 16/18 mirrors some of the language in the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). ICCPR, Article 20 states “the advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” The U.S. rightly signed a reservation to this clause, effectively opting out, insisting that Americans retain the right to exercise their First Amendment freedom of speech.
Further, though Article 20 makes such speech illegal, it leaves the definition of these terms open to interpretation and does not specify that the illegality must be criminal in nature. Despite this, Rizwan Saeed Sheikh, spokesman for the OIC Secretary General, insists that pursuant to Article 20 the “denigration of symbols or persons sacred to any religion is a criminal offense.”
Such claims are indicative of the legal and linguistic gymnastics that the OIC will use to achieve its goal to “combat defamation of Islam” and to export Islamic blasphemy laws, labeling them as something aesthetically easier to swallow.
At the Summit, OIC members also unanimously elected Iyad Madani to the post of OIC Secretary General. His term is to commence in 2014 when current Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu’s term expires. This is the first time that the OIC will be headed by a Saudi.
Though the current OIC regime is comprised of sticklers for Islamic blasphemy laws and staunch advocates for the obliteration of Israel, it is likely that the OIC will become even more extreme under Madani. Compared to the Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia, Ihsanoglu and gang can be considered reformers pushing “Islam lite.” The election of a former Saudi Minister to head the largest Islamic organization in the world and lead the UN’s most powerful voting bloc is a bad omen of what’s to come. Indeed, it would come as no surprise if under its new leadership, the OIC’s old leadership would be labeled “Islamophobic.”
The Oil Invading People Minds. Thinking Differently On The Side Of The Oil.
A Government Who Surrender Its Flag to a New Entity, that want to subject its Surrounding.
(1.30)
The Green Liquid which stand for blood and is so toxic that kills anyone who inhales it.
Here A tiny clip from Lone Gunmen Episode 1: Pilot, Aired on March 4, 2001.
Written By: Chris Carter, Vince Gilligan, John Shiban, and Frank Spotnitz Directed By: Rob Bowman Copyright: XFiles/21st Century FOX. All Rights Reserved
Remember September 11, 2001
Lone Gunmen March 4, 2001 PILOT EPISODE (Full Episode)
I just Like to Add This.. Jihad is Global..
What happen in the US flow to other Countries..
How not be please and Honour to be an Ally of the USA..
And here the U.N. vote this and vote that..
Whatever that it look going for or against a Country at the End The Winner is
The Grows of Islam and group until Al Qaida it self..
Thanks the West to make the Islamic Dream Come True !!!
If the USA doesn’t step up, and clear its ways…The Rest of The Western world
Won’t stand a chance.
In an Absurd Way..that could still swing their feet. Is that
Let’s Take Sharia…. Block the Street by day time prayer, all women under burka..and so on..
I think the USA be taking its Country Back in a snap of fingers.. Or may be not, but then, Happy Faces Will Come From Behind The Curtain… and by that Know Who Really Rule The Country…
There is A Time To Choose, I think to take a leave, this time with hope on my own free will.
If nobody move or just keep writing : Rape in Sweden, Murder In France, Terror among Civilians in the U.K… And That does not move people with power of changing things..
Even Create an Atmosphere what can increase those Crimes..
There is a Break ! A Claps of Foundation. At The Question who do choice between the Savage and The Civilize man.
My Answer is : neither But An Extreme Savage that got the means to bring back Civilization !
Wilhem T. Knox
A TIME FOR CHOOSING (The Speech – October 27, 1964)
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn’t been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.
I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, “We’ve never had it so good.”
But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We’ve raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don’t own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we’ve just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.
As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.
Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.
And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.
This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down—[up] man’s old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”
Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government”—this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
Now, we have no better example of this than government’s involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85 percent of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming—that’s regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we’ve spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don’t grow.
Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he’ll find out that we’ve had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He’ll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He’ll find that they’ve also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn’t keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.
At the same time, there’s been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There’s now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can’t tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.
Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how—who are farmers to know what’s best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.
Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a “more compatible use of the land.” The President tells us he’s now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we’ve only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they’ve taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we’ve sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.
They’ve just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you’re depressed, lie down and be depressed.
We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they’ve had almost 30 years of it—shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?
But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we’re told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We’re spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you’ll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we’d be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.
Now—so now we declare “war on poverty,” or “You, too, can be a Bobby Baker.” Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we’re spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have—and remember, this new program doesn’t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs—do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated. This is the youth feature. We’re now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we’re going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we’re going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.
But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who’d come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She’s eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who’d already done that very thing.
Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we’re always “against” things—we’re never “for” anything.
Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.
Now—we’re for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we’ve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.
But we’re against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They’ve called it “insurance” to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term “insurance” to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they’re doing just that.
A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary—his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he’s 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due—that the cupboard isn’t bare?
Barry Goldwater thinks we can.
At the same time, can’t we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn’t you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we’re for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we’re against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They’ve come to the end of the road.
In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar’s worth, and not 45 cents worth?
I think we’re for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we’re against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world’s population. I think we’re against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.
I think we’re for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we’re against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We’re helping 107. We’ve spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear.
Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.
Federal employees—federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation’s work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man’s property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.
Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, “If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States.” I think that’s exactly what he will do.
But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn’t the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died—because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.
Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the—or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.
Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men—that we’re to choose just between two personalities.
Well what of this man that they would destroy—and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I’ve been privileged to know him “when.” I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I’ve never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.
This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn’t work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.
An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, “Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such,” and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he’d load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.
During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, “There aren’t many left who care what happens to her. I’d like her to know I care.” This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, “There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start.” This is not a man who could carelessly send other people’s sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I’ve discussed academic, unless we realize we’re in a war that must be won.
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we’ll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.
We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.
Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then—when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all. You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this—this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits—not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.” You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny. Thank you very much.
When Pope Urban had urbanely said thes and very similar things, he so centered in one purpose the desires all who were present that all cried out, ” It is the will of God! I It is the. will of God 1 ” When the venerable Roman pontiff heard that, with eyes uplifted to heaven, he gave thanks to God and, commanding silence with his hand, said:
“Most beloved brethren, today is manifest in you what the Lord says in the Gospel, `Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them’; for unless God had been present in your spirits, all of you would not have uttered the same cry; since, although the cry issued from numerous mouths, yet the origin of the cry as one. Therefore I say to you that God, who implanted is in your breasts, has drawn it forth from you. Let that then be your war cry in combats, because it is given to you by God. When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: ‘It is the will of God! It is the will of God!’ [Deus vult! Deus Vult!]
John has seen the picture of God’s care over His followers in their conflict;
the certainty of their triumph over the terrible conditions of the day; and, the
glory which is beyond the grave. All that remains is the necessity of impressing
upon them the importance of this message.
The time is near – BELIEVE GOD’S WORD! (v. 6, 7, 10).
The time is near – KEEP THE FELLOWSHIP PURE! (v. 8,9,14,15,18,19).
The time is near – PREPARE TO MEET JESUS! (v. 12,13,16,11).
The time is near – ACCEPT CHRIST’S INVITATION! (v. 17).
The time is near – BE EXCITED ABOUT CHRIST’S RETURN! (v. 20,22).
“Wilhem Arrow” : RELIGIOUS WAR : Because It Is War and Because It Is Religious
By the Past, Several Protestant Countries did came to help each other in order to survive and maintain their specific way of see Christianity, long wars..
Today those matter, doesn’t matter, because to many, it is long past and are not of today concern.
But It Is.. Islam doesn’t see an Orthodox, a Catholic, or a Protestant, We Are All in the Same Box of : INFIDELS
But old ties should come back.. What About The Lutherans Brothers and Sisters in Sweden in Norway in Denmark…
Where IS THE BROTHERHOOD ???
It is Time To Give A Hand, To Create A Line Of Support
The Thirty Years’ War
Script:
The 30 years war was a conflict that put most of Europe in ruins. It lasted from 1618 to 1648, and it mostly involved Germany, but the Holy Roman Empire, and many more countries in Europe were involved as well. It was also a conflict between Protestants and Catholics. IT began in 1617 when Emperor Mathias wanted his heir Ferdinand II to be his successor , in order to make sure that a Catholic would be the Emperor. He then continued to closed down protestant churches, and protestants in Bohemia were very unhappy, and they revolted. Hungarians and Austrians joined Bohemia in the revolt, while Ferdinand received the aid of Maximilian of Bavaria, who had the largest army in the empire. With more help from Spain and Poland, Maximilian defeated the Bohemians at White Mountain, near Prague.
The period of 1625 to 1629 was called the Danish period. During this time the ruler of Denmark King Christian IV ironically supported Protestants against Ferdinand II. With the help of Albrecht von Wallenstein and 50,000 men, Ferdinand defeated Christian. Other Protestants elected Fedrick V the king because they didn’t believe that Ferdinand was their king. Frederick was German, Calvanist, and he headed the Protestant Union, which provided him Bohavian rebels.
Alarmed at all the Christian victories King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden became the new protestant leader. Sweden and France formed an alliance and fought against the Hapsburgs. The Swedes won many battles and defeated a notable imperial commander Tilly. They also defeated Ferdinand II and Wallenstein at the Battle of Lutzen, but their leader Gustavus was killed. Later It was discovered that Wallenstein had secret negotiations with Sweden and France, so he was assassinated.
The result of these two peoples deaths was the Treaty of Prague. This strengthened the power of the Hapsurgs and weakened the power of the German Princes. This treaty ended when the French intervened in the war. France had great success against Spain, which allowed the French to send more forces to fight against Germany, which helped Emperor Ferdinand II. Emperor Ferdinand eventually died in 1637, and he was succeeded by his son Ferdinand III. Peaceful negotiations began in 1642, but these negotiations were not successful until 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia. This treaty weakened the authority of the Holy Roman emperor. This also expanded the Peace of Augsburg to Calvinist, Catholics, and Lutherans. The end of these wars left Hapsburg Spain isolated.
