• March 26, 2019
    America’s 233-Year-Old Shock at Jihad
    By Raymond Ibrahim
    Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned.

    Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786:


    We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise

    One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting.

    It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis.

    The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.”

    The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.”

    As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating.

    After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya).

    Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments).

    Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.”

    But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew.

    Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom.

    When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands.

    One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard.

    That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”)

    Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803.

    Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli.

    The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”)

    Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities.

    Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years.

    Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West; 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here).

    Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned.

    Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786:

    We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise

    One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting.

    It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis.

    The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.”

    The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.”

    As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating.

    After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya).

    Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments).

    Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.”

    But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew.

    Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom.

    When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands.

    One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard.

    That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”)

    Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803.

    Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli.

    The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”)

    Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities.

    Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years.

    Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306825554/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0306825554&linkCode=as2&tag=raymondibrahi-20&linkId=0f925201768b161ae319879bb3fdf1d7); 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here).



    Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html#ixzz5wReVKssJ
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html
    March 26, 2019 America’s 233-Year-Old Shock at Jihad By Raymond Ibrahim Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned. Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786: We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting. It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis. The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.” The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.” As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating. After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya). Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments). Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.” But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew. Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom. When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands. One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard. That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”) Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803. Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli. The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”) Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities. Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years. Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West; 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here). Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned. Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786: We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting. It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis. The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.” The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.” As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating. After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya). Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments). Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.” But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew. Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom. When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands. One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard. That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”) Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803. Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli. The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”) Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities. Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years. Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306825554/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0306825554&linkCode=as2&tag=raymondibrahi-20&linkId=0f925201768b161ae319879bb3fdf1d7); 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here). Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html#ixzz5wReVKssJ Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html
    America’s 233-Year-Old Shock at Jihad
    The United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims after the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims. 
    WWW.AMERICANTHINKER.COM
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Daily in Christ by Neil t. Anderson 2019-08-10
    YOUR ADVOCATE
    “He [Christ] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2)

    When Mandy came to see me, she appeared to have her life all together. She was a Christian who was very active in her church. She had led her alcoholic father to Christ on his deathbed. She was pretty, and she had a nice husband and two wonderful children. But she had attempted suicide at least three times.

    "How can God love me?" Mandy sobbed. "I'm such a failure."

    "Mandy, God loves you, not because you are lovable, but because it is His nature to love you."

    "But I've tried to take my own life, Neil. How can God overlook that?"

    "Just suppose, Mandy, that your son grew despondent and tried to take his own life. Would you love him any less? Would you kick him out of the family? Would you turn your back on him?"

    "Of course not, I'd feel sorry for him and try to love him more."

    "Are you telling me that a perfect God isn't as good a parent to you as you, an imperfect person, are to your children?"

    Mandy got the point. She began to realize that God, as a loving parent, can overlook weaknesses and forgive sin.

    God wants us to do good of course. The apostle John wrote: "I write this to you so that you will not sin." But John continued by reminding us that God has already made provision for our failure so His love continues constant despite what we do: "But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world". (1 John 2:1, 2 NIV)

    One reason we doubt God's love is that we have an adversary who uses every little offense to accuse us of being good-for-nothings. But your advocate, Jesus Christ, is more powerful than your adversary. He has cancelled the debt of your sins--past, present and future. No matter what you do or how you fail, God has no reason not to love you and accept you completely.

    Prayer: Father in heaven, thank You for being my perfect parent, my haven of security and trustworthiness, and the victor over my enemy.
    Daily in Christ by Neil t. Anderson 2019-08-10 YOUR ADVOCATE “He [Christ] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2) When Mandy came to see me, she appeared to have her life all together. She was a Christian who was very active in her church. She had led her alcoholic father to Christ on his deathbed. She was pretty, and she had a nice husband and two wonderful children. But she had attempted suicide at least three times. "How can God love me?" Mandy sobbed. "I'm such a failure." "Mandy, God loves you, not because you are lovable, but because it is His nature to love you." "But I've tried to take my own life, Neil. How can God overlook that?" "Just suppose, Mandy, that your son grew despondent and tried to take his own life. Would you love him any less? Would you kick him out of the family? Would you turn your back on him?" "Of course not, I'd feel sorry for him and try to love him more." "Are you telling me that a perfect God isn't as good a parent to you as you, an imperfect person, are to your children?" Mandy got the point. She began to realize that God, as a loving parent, can overlook weaknesses and forgive sin. God wants us to do good of course. The apostle John wrote: "I write this to you so that you will not sin." But John continued by reminding us that God has already made provision for our failure so His love continues constant despite what we do: "But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world". (1 John 2:1, 2 NIV) One reason we doubt God's love is that we have an adversary who uses every little offense to accuse us of being good-for-nothings. But your advocate, Jesus Christ, is more powerful than your adversary. He has cancelled the debt of your sins--past, present and future. No matter what you do or how you fail, God has no reason not to love you and accept you completely. Prayer: Father in heaven, thank You for being my perfect parent, my haven of security and trustworthiness, and the victor over my enemy.
    0 Comments 1 Shares
  • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Calls Trump a 'Racist' at Shooting Vigil
    ‘Whether it’s from misogyny or whether it’s from racism, you’re not more of a man with a gun.’ — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) called Trump a racist, before speaking directly to young people being radicalized by violent and hateful ideologies.