Because of these wars, the Holy Roman empire was reduced to one nation. The emperor ruled Germany as a monarch, but could not rule over other European countries. Another outcome was that the pope became a minor voice in politics. He would speak out on political affairs, but his comments were ignored. The final outcome was that religious lines were sharply drawn in Europe. Lutherans were mostly located in Scandinavia, Prussia, and some parts in southern Germany. Calvinists lived in Switzerland, Holland, and Scotland. England had its own unique church, and the rest of Europe was mostly Catholic. And because of this religion became less important than national identity.
Message from MFE Regarding Brighton April 21st. I have been watching some videos of a recent demo by another group. To save people time and money traveling to Brighton if you are drunk or think your walking down the road on the parade drinking Stella dont bother turning up as you will be turned away. This is a family event not an excuse for drunken behaviour.
The long awaited ruling on the Abu Qatada injunction took place yesterday, and as expected the the Qatada family secured a permanent injunction preventing demonstrations from taking place with 500 metres of their taxpayer-funded home.
It was all too predictable: the legal system seems to fall over itself for Qatada and his cronies, their “human rights” come first, every time!
However, we beat their attempts to claim costs and damages, so they are left with a large bill not us!
The action we took served to highlight this farce and keeps the pressure on this terrorist scumbag and sends a message to our enemies: you might scare Cameron and Clegg, but Britain First and our allies are up for it…ANYTIME!
The story of yesterday’s hearing has received coverage in the Daily Mail, the Independent, the Daily Telegraph, BBC News, the London Evening Standard, the Guardian, Bloomberg, ITV News, Channel 4 news and many more.
Abu Qatada has been described as “Osama Bin Laden’s right hand man in Europe” and is wanted by his native country of Jordan on terror charges.
He has been described by UK courts as a “dangerous risk”.
It is the clear view of the British public and of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary that he does not belong in this country and efforts to deport him have been made.
Abu Qatada’s prominence in the mass media on regular occasion’s points to his being here in the UK as being an issue of national concern to the British electorate, and thus political opposition to his presence here is legitimate, democratic and legal.
Canvassing of support (pre-injunction) by our activists amongst the local residents of Qatada’s local area reveals huge dissatisfaction with the presence of the Qatada family in the road.
As taxpayers of the United Kingdom, our protesters (and the local residents) are directly and personally funding the residence of the Qatada family and thus have a fundamental right to lawfully protest outside a residence they are directly contributing to.
Thus, suspending the civil liberties and democratic rights of the taxpayers who are providing for Abu Qatada and his family is both an abuse of the fundamental freedoms outlined in the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, and a gross violation of the rights of taxpayers in general.
He must literally be laughing at our national weakness, stupidity and cowardice!
But, for many months, he was put under serious pressure by the united patriots of Britain First and the English National Resistance, and all the groups involved within it.
Despite the problems this has caused us, we never backed down or softened our resolve for one minute.
We did this for one reason: because it was the right thing to do.
Trying our best to get rid of an Al Qaeda/Taliban terrorist from our shores was justified and right.
In the end, he used our money and legal system against us, aided and abetted by politically correct judges and taxpayer-sponging solicitors.
I want to take this opportunity to THANK everyone who stood by us during this campaign – between our activists, the leadership and our supporters we created quite a stir!
The next step we intend to take is a widening of our campaign against the Islamic enemies of our country.
We must remember that Abu Qatada is but one of the leaders of Islamic hate in our country: we must not forget Anjem Choudrey, Sayful Islam and many others.
It is our holy duty to oppose these venomous anti-British cretins with every ounce of strength in our bodies.
Join us in the next stage of our struggle and back our campaign to oppose the Islamic enemies of our country, join Britain First today!
Yours sincerely Paul Golding Chairman, Britain First
PS: The Islamic enemies of our country will not stop until we are all dead or converted to Islam, and their numbers on our shores are growing rapidly! To ignore this call to action would be folly…think of your children’s future!
In 63 BC the Roman general Pompey took Jerusalem. Roman occupation of the Holy City had begun. A little more than 130 years later Jerusalem and its most sacred building, the temple, lay in ruins. It is amazing the Jews and the Romans were able to coexist for that long. The Romans were pagans occupying the promised land. They brought with them strange gods and strange ways of thinking and living. Rome did allow the Jews to practice their religion, but Roman paganism and Caesar worship were constantly encroaching upon Jewish beliefs. Herod once had a huge golden eagle, the symbol of Rome, placed atop the great gate to the temple and the priesthood enacted a daily sacrifice for Caesar. The Romans also placed an unbearable tax burden upon the Jews. All this combined with Roman brutality made Jewish rebellion inevitable.
The New Testament speaks little of the friction between Rome in the Jews. We do know that one of Jesus’ disciples was a zealot. The zealots favored armed rebellion against Rome. They believed that God would deliver Israel with the sword. Their reasoning went back to the days of David. When there was a gentile problem, what did David do? He got out his sword and dealt with it, and God was on his side. Surely, God would raise up a new Son of David who would do the same.
It is interesting that one of Jesus’ disciples, Simon, was a zealot (Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13). Considering the fact that Jesus opposed violent rebellion against Rome, many probably wondered why Jesus would choose such a fellow. The irony increases when we add the fact that Matthew was a tax collector. Tax collectors were very much in league with Rome. There were probably no two groups of Jews in Palestine who hated each other more than the tax collectors and the zealots. Yet, Jesus chose one of each. Most people probably would have been afraid that these two fellows would kill each other. The Lord wasn’t. He knew the kingdom of God was more powerful than the hatred of men. The very fact Jesus chose two men so opposite in their worldviews was a demonstration of its power.
There was not a unified movement against Rome in first century Palestine. Rebels rose up in many different forms, and at times they ended up fighting each other.
We might have the idea that Jesus was the only one in that day that declared he was the Messiah. On the contrary, there were a great many who thought they were Israel’s deliverer. That number only grew after the death and resurrection of Christ. Most people did not believe that the Messiah would be divine. They believed their savior would be like the deliverers of old. It was thought that the true Messiah would do at least three things. He would build the true temple of God, he would deal with the gentile problem, and he would establish the kingdom of God. However, most understood these things from an old covenant perspective. They expected their savior/king to build a temple made of stone. He would bring a violent end to the gentiles and other sinners occupying the promised land, and he would establish a revitalized old covenant Israel.
The people had one test to determine who was a real or false Messiah. If they ended up on a Roman cross, that settled the issue. Rome crucified Israel’s would be messiahs as traitors. The cross meant failure. If you died there, it meant you were a fake, and you were only getting what you deserved. This begs the question of how Jesus could ever be called the Christ after dying at the hands of the Romans. There can be only one explanation. The resurrection. In fact, scholars believe that the fact that Jesus’ following grew so rapidly after the cross is one of the greatest proofs that Jesus rose from the dead.
The book of Acts lists a number people who clamed messiahship. Gamaliel who was a Pharisee spoke of “Theudas who claimed to be somebody, and about 400 men rallied to him.” There was also “Judas the Galilean, …who led a band of people in revolt ” (Acts 5:36-37). Acts also talks of an Egyptian who led four thousand men into the wilderness to be murdered (Acts 21:38). Then there was Simon:
“Now there was a certain man named Simon, who formerly was practicing magic in the city, and astonishing the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great; and they all, from smallest to greatest, were giving attention to him, saying ‘This man is what is called the Great Power of God. And they were giving him attention because he had for a long time astonished them with his magic arts” (Acts 8:9-11).
Non-biblical sources have quoted Simon as saying, “I am the Word of God, I am the Comforter, I am Almighty, I am all there is of God.”
Later in the first century two of the most terrible false messiahs came on the scene.
Menahem: In AD 66 Menahem was the son of a rebel named Judas the Galilean. Judas believed the Jews should have no ruler but God, and of course murder was the way to accomplish this. Menahem took his father’s philosophy to new heights by raising a powerful band of cutthroats. He overpowered his opponents who preferred peace with the Romans and made a triumphant entry into Jerusalem dressed as a king. Menahem then took control of the temple and had the high priest Ananias put to death. He committed all sorts of abominations. Finally, when he was entering the temple dressed in royal robes, an angry mob seized and killed him.
John of Gischala: Late in AD 67 John of Gishala rose to power. He was even more brutal than Menahem. He had tens of thousands of people put to death. Anyone who supported the Romans or desired peace was worthy of death in John’s eyes. The priesthood supported peace with the Romans, so they became his enemies. At one point he seized the temple with the help of the Idumeans and killed the high priest. So fierce was the fighting that 8,500 died on the temple grounds. John then appointed a high priest that was a mockery. John of Gischala continued his murderous rampage until Jerusalem fell in 70 A.D. He was captured by the Romans and lived the rest of his life in prison.
Jesus was the only one that fulfilled the Messianic expectations, only He did it in a way many misunderstood. He did establish the true temple of God on the earth. His temple was not build by hands but made by God with living stones. That temple or dwelling place of God on the earth is His church. He did deal with the gentiles and the sinners. However, he did in a way so unexpected that Paul called it a mystery. He did not come to destroy folks like the Romans. He came to forgive them. He came to make the Jew and the gentile into one new man. And Jesus did bring the kingdom of God, only it was not an temporal kingdom one could find on a map. It would dwell in the hearts of His people.
Rebellion against Rome took many forms. There were certain folks that were known as bandits or robbers. These were not ordinary thieves. They were insurrectionists who robbed from the wealthy who supported Rome. These folks were often Robin Hood type figures who gained popularity with the people. Another group of rebels were the Sicarii or dagger men. They carried short curved knives that could easily be concealed. At opportune times the Sicarii would assassinate Roman sympathizers.
Ever since Pompey entered Jerusalem in 63 BC, there were pockets of armed resistance against Rome. However, rebellion reached a fever pitch in AD 60 to AD 70. In AD 60 the Jews ceased the daily sacrifice to Caesar in the temple. This was the final offence that brought the wrath of Rome upon all of Israel.
Here is a summery of the conflicts that led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple:
In AD 60 skirmishes between the Romans and the Jews began to break out.