    In US news and current events of national and international importance, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez went on the offense against President Trump.

    In this Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speech, she calls President Trump a racist and reminds young people hate is not the answer.

    New Democratic party congresswomen AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Ayanna Pressley were the target of Trump's racist tweets earlier this year.
    #AOC #Trump #Shooting
    https://youtu.be/udnzIY_NfnQ
    Now This News 8/7/19
    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Calls Trump a 'Racist' at Shooting Vigil ‘Whether it’s from misogyny or whether it’s from racism, you’re not more of a man with a gun.’ — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) called Trump a racist, before speaking directly to young people being radicalized by violent and hateful ideologies. In US news and current events of national and international importance, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez went on the offense against President Trump. In this Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speech, she calls President Trump a racist and reminds young people hate is not the answer. New Democratic party congresswomen AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Ayanna Pressley were the target of Trump's racist tweets earlier this year. #AOC #Trump #Shooting https://youtu.be/udnzIY_NfnQ Now This News 8/7/19
    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Calls Trump a 'Racist' at Shooting Vigil | NowThis
    ‘Whether it’s from misogyny or whether it’s from racism, you’re not more of a man with a gun.’ — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) called Trump a racist, b...
    YouTube
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Top Scientist Says He Quit USDA Because Trump Admin Tried to Bury His Study on Climate and Nutrition
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/05/top-scientist-says-he-quit-usda-because-trump-admin-tried-bury-his-study-climate-and
    Jessica Corbett, staff writer

    The exodus of federal scientists in the era of President Donald Trump continued Friday as 62-year-old plant physiologist Lewis Ziska left the U.S. Department of Agriculture "over the Trump administration's efforts to bury his groundbreaking study about how rice loses nutrients due to rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," Politico reported Monday.

    Ziska—who worked at USDA under five presidents, both Republicans and Democrats—charged in an interview with Politico that he left the department's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) because the USDA tried to block the public dissemination of his research on how the human-caused climate crisis's impact on rice could threaten the nutrition of 600 million people. The study, Politico reported, was internally cleared at the department and peer reviewed prior to its publication in the journal Science Advances last year.

    USDA, in a statement to the outlet, said that "this was a joint decision by ARS national program leaders—all career scientists—not to send out a press release on this paper" based on scientific disagreement, and the decisions involving the study weren't politically motivated.

    Ziska, however, said that "this isn't about the science. It's about something else, but it's not about the science."

    "You get the sense that things have changed, that this is not a place for you to be exploring things that don't agree with someone's political views," Ziska said about the current environment at the USDA. "That's so sad. I can't even begin to tell you how sad that is."

    Ziska's resignation comes after the departures of Rod Schoonover, a State Department official who claimed the administration blocked the submission of his report on the climate crisis and national security to a U.S. House committee, and Maria Caffrey, a National Park Service employee who wrote for The Guardian last month, "In February 2019, I lost my job because I was a climate scientist in a climate-denying administration."

    Politico previously reported on the Trump USDA refusing to publicize dozens of government-funded studies that warn about the climate emergency's consequences or to release a "multiyear plan that outlines how the department should help agriculture understand, adapt to, and minimize the effects" of the crisis.

    Timothy A. Wise @TimothyAWise
    Turns out the "swamp" that @realDonaldTrump wants to drain isn't lobbyists it's civil-servant scientists. #USDA relocation is as cynical as it gets. (Until tomorrow, brace yourself.) https://twitter.com/ceboudreau/status/1158371238236086272

    Catherine Boudreau ✔ @ceboudreau
    “You get the sense that things have changed, that this is not a place for you to be exploring things that don't agree with someone's political views.”

    A leading climate scientist tells @hbottemiller he is quitting USDA over its handling of his research https://politi.co/2yCQdYD
    9:17 AM - Aug 5, 2019

    But it's not just top-down censorship that's impacting U.S. government research on the climate, Ziska told Politico.

    The overriding fear among scientists within USDA, Ziska said, was that the administration would take an axe to the department's science budget, and research priorities that perhaps didn't align with the administration's agenda would be the first to go. (The Trump administration has repeatedly proposed significant cuts to ARS' budget, but Congress has so far largely kept funding flat.)

    Anything related to climate change was seen as extremely vulnerable, he said.

    "We were careful," he explained. "And then it got to the point where language started to change. No one wanted to say climate change, you would say climate uncertainty or you would say extreme events. Or you would use whatever euphemism was available to not draw attention."

    "There was a sense that if the science agreed with the politics, then the policymakers would consider it to be 'good science,' and if it didn’t agree with the politics, then it was something that was flawed and needed to be done again," Ziska added. "That was a sea change in how we viewed our role."

    Ziska told Politico that by politicizing climate science, the administration is jeopardizing the future of agriculture on a global scale, which could have devastating consequences for human health. As he put it:

    To ignore it. To just dismiss it and say 'oh that's political' ...I don't have the words to describe that. It's surreal. It feels like something out of a bad sci-fi movie.

    Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), a member of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, was among those who responded to news of Ziska's resignation by calling out the Trump administration for "silencing our scientists."