In AD 66 Cestius led Roman armies against Jerusalem. However, for no apparent reason he broke off his attack and retreated. The Jews pursued and killed many Romans thus humiliating the Roman army. This created confidence in the rebels that God would lead them to victory over Rome.
In AD 67 Vespasian led armies in siege against Jerusalem. However, at Nero’s death Vespasian withdrew his armies and returned to Rome to become emperor.
In AD 70 Titus, the son of Vespasian, began the final siege of Jerusalem. Josephus in his work called “The Wars of the Jews” gives a detailed account of the destruction of Jerusalem. It was one of the most horrific sieges in history. Titus surrounded the city during the Passover feast, thus the number of people in the city was double the normal amount.
Various factions inside the city began to fight one another. In one skirmish the combatants accidentally set fire to the city’s grain reserves. Normally, Jerusalem had enough in reserve to endure a lengthy siege. However, the loss of these reserves led to a devastating famine. Josephus records that bands of cutthroats roamed the streets murdering entire families for even a morsel of food. Many resorted to cannibalism.
In time Titus breached Jerusalem’s defenses and surrounded the temple. A ferocious battle ensued. Titus ordered his soldiers not to harm the temple itself. It is not clear who set fire to the temple structures. Some say it was overzealous Roman soldiers. Others say it was the Jews themselves in a final act of defiance. After the fire had run its course, the Romans tore the stone structures of the temple apart in order to recover the vast quantities of gold that the fire melted. They left not one stone on top of another. Some believe this was a fulfillment of Jesus’ words in Matthew 24.
We often hear Jesus words quoted, “… for all who take the sword will perish by the sword (Matt. 26:52).” Some say He was condemning all military action throughout time. If this was the case, Jesus words simply were not true. Everyone who has taken the sword in conflict has not died violently. I believe Jesus’ words were most likely a warning to His own people. He was saying if you try to bring the kingdom of God by violence, you will all die. He was right. Those who rebelled against Rome died often in a very cruel manner.
The instrument that would overcome Rome was not the sword but the cross. It was not an act of violence but an act of love. It was not vengeance but forgiveness that eventually conquered the Roman empire.
Sources used in this series on first century history:
The Message and the Kingdom. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002.
Maier, Paul. Josephus The Essential Works. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1988.
Martin, Ernest. The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot. Portland: ASK Publications.
Stegemann, Ekkehard and Wolfgang Stegemann. The Jesus Movement. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999.
The Archaeological Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.
The Christians Their First Two Thousand Years, Vol. 1. Canada: Christian Millennial History Project, Inc., 2002.
Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. ____. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
In a recent post, we discussed how Judaism has never had a uniform view of the law or its interpretation. Different groups interpret the Torah differently. It is true today, with the Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist branches of Judaism. It was true during Jesus’ time, too.
During first century, Judaism saw four main schools develop. The Sadducees, we saw, were the priestly class who made the Temple the center of their Judaism. They did not subscribe to an Oral Torah. This was different from the Pharisees, who made the synagogue and home their spiritual center; they believed in a divinely given Oral Torah (the Mishnah), in addition to the Written Torah. We also saw how the Pharisees and their rabbinic Judaism became the ancestor of all the branches modern day Judaism. In this post, we now spend some time on two offshoots of the Pharisaic school: the Essenes and the Zealots.
The Essenes were Pharisees who emphasized a communal life and ritual purity, including full-body immersion for spiritual cleansing. Perhaps the best-known Essene is John the Baptist. See 7 Jewish Encyclopedia 218-19.
The Zealots were yet another offshoot of the Pharisees. The Zealots believed that they could hasten the beginning of the Messianic era (which included an end to foreign domination of Judea) by starting a rebellion against Rome. Josephus, the ancient Jewish historian, wrote of the Zealots. See Wars of the Jews, 4:3:9 and 7:8:1. The Zealots, in essence, were Pharisees with swords.
In trying to explain what happened to Jesus from a historical perspective, it is important to understand why he may have incurred the wrath of Pontius Pilate—the one who ultimately decided that Jesus should die.
Pilate’s job was to keep the public order. He did this be executing insurrectionists, who were a threat to the public order. I have no doubt that Pilate believed that Jesus was one of these insurrectionists. There are three reasons for this.
First, Jesus associated with insurrectionists. There was Simon, one of his disciples, and referred to as, “the Zealot.” See Luke 6:15. Another disciple was Judas Iscariot. Some scholars believe that the name, “Iscariot,” was not a surname per se, but a descriptive title, derived from the Greek word, Sicarii (“Assassins”). The Sicarii was yet another offshoot of the Zealots, who also advocated armed rebellion against Rome. There is the saying, people know us by the company we keep. That Jesus associated with known insurrectionists put him in danger.
Second, Jesus’ end was by crucifixion. Rome reserved this ghastly death for those who created a threat to the public order. Insurrectionists, of course, came under this category. Blasphemy (a capital crime in the Torah, and the subject of future post) was not such a Roman offense. Indeed, the Romans did not care at all about the internal religious squabbles among their subjects.
Third, the sign on Jesus’ cross, “King of the Jews,” states his crime and makes clear that Pilate perceived Jesus to be a revolutionary. Recall from an early post that the Messiah would be the one chosen by God to lead the Jews and the world into a golden age. Jews of Jesus’ time believed the Messiah would be not just a teacher, but a great warrior, too.
Whether or not Jesus was a Zealot is not material. Pilate believed he was—and that sealed his fate.
How is it that no matter how divergent the most crucial topics and interests of the day may be and despite their being completely independent of each other with disparate source all traveling their own paths that somehow they all appear to be closing in on a critical moment all of them almost in unison. The topics include but not be limited to such things as the budgetary sequestration, the Iranian nuclear situation with the related P5+1 talks, the continued strife from Mali to Afghanistan to Yemen and then some, and the fiscal crisis throughout much of the world with emphasis on the European Union and the United States. Where most of these subjects are covered with some lesser amounts of slant and bias, there is one from amongst them which has been the subject of pure and bold propaganda meant to obscure, mislead and demonize far more than any…
White British people are now in a minority in London for the first time, it emerged today as census data revealed that the immigrant population of England and Wales went up by 3million over the past decade.
Just 3.7million Londoners described their ethnicity as ‘White British’ in 2011 – down from 4.3million in 2001, and making up 44.9 per cent of the city’s population.
It is believed to be the first time that British whites have become a minority in any region of the UK.
Another major change to the nation came in the decreasing number of Christians – 4million fewer people claimed to belong to the faith as a quarter of Britons said they had no religion.
Foreign-born: This map shows the number of British-born people living in England. Darker areas indicate a higher number of British-born individuals living in an area, while lighter areas have a higher number of foreign-born residents. The figures – the ranges of which are found in the bottom left-hand corner – are taken from the 2011 census, conducted by the Office for National Statistics
In 2011, 7.5million residents were foreign-born, making up 13 per cent, or one in eight of the population – up from 4.6million people in 2001.
The total population of England and Wales was 56.1million, a seven per cent increase on 2001 – and 55 per cent of the increase is due to migration.
There were 33.2million people claiming to be Christian, down from 37.3million in 2001 and making up just 59 per cent of the population.
25.1 per cent of people said they had no faith, up from 14.8 per cent a decade earlier, while the proportion of Muslims rose from 3.0 per cent to 4.8 per cent.
LONDON’S ETHNIC MAKEUP
White British: 44.9%
Other white: 14.9%
Asian: 18.4%
Black: 13.3%
Arab: 1.3%
Mixed race: 5%
The third most popular religion was Hinduism, with 1.5 per cent of the population, while 0.8 per cent were Sikhs and 0.5 per cent Jewish.
Nearly 180,000 claimed to be followers of the Jedi religion featured in Star Wars – down from 2001, when around 400,000 jokingly put the faith down on their census form.
The statistics emerged as the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed that English cathedral congregations had grown dramatically in recent years, debunking the ‘cliché’ that the Church of England is fading away.
Andrew Copson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, said the decline in religion was ‘really significant’, adding: ‘In spite of a biased question that positively encourages religious responses, to see such an increase in the non-religious and such a decrease in those reporting themselves as Christian is astounding.
‘Of course these figures still exaggerate the number of Christians overall -the number of believing, practising Christians is much lower than this and the number of those leading their lives with no reference to religion much higher.’
But Nick Spencer, research director at theology think-tank Theos, argued ‘Religion is difficult to define and difficult to measure.
‘The census measures religious identification, not beliefs or practice. It’s about what people call themselves, and which group they wish to identify with.
‘These figures show that we have a plural religious landscape, but that doesn’t mean we’re atheists. Digging deeper, we see that even those who say they have no religion often have a variety of spiritual beliefs, but they don’t want to associate these to religious institutions.’
Religion: This graph shows how Christianity has been in decline as every other faith grows more popular
Change: The number of ‘White British’ people is at an all-time low following a decade of change
The data on religion showed considerable national variation – Knowsley, in Lancashire, is the most Christian town in England with 80.9 per cent of residents following the faith, while in London’s Tower Hamlets 34.5 per cent of the population are Muslims.
Norwich is the most godless place in the country, as 42.5 per cent said they had no religion – despite the presence of one of England’s most spectacular cathedrals.
Britain’s increasing diversity was emphasised by the data released by the Office of National Statistics, as it emerged that the proportion of the nation that is white has fallen below 90 per cent for the first time.
48.2million people described themselves as being white, making up 86.0 per cent of the population of England and Wales, down from 91.3 per cent a decade earlier.
Within this ethnic group, the ‘White British’ category was the largest at 45.1million, or 80.5 per cent of the population, a fall compared to 87 per cent in 2001.
7.5 per cent of the population is Asian, while 3.4 per cent described themselves as black.
Unsurprisingly, London was found to be the most ethnically diverse region, while Wales was the least.
London is also home to the most immigrants, as 37 per cent of its residents were born abroad and 24 per cent are not citizens of the UK.
One major reason for the explosion in the foreign-born population is the accession of 12 countries in central and eastern Europe to the EU, giving them the right to live and work in the UK – the population of Poles in England and Wales has grown nine-fold over the decade.