    Chellie Pingree ✔ @chelliepingree
    Once again, the Trump admin is silencing our scientists. @USDA researchers study key topics like the devastating effects of climate change on agriculture—topics the Administration has repeatedly undermined at the expense of real data for farmers. This is a huge loss for USDA. https://twitter.com/politico/status/1158339385798082561

    POLITICO ✔ @politico
    A top climate scientist quit USDA, following others who say President Trump has politicized science https://politi.co/2KrJ4Qb
    8:14 AM - Aug 5, 2019

    The Politico interview was not the only report that cast a spotlight Monday on the Trump administration's impact on government-backed climate research.

    In a blog post for Scientific American, Jacob Carter, a research scientist for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), wrote that "the Trump administration has suppressed, censored, and threatened to fire many of its experts for the work they do, or simply for discussing scientific information that is politically contentious. In some cases, the Trump administration's actions are driving experts out." He pointed to Schoonover and former Environmental Protection Agency official Betsy Southerland as examples.

    "Imagine the working culture for federal experts watching the Trump administration go on the offense against their own staff. What do you do to get your day-to-day work done? How do you continue to get your work funded? One option is to censor politically contentious words or phrases," Carter continued. "Self-censorship may not make headlines, but there is a lot of evidence that it's happening in the chilling environment the Trump administration has created for federal government experts."

    Environmental Protection Network @EnvProtectioNet
    @UCSJacob, @UCSUSA in @sciam: “We cannot afford to retreat from the science-based policies that help our nation respond effectively to complex challenges to public health, the environment and national security.” #ScienceNotSilence http://epn.news/qzl

    Government Scientists Are Censoring Themselves
    It may not make headlines, but there's a lot of evidence that it's happening in the chilling environment the Trump administration has created
    blogs.scientificamerican.com
    7:43 AM - Aug 5, 2019

    Carter referenced his organization's August 2018 survey of 63,000 scientific experts across 16 federal agencies which revealed, as Common Dreams reported at the time, that "as the Trump administration continues to brazenly attack national environmental regulations, it is also 'sidelining science' within agencies, with staffers reporting issues including 'censorship and self-censorship, political interference in scientists' work, low morale, decreased agency effectiveness, and dwindling resources.'"

    Next week, UCS and other partners will host a panel discussion in Albany, New York about the importance of federal science and how it can be safeguarded from political manipulation:

    Union of Concerned Scientists ✔ @UCSUSA
    When federal scientists can do their work and share it free from political manipulation, we are better able to tackle our most pressing challenges. Join UCS, @RepPaulTonko @CapSciNY @CleanHealthyNY and others for a panel discussion on how we can do that: https://www.facebook.com/events/383938368992712/
    10:00 AM - Aug 5, 2019
    Top Scientist Says He Quit USDA Because Trump Admin Tried to Bury His Study on Climate and Nutrition https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/05/top-scientist-says-he-quit-usda-because-trump-admin-tried-bury-his-study-climate-and Jessica Corbett, staff writer The exodus of federal scientists in the era of President Donald Trump continued Friday as 62-year-old plant physiologist Lewis Ziska left the U.S. Department of Agriculture "over the Trump administration's efforts to bury his groundbreaking study about how rice loses nutrients due to rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," Politico reported Monday. Ziska—who worked at USDA under five presidents, both Republicans and Democrats—charged in an interview with Politico that he left the department's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) because the USDA tried to block the public dissemination of his research on how the human-caused climate crisis's impact on rice could threaten the nutrition of 600 million people. The study, Politico reported, was internally cleared at the department and peer reviewed prior to its publication in the journal Science Advances last year. USDA, in a statement to the outlet, said that "this was a joint decision by ARS national program leaders—all career scientists—not to send out a press release on this paper" based on scientific disagreement, and the decisions involving the study weren't politically motivated. Ziska, however, said that "this isn't about the science. It's about something else, but it's not about the science." "You get the sense that things have changed, that this is not a place for you to be exploring things that don't agree with someone's political views," Ziska said about the current environment at the USDA. "That's so sad. I can't even begin to tell you how sad that is." Ziska's resignation comes after the departures of Rod Schoonover, a State Department official who claimed the administration blocked the submission of his report on the climate crisis and national security to a U.S. House committee, and Maria Caffrey, a National Park Service employee who wrote for The Guardian last month, "In February 2019, I lost my job because I was a climate scientist in a climate-denying administration." Politico previously reported on the Trump USDA refusing to publicize dozens of government-funded studies that warn about the climate emergency's consequences or to release a "multiyear plan that outlines how the department should help agriculture understand, adapt to, and minimize the effects" of the crisis. Timothy A. Wise @TimothyAWise Turns out the "swamp" that @realDonaldTrump wants to drain isn't lobbyists it's civil-servant scientists. #USDA relocation is as cynical as it gets. (Until tomorrow, brace yourself.) https://twitter.com/ceboudreau/status/1158371238236086272 … Catherine Boudreau ✔ @ceboudreau “You get the sense that things have changed, that this is not a place for you to be exploring things that don't agree with someone's political views.” A leading climate scientist tells @hbottemiller he is quitting USDA over its handling of his research https://politi.co/2yCQdYD 9:17 AM - Aug 5, 2019 But it's not just top-down censorship that's impacting U.S. government research on the climate, Ziska told Politico. The overriding fear among scientists within USDA, Ziska said, was that the administration would take an axe to the department's science budget, and research priorities that perhaps didn't align with the administration's agenda would be the first to go. (The Trump administration has repeatedly proposed significant cuts to ARS' budget, but Congress has so far largely kept funding flat.) Anything related to climate change was seen as extremely vulnerable, he said. "We were careful," he explained. "And then it got to the point where language started to change. No one wanted to say climate change, you would say climate uncertainty or you would say extreme events. Or you would use whatever euphemism was available to not draw attention." "There was a sense that if the science agreed with the politics, then the policymakers would consider it to be 'good science,' and if it didn’t agree with the politics, then it was something that was flawed and needed to be done again," Ziska added. "That was a sea change in how we viewed our role." Ziska told Politico that by politicizing climate science, the administration is jeopardizing the future of agriculture on a global scale, which could have devastating consequences for human health. As he put it: To ignore it. To just dismiss it and say 'oh that's political' ...I don't have the words to describe that. It's surreal. It feels like something out of a bad sci-fi movie. Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), a member of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, was among those who responded to news of Ziska's resignation by calling out the Trump administration for "silencing our scientists." Chellie Pingree ✔ @chelliepingree Once again, the Trump admin is silencing our scientists. @USDA researchers study key topics like the devastating effects of climate change on agriculture—topics the Administration has repeatedly undermined at the expense of real data for farmers. This is a huge loss for USDA. https://twitter.com/politico/status/1158339385798082561 … POLITICO ✔ @politico A top climate scientist quit USDA, following others who say President Trump has politicized science https://politi.co/2KrJ4Qb 8:14 AM - Aug 5, 2019 The Politico interview was not the only report that cast a spotlight Monday on the Trump administration's impact on government-backed climate research. In a blog post for Scientific American, Jacob Carter, a research scientist for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), wrote that "the Trump administration has suppressed, censored, and threatened to fire many of its experts for the work they do, or simply for discussing scientific information that is politically contentious. In some cases, the Trump administration's actions are driving experts out." He pointed to Schoonover and former Environmental Protection Agency official Betsy Southerland as examples. "Imagine the working culture for federal experts watching the Trump administration go on the offense against their own staff. What do you do to get your day-to-day work done? How do you continue to get your work funded? One option is to censor politically contentious words or phrases," Carter continued. "Self-censorship may not make headlines, but there is a lot of evidence that it's happening in the chilling environment the Trump administration has created for federal government experts." Environmental Protection Network @EnvProtectioNet @UCSJacob, @UCSUSA in @sciam: “We cannot afford to retreat from the science-based policies that help our nation respond effectively to complex challenges to public health, the environment and national security.” #ScienceNotSilence http://epn.news/qzl Government Scientists Are Censoring Themselves It may not make headlines, but there's a lot of evidence that it's happening in the chilling environment the Trump administration has created blogs.scientificamerican.com 7:43 AM - Aug 5, 2019 Carter referenced his organization's August 2018 survey of 63,000 scientific experts across 16 federal agencies which revealed, as Common Dreams reported at the time, that "as the Trump administration continues to brazenly attack national environmental regulations, it is also 'sidelining science' within agencies, with staffers reporting issues including 'censorship and self-censorship, political interference in scientists' work, low morale, decreased agency effectiveness, and dwindling resources.'" Next week, UCS and other partners will host a panel discussion in Albany, New York about the importance of federal science and how it can be safeguarded from political manipulation: Union of Concerned Scientists ✔ @UCSUSA When federal scientists can do their work and share it free from political manipulation, we are better able to tackle our most pressing challenges. Join UCS, @RepPaulTonko @CapSciNY @CleanHealthyNY and others for a panel discussion on how we can do that: https://www.facebook.com/events/383938368992712/ … 10:00 AM - Aug 5, 2019
    Top Scientist Says He Quit USDA Because Trump Admin Tried to Bury His Study on Climate and Nutrition
    Rep. Chellie Pingree tweeted, "Once again, the Trump admin is silencing our scientists."
    WWW.COMMONDREAMS.ORG
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • https://florida.epeak.in/2019/07/03/dalai-lama-apologizes-for-sexist-remarks-meant-no-offense/
    https://florida.epeak.in/2019/07/03/dalai-lama-apologizes-for-sexist-remarks-meant-no-offense/
    0 Comments 1 Shares
  • https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2019/05/30/dan-bongino-fires-back-at-chernobyl-writer-producer-who-took-offense-to-him-calling-the-disaster-a-failure-of-socialism/
    https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2019/05/30/dan-bongino-fires-back-at-chernobyl-writer-producer-who-took-offense-to-him-calling-the-disaster-a-failure-of-socialism/
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • THE CHOICE OF RELIGIONS TO FOLLOW

    Whether we are religious or not, this affects all humans in one way or another. We are led to believe that we have a choice to believe whatever we so desire, however the choice not to join the One world Religion will leave us to be persecuted or even worse put to death. Rational Wiki says, the one world religion refers to the idea of the establishment of a single global religion, formed by a merger of all existing religions.

    Those with a basic grasp of global politics view the establishment of one world religion as extremely unlikely. They see the religions of the world as too fundamentally different for a peaceful union between them to ever be attainable, and doubt that there would ever exist any government with sufficient power to forcibly unite all the world's major religions into one.