Apart from Poland, the other leading countries of origin for British immigrants were India, Pakistan, Ireland and Germany.
The largest increase in ethnic group over the last decade was seen in the ‘White: Other’ category where an increase of 1.1million was recorded. This reflects more than half a million Poles who migrated into England and Wales during these years, the ONS said.
HOW BRITAIN LOST ITS FAITH
Data from last year’s census today revealed the stunning decline of religion in the UK – with the number of Christians dropping by more than 4million.
Just 59.3 per cent of people in England and Wales now describe themselves as followers of Christianity, raising the prospect that Christians could soon be in the minority.
Following a decade of aggressive anti-religious campaigning by high-profile atheists, a quarter of Britons now say they have no faith.
Those ticking the box for no religious affiliation rose from 14.8 per cent in 2001 to 25.1 per cent in 2011 with the Christian category – including Church of England, Catholic and all other Christian denominations – falling from 71.7 per cent over the same period to 59.3 per cent of the population.
In addition to the huge spike in atheists, the proportion of Muslims has risen from 3.0 per cent to 4.8 per cent since 2001.
Around 2million respondents listed their partners or fellow household members as being of different ethnic groups – 47 per cent more than in 2001.
For the first time fewer of half of Britons – 46.6 per cent – are married, the data revealed, with nine per cent divorced and seven per cent widowed.
Over a third have never married, while 105,000 people – 0.2 per cent of the population – are in a same-sex civil partnership.
The census results reveal that the mean age of people in England and Wales is 39.4, with 21.3 per cent of the population under 18 and 16.6 per cent aged 65 or over.
Good news for the country came from the data on education, which revealed that for the first time more of us have a bachelor’s degree or higher than have no academic qualifications – 27 to 23 per cent.
There are also encouraging signs in the fact that 81 per cent of people claim to be in good or very good health – however, 10million people say they are struggling with some sort of disability or long-term illness.
Multicultural: The number of immigrants in England and Wales has shot up as the proportion of the population that is white has decreased over the past decade, according to census data
Militants supported by Obama administration killed U.S. troops in Iraq
By Paul Joseph Watson December 5, 2012
A shocking report by McClatchy Newspapers’ David Enders reveals that the militants now on the front lines of the rebel uprising in Syria – supported by the Obama administration and other western powers – are Al-Qaeda terrorists who killed U.S. troops in Iraq and openly espouse their desire to “fight the U.S.” after they topple Bashar Al-Assad.
The official narrative at first attempted to deny the existence of Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria altogether, before being forced to admit they were present but downplaying their role as limited and not characteristic of the rebel uprising.
However, Enders documents how Jabhat al Nusra, a group directly affiliated with Al-Qaeda, “has become essential to the frontline operations of the rebels fighting to topple Assad,” that the group is “critical to the rebels’ military advance” and how it conducts the “heaviest frontline fighting” in “battle after battle across the country.”
A journalist cited in the article also discovered “Nusra’s fighters on every frontline he visited.”
Jabhat al Nusra has claimed responsibility for numerous suicide bombings and other attacks that have killed hundreds of innocent people. Last weekend, disturbing footage emerged of one of their members slaughtering prisoners in cold blood. Extremist militants have also ransacked Christian churches and carried out sectarianbeheadings.
The article quotes one of the members of the group, who stated unequivocally, “When we finish with Assad, we will fight the U.S.!”
The journalist who heard the comment considered that it could have been a “joke,” but it didn’t appear to be much of a laughing matter when Syrian rebels were shown on camera proudly burning U.S. flags on two separate occasions recently.
As we previously documented, rebel supporters chanted anti-American slogans as they torched the American flag in Homs and Aleppo.
Another opposition fighter recently spoke of his desire to see the Al-Qaeda flag fly over the White House once the rebels are victorious across the region. Suffice to say, he didn’t appear to be joking.
Syrian rebel fighters are routinely photographed wearing the Al-Qaeda motif. There are also innumerable You Tube videos that show opposition forces flying the Al-Qaeda flag – the same distinctive black flag with white Arabic lettering that was flown by rioters during anti-U.S. demonstrations in numerous countries earlier this year.
French Surgeon Jacques Bérès, who worked at a hospital in Aleppo commented that at least half of the militants he treated for injuries were Al-Qaeda terrorists whose goal is to impose sharia law across Syria and the whole region. A German report estimated the figure of foreign fighters in Syria to be even higher – a staggering 95 per cent.
As we have also documented at length, the McClatchy piece emphasizes the fact that Jabhat al Nusra was responsible for killing U.S. troops in Iraq, noting how the group relies on, “the same people and tactics that fueled al Qaida in Iraq – an assertion that is borne out by interviews with Nusra members in Syria.”
“Among Nusra fighters are many Syrians who say they fought with al Qaida in Iraq, which waged a bloody and violent campaign against the U.S. presence in that country and is still blamed for suicide and car bombings that have killed hundreds of Iraqis since the U.S. troops left a year ago,” writes Enders.
The article asserts that the presence of these terrorists in Syria, “worries U.S. and other Western officials,” although it obviously wasn’t too much of a concern when the Obama administration signed off on over $200 million dollars in aid to the FSA rebels.