    The dreams of the One World religion’s symbol looks like this:

    Religion is the set of beliefs and practices that groups develop around various mythologies and superstitions. The strongest force in history that has stood against rational thought, science and intellectual development has been religion. Today the war on science and the religious right's takeover of the political systems in the United States are merely symptoms of a historical battle between these forces of superstition and empirical reality. Understanding the source of religious belief, what they teach, how they are inserting their ideas into the public discourse, and how to argue against them are all fundamental elements to developing a coherent rational system of governance and ensuring that science will be able to continue to advance the knowledge of humankind for many future generations.
    Even though this writer sees religion in this way, l as many Christians do not agree with this writers ideology to explain religion.

    The religious beliefs are so different from one another and it would be hard to place belief on all aspects, even though some may not agree with all of the teachings of a religion.
    There are 6 major religions and they are as different in spiritual beliefs as the amount there is.

    Fundamentalist Christianity

    Is an almost uniquely American version of Christianity, so says rational-wiki. Rational-wiki can believe what ever they choose, the fact that the beliefs of true Christians go back to the beginning with the laws of our Father passed down for us to follow.

    There is no room for debate with the laws of God, either you abide by them or reject them each one of us have that choice. Being a true Christian who abides by the word of our Father, there is no believing what suits us and ignoring what we find distasteful is not in line with a true Christian. The Holy Bible as well as the words of our Father are there for us to live a morally acceptable life, it is clear that there are no gray areas it is all in black and white very simple we either believe and follow His word or we choose our own path.

    It is accepted that there is only two ways to live our lives, do the right thing or the wrong thing. It comes down to choosing to do good or not, however society doesn’t see the laws of God as being relevant in our lives. \but they have no problem pushing their agenda of greed, lust, child abuse sexual, as well as other self satisfaction for worldly wealth. The following is man voicing their opinion about Christianity.

    RationalWiki, on the whole, takes a very poor view of fundamentalists because they tend to push an Christianity that is incompatible with science and the nature of debate, and it is also rather sexist, racist, and homophobic, and otherwise intolerant of other beliefs, including and especially atheism. Christian Fundamentalism as a sect is generally accepted as an early 20th century phenomenon, but it didn't get the attention it deserved until the 1980's with the election of Ronald Reagan who highlighted his religious views within his position as elected official. This emboldened the fundamentalists to come out of the woodwork, trying to pass laws to counter the humanist acceptance of such things as abortion rights and homosexual rights. In the beginning of the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election virtually every Republican candidate for president was a Christian fundamentalist.

    • From that, a literal creation, a literal flood, and a young Earth;
    • A desire to discredit biology, evolution, geography, physics, paleoanthropology and other natural sciences that irrefutably disprove a young Earth, a "created" Earth, and, most of all, God's plan;
    • A sense that morality is very "Black and White";
    • Abortion is wrong;
    • Homosexuality is wrong;
    • Atheists are more evil than child rapists, murderers, dictators etc., who can easily be forgiven of their sins as long as they believe the Bible;
    • Anyone who does not wholeheartedly believe in their interpretation of Christ will be tortured forever in Hell.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christianity

    Islam

    If the people of this religion are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. This is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed.

    There is no central religious authority in Islam; numerically the two major sects are Shia and Sunni, but many other forms practiced worldwide. Most Muslims follow the 5 basic tenets of their religion, known as the Five Pillars. They also obey particular dietary rules, known as halal, and other restrictions on behavior including modesty rules for women and restrictions on depicting God and often living creatures. More controversially, Muslims have a duty to spread their religion and a prominent concept is Jihad, a pious struggle which can take many forms, from war to intellectual, social, and economic efforts

    Treatment of non-Muslims

    Historically, all the first four Islamic states under the "Righteously guided Caliphs" required that Jews and Christians pay the jizya, a tax levied exclusively against non-Muslims which was of a higher amount than zakat.[35][36]

    Qur'an 9:29[37] is cited as the justification of this:
    "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture — [fight] until they give the jizya willingly while they are humbled."

    The free practice of religion in Muslim countries is a source of controversy. The Qur'an guarantees the free practice of religion for Jews and Christians (although adherents to these religions are expected to pay tribute and to acknowledge Muslim rule if in certain Islamic states). Regardless the reality is sometimes quite the opposite. In some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, other religions are banned from open practice and apostasy can be a capital offense.

    As Sahih Muslim Hadith 4366 says, "Narrated by Umar ibn al-KhattabUmar heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims."
    Other states, such as Iran, nominally allow other religions to exist, though those religions (including the Ba'hai and Zoroastrian faiths) are typically persecuted. Some states including Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, and Pakistan have significant non-Muslim minorities which are treated with varying degrees of persecution, though the rise of fundamentalism in these countries has led to an increase in outbreaks of violence.

    Anti free speech

    Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (ﷺ) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (ﷺ) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. […] He sat before the Prophet (ﷺ) and said: Messenger of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her. Thereupon the Prophet (ﷺ) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

    Antifeminism

    Islam is decidedly antifeminist, against all attempts to argue that it "supports" women.[39]

    Qur'an 4:34 states "Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance — [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."

    Comments on non-Muslims

    The Qur'an states that those who, after receiving the message of Qur'an, do not convert, are dumb, deaf and blind. The Qur'an's term for non-Muslims (especially atheists, Christians, and/or Jews) is "Kuffar", which literally means "Denier of truth".

    The kuffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Qur'an; they are described in the Qur'an as “a people of no intelligence”, Allah describes them as not of no morality, not as people of no belief – people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Qur'an describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world.

    Homophobia

    Homosexuals are severely punished in Islamic states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia (except that Iran doesn't have any). Punishments can include flogging, beatings, mutilation of the genitals, and in some cases, execution. Gays being thrown off roofs and then stoned (not in the good way) has been the common punishment in ISIS-controlled parts of Syria and Iraq.

    It is clear that this religion is a violent one with no remorse for forgiveness for mistakes, the lack of tolerance for Christianity is not acceptable for us.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Islam

    Hinduism

    Hinduism, like many Eastern spiritual schools of thought, does not fit into the Western concept of religion. Hinduism is not characterized by rigid beliefs in the same way that Christianity and Islam are, although it does have its own peculiar share of them. In fact, Hinduism does "not have a unified belief encoded in the declaration of faith or a creed", except for a firm belief in the caste system
    Hinduism as a concept came into existence in the 19th century. According to Pankaj Mishra, a contributor to the New York Review of Books, "the British invented the holdall category in the early nineteenth century, and made India seem the home of a 'world religion' as organised and theologically coherent as Christianity and Islam". However, as mentioned in the first paragraph, Eastern religions were not categorized according to rigid definitions the way Western/Mid-east religions are. The word "Hindu" was derived from the Sanskritword "Sindhu", and was first used by the Persians to refer to people living beyond the Indus River, regardless of spiritual beliefs

    There are atheistic and theistic schools of thought within Hinduism. The Rig Veda (10.129.7), the oldest sacred literary work, takes an agnostic view of creation by saying:
    Who really knows?

    Who will here proclaim it?

    Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
    The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.

    Who then knows whence it has arisen?

    Most Hindus believe in a soul, known by the Sanskrit word Atman. According to the non-dualistic school of Advaita Vedanta, the atman is ultimately indistinct from brahman, the universal soul or God. In contrast, the dualistic Dvaita and Bhakti schools state that atman is distinct from brahman. Brahman is a Supreme Being possessing a personality, worshiped in the forms of Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva, or Shakti. The Supreme Being is worshiped as the Trimurti, consisting of the Brahma (creator), Vishnu (preserver) and Shiva (destroyer). These forms of the Supreme Being represent the phases of the universe: Creation, Preservation and Destruction.

    The thought of Hinduism being a religion is called into question, if we compare the beliefs of a creator as it is in other religions, they would not fit the meaning.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hinduism

    Buddhism

    Buddhism began and developed in India and grew out of Brahmanism , the same religious and cultural context as Hinduism, but differs from the latter on three central doctrinal points, which are the following:

    1. Hinduism teaches that each individual has a personal soul, called Atman, while Buddhism denies that an unchanging eternal soul exists (anatman);

    2. Hinduism teaches that there is a Supreme Being (Ishvara) which is the ultimate reality and Creator of the universe at the same time (worshiped through a huge amount of deities that form the Hindu pantheon), while the Buddha denies a Creator,[4] and goes as far as to "mock" some of the Hindu gods.[5] Buddhism dissuades followers from worshiping any deities; individuals must find salvation from suffering by themselves, following the Buddha's teaching. Therefore, Buddhism is an atheistic religion;

    3. Hinduism relies on the Vedas as Sacred scriptures and supreme authority on everything, while Buddhism denies the reliability and authority of the Vedas, suggesting instead that people must put their trust in their own judgement, relying only on rationality and common sense; furthermore, Gautama himself encourages those who are doubtful about his teachings to put them into practice and verify if they don't work or if he's lying.

    The Eightfold Path can be summed up as follows:

    • Right View — There are many ways to understand this; the most common is "perceive and know the Four Noble Truths"
    • Right Intention — The intention of renunciation, harmlessness, and non ill-will
    • Right Speech — Abstention from lies, harsh speech, malicious speech, and idle speech
    • Right Action — Abstention from killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct
    • Right Livelihood — Earning a livelihood legitimately, by not breaking the law or hurting others or being selfish.
    • Right Effort — Preventing harmful states from arising, abandoning arisen harmful states, promoting the arising of beneficial states, and preserving arisen beneficial states
    • Right Mindfulness — Cultivating careful attention with respect to 1. the body, 2. the feelings, 3. the moods or mental climate, 4. phenomena
    • Right Concentration — The development of jhana
    It should be noted that these are not individual steps, but co-dependent factors.

    Precepts

    • Preserve life; do not kill.
    • Use what you have; do not take what is not given.
    • Contain your sexual drive; do not screw around inappropriately.
    • Do not lie, except to preserve life and the like.
    • Contaminating your body with intoxicants leads to carelessness and clinging, and is to be avoided.
    Practitioners can also observe the eight precepts which would also include:
    • Don't eat after noon
    • Don't sing, dance or listen to music, don't watch television, don't watch entertainment
    • Don't wear perfumes, makeups or garlands; don't beautify the body

    Karma

    Through karma, one's actions are believed to have positive or negative consequences during one's life, or even to determine one's nature when reincarnated. Strictly speaking, karma is simply the concept that actions have consequences.

    Simplified, abstracted or dumbed-down versions of karmic philosophy have been adopted in many western New Age belief systems ever since the hippie era, and also widely used in popular culture. The westernized conception of karma boils down to the idea that if you do good things, good things will happen to you. In most traditional Indian and Indian-derived religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, and especially Jainism) all karma is considered ultimately unhelpful, and the goal of the serious practitioner is to refrain from incurring any kind of karma, even "good" karma.

    Judaism

    You are not practicing Judaism if you celebrate Christmas.
    Due to their overwhelming refusal over the centuries to convert to either of the other two Abrahamic faiths — Christianity or Islam — and their traditionally strong cultural coherence, Jews control the world via the UN and banks are frequently made the subject of numerous conspiracy theories and libels, as well as pogroms and genocides (by far the most notable being the Holocaust of World War II)

    Followers of Judaism and ethnic Jews have been subject to different forms of antisemitism. Many conspiracy theories are inherently antisemitic. In modern times, the success of Zionism, a political movement that was successful in the establishment of the secular Jewish state of Israel in the region of Israel/Judea/Palestine/whatever you call it, adds to the mix of theories.

    In addition to these differences in religious text, there are several major theological differences between Christianity and Judaism. Judaism, unlike Christianity, focuses more on this life than the afterlife, which is hardly mentioned in their scriptures and highly debatable.[1]For Jews, behavior is also more important than faith.[2] Satan never rebelled against YHWH but was created for the purpose of tempting people — usually Satan is more a symbol than an actual being. Most Jews do not believe in Satan at all, nor do they believe in Hell.[3]It would be blasphemous and a violation of monotheism to regard him as a rival to YHWH, as Satan is in some forms of Christianity. Judaism also rejects the concept of original sin

    Judaism arose several thousand years ago in the Middle East, descending apparently from the local polytheistic traditions of twelve (technically thirteen, one of the tribes was in fact a combination of two tribes that held common descent) tribes of an ethnic group known as the Hebrews (traditionally, the ancient nations of Israel, Judah, Edom, Moab, and Ammon); these people may have had their origins in itinerant tribes known in Egyptian as "Habiru" in the ancient Middle East.

    Jewish" is a relatively modern term applied to the descendants of the Israelites or Hebrews, specifically those whose ancestry primarily traces to Judah, occupying the central regions of the areas now known as the state of Israel and the West Bank;

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Judaism

    Sikhism

    Is a religion founded in India around 1500 CE. It ranks fifth in terms of worldwide membership (about 26 million). Contrary to popular belief, Sikhs are not Muslims. Sikhs look distinctive because they are forbidden to cut their hair unless absolutely necessary (such as for medical reasons), instead keeping it wrapped up in turbans

    While Christianity has seven deadly sins, Sikhs only have to worry about five: lust, anger, greed, worldly attachment, and pride. Sikhs do not believe in heaven or hell (although they do believe in a form of reincarnation[2]), but do hold that paradise can be found on earth by doing good deeds and helping others.

    Sikhism includes among its articles of faith the requirement that baptized Sikhs carry a weapon at all times. This usually takes the form of a ceremonial dagger called a kirpan (which may or may not actually be usable as a weapon), though some have been known to wear swords or other weapons. This is considered important enough that in India as well as in several European countries Sikhs' knives are often exempted under certain circumstances from laws against the public carrying of weapons.

    Sikhs do not practice circumcision, making Sikhism one of the few religions in which the body is considered sacred, and actually consistent on the matter. Sikh holy scripture does not specifically mention homosexuality, and opinion on it varies, with younger generations being more accepting.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sikhism#cite_note-1

    The six major religions around the world are the basics for all beliefs we see today. After reviewing the fundamental core values of each religion, there are five that are similar and the sixth which is Christianity stands alone with laws which are clear and can’t be misunderstood in their meaning. The vague natural of the five religions would be easily misunderstood as well as leave one confused.
    This is a subject that has depth in understanding the full effect of our lives here as well as where our souls will spend eternity.

    I will not through caution to the wind and hope for the best, this behaviour for me is unacceptable. I will follow my Father’s Will in heaven, through His Son Yahuesh (Jesus Christ), we cannot enter the presence of our Father in heaven except through believing Yahuesh dying for our sins, as well as the only to our Father is through Yahuesh.
    Will you throw caution to the wind?

    Is it worth the risk?

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/One_world_religion

    THE CHOICE OF RELIGIONS TO FOLLOW Whether we are religious or not, this affects all humans in one way or another. We are led to believe that we have a choice to believe whatever we so desire, however the choice not to join the One world Religion will leave us to be persecuted or even worse put to death. Rational Wiki says, the one world religion refers to the idea of the establishment of a single global religion, formed by a merger of all existing religions. Those with a basic grasp of global politics view the establishment of one world religion as extremely unlikely. They see the religions of the world as too fundamentally different for a peaceful union between them to ever be attainable, and doubt that there would ever exist any government with sufficient power to forcibly unite all the world's major religions into one. The dreams of the One World religion’s symbol looks like this: Religion is the set of beliefs and practices that groups develop around various mythologies and superstitions. The strongest force in history that has stood against rational thought, science and intellectual development has been religion. Today the war on science and the religious right's takeover of the political systems in the United States are merely symptoms of a historical battle between these forces of superstition and empirical reality. Understanding the source of religious belief, what they teach, how they are inserting their ideas into the public discourse, and how to argue against them are all fundamental elements to developing a coherent rational system of governance and ensuring that science will be able to continue to advance the knowledge of humankind for many future generations. Even though this writer sees religion in this way, l as many Christians do not agree with this writers ideology to explain religion. The religious beliefs are so different from one another and it would be hard to place belief on all aspects, even though some may not agree with all of the teachings of a religion. There are 6 major religions and they are as different in spiritual beliefs as the amount there is. Fundamentalist Christianity Is an almost uniquely American version of Christianity, so says rational-wiki. Rational-wiki can believe what ever they choose, the fact that the beliefs of true Christians go back to the beginning with the laws of our Father passed down for us to follow. There is no room for debate with the laws of God, either you abide by them or reject them each one of us have that choice. Being a true Christian who abides by the word of our Father, there is no believing what suits us and ignoring what we find distasteful is not in line with a true Christian. The Holy Bible as well as the words of our Father are there for us to live a morally acceptable life, it is clear that there are no gray areas it is all in black and white very simple we either believe and follow His word or we choose our own path. It is accepted that there is only two ways to live our lives, do the right thing or the wrong thing. It comes down to choosing to do good or not, however society doesn’t see the laws of God as being relevant in our lives. \but they have no problem pushing their agenda of greed, lust, child abuse sexual, as well as other self satisfaction for worldly wealth. The following is man voicing their opinion about Christianity. RationalWiki, on the whole, takes a very poor view of fundamentalists because they tend to push an Christianity that is incompatible with science and the nature of debate, and it is also rather sexist, racist, and homophobic, and otherwise intolerant of other beliefs, including and especially atheism. Christian Fundamentalism as a sect is generally accepted as an early 20th century phenomenon, but it didn't get the attention it deserved until the 1980's with the election of Ronald Reagan who highlighted his religious views within his position as elected official. This emboldened the fundamentalists to come out of the woodwork, trying to pass laws to counter the humanist acceptance of such things as abortion rights and homosexual rights. In the beginning of the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election virtually every Republican candidate for president was a Christian fundamentalist. • • From that, a literal creation, a literal flood, and a young Earth; • A desire to discredit biology, evolution, geography, physics, paleoanthropology and other natural sciences that irrefutably disprove a young Earth, a "created" Earth, and, most of all, God's plan; • A sense that morality is very "Black and White"; • Abortion is wrong; • Homosexuality is wrong; • Atheists are more evil than child rapists, murderers, dictators etc., who can easily be forgiven of their sins as long as they believe the Bible; • Anyone who does not wholeheartedly believe in their interpretation of Christ will be tortured forever in Hell. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christianity Islam If the people of this religion are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. This is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed. There is no central religious authority in Islam; numerically the two major sects are Shia and Sunni, but many other forms practiced worldwide. Most Muslims follow the 5 basic tenets of their religion, known as the Five Pillars. They also obey particular dietary rules, known as halal, and other restrictions on behavior including modesty rules for women and restrictions on depicting God and often living creatures. More controversially, Muslims have a duty to spread their religion and a prominent concept is Jihad, a pious struggle which can take many forms, from war to intellectual, social, and economic efforts Treatment of non-Muslims Historically, all the first four Islamic states under the "Righteously guided Caliphs" required that Jews and Christians pay the jizya, a tax levied exclusively against non-Muslims which was of a higher amount than zakat.[35][36] Qur'an 9:29[37] is cited as the justification of this: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture — [fight] until they give the jizya willingly while they are humbled." The free practice of religion in Muslim countries is a source of controversy. The Qur'an guarantees the free practice of religion for Jews and Christians (although adherents to these religions are expected to pay tribute and to acknowledge Muslim rule if in certain Islamic states). Regardless the reality is sometimes quite the opposite. In some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, other religions are banned from open practice and apostasy can be a capital offense. As Sahih Muslim Hadith 4366 says, "Narrated by Umar ibn al-KhattabUmar heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims." Other states, such as Iran, nominally allow other religions to exist, though those religions (including the Ba'hai and Zoroastrian faiths) are typically persecuted. Some states including Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, and Pakistan have significant non-Muslim minorities which are treated with varying degrees of persecution, though the rise of fundamentalism in these countries has led to an increase in outbreaks of violence. Anti free speech Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (ﷺ) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (ﷺ) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. […] He sat before the Prophet (ﷺ) and said: Messenger of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her. Thereupon the Prophet (ﷺ) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood. Antifeminism Islam is decidedly antifeminist, against all attempts to argue that it "supports" women.[39] Qur'an 4:34 states "Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance — [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand." Comments on non-Muslims The Qur'an states that those who, after receiving the message of Qur'an, do not convert, are dumb, deaf and blind. The Qur'an's term for non-Muslims (especially atheists, Christians, and/or Jews) is "Kuffar", which literally means "Denier