Nor was it much of a worry for the CIA when it helped the likes of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar funnel heavy arms to rebel groups in the region.
Although the establishment media has billed the rebels’ cause as a democratic uprising, one of the leaders of Jabhat al Nusra quoted in the McClatchy piece, Iyad al Sheikh Mahmoud, made it clear that there would be no free elections in Syria once Assad is toppled.
“Eighty percent of Syrians want Islamic law,” he said, referring to sharia law, an arcane and inherently brutal system of justice, with harsh punishments for those deemed to have broken its moral code, including torture and execution for sins such as adultery, homosexuality and robbery. The law also stifles free speech as it criminalizes criticism of Islam, the Quran, and the prophet Muhammad.
Why is the Obama administration supporting armed thugs who have not only killed U.S. troops in Iraq on behalf of Al-Qaeda, but also advocate the imposition of sharia law across the entire middle east and the overthrow of the United States and its replacement with an extremist Muslim dictatorship?
Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Luke 23:34
I Use To Believe That. And I don’t know what is more dangerous to tell A Government of its blindness , of paths, that we will regret bitterly.. By Unknownly see where all this is going, by seeing the short term resolution where everybody looks good ?!
Or do they know, and by that you could called a Planification, things going according to a Plan, A Plan that been study and agree on..
So far what does that plan can do in western countries :
-Push down the local people, in their Rights in their saying… Stripped of Their “We The People” because “we the people doesn’t exist anymore” As A WE The People !
-It Increase fears, and so by it, increase Government power ..to bring soldiers in the street..
-Its also like in collateral take away support from Westerners to Israel.. And Israel as an Idea of Freedom…
is The Biggest Danger, in that Plan Point Of Views.
We Are Crucifying Our Own Freedom, Our Own Free Will, Our Right to Destiny
Westerners have been investing a lot of time, effort and money trying to understand Islam, when all they need to do is listen to what Muslim leaders are saying. American foreign policy priorities should not be the appeasement of an Islamic culture desperate for approval, but protecting its citizens, culture and constitution from all morally bankrupt and tyrannical ideologies.
The Order of Malta celebrates 900th
‘birthday’ February 7, 2013
February 7, 2013 (Romereports.com) Tradition is an integral
part of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. From the
clothing its members wear, to its emblematic eight pointed Cross. Part of that
strong tradition is serving the needy around the globe. In fact it was
900 years ago, back in February 1113, the Order was declared a
sovereign entity, marking its independence from both religious and secular
authorities.
ALBRECHT BOESELAGER
Grand Hospitaller of the Order of Malta “We are celebrating
900 years of the recognition of the Order of Malta by Pope Pascal II who issued
a so called Bula document.”
That document opened a new chapter for
the Order. Now, 900 years later, it carries out humanitarian work in about 120
countries. Even though the Order is Catholic, it also provides aid in
Muslim and Communist countries.
ALBRECHT BOESELAGER
Grand Hospitaller of the Order of Malta “We have been
active in Cuba since the 60’s during all the time of the communist regime mainly
dealing with caring for lepers first, and then we entered into a corporation
agreement with the government of Cuba.”
MAURO
CASINGHINI
National Director of Italian Relief Corps “Our
challenge is making sure that the Christian values the Order was founded on, are
transmitted in the contemporary world. That way we combine our aid with our
professional capacity.”
Even though the Order of Malta doesn’t
rule over a specific territory, it does have diplomatic relations with 104
countries and it has an observer status with the U.N.
Its roots date
back to the Crusades and membership was traditionally for Christian noble
families. Now, it has about 13,000 members and that criteria has changed.
ALBRECHT BOESELAGER
Grand Hospitaller of the Order of
Malta “To become a member of the Order of Malta you have to be
a faithful Catholic, you have to be proposed by two or three sponsors and we
expect the candidate, to have shown before he becomes a member that he engages
in the works of the Order.”
To mark its 900th anniversary, about 4,000 members and volunteers from every corner of the world, will
come to Rome on February 9th. The Pope will hold an audience and
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone will celebrate Mass with these attendees, in St.
Peter’s Basilica.
“Keep It Tribal” : + Music : Tribal Tumult +
Fellow patriot,
It is the clear view of the British public and of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary that he does not belong in this country and efforts to deport him have been made.
But, for many months, he was put under serious pressure by the united patriots of Britain First and the English National Resistance, and all the groups involved within it.
Foreign-born: This map shows the number of British-born people living in England. Darker areas indicate a higher number of British-born individuals living in an area, while lighter areas have a higher number of foreign-born residents. The figures – the ranges of which are found in the bottom left-hand corner – are taken from the 2011 census, conducted by the Office for National Statistics
Religion: This graph shows how Christianity has been in decline as every other faith grows more popular
Change: The number of ‘White British’ people is at an all-time low following a decade of change
Multicultural: The number of immigrants in England and Wales has shot up as the proportion of the population that is white has decreased over the past decade, according to census data
February 7, 2013 (Romereports.com) Tradition is an integral
swissdefenceleague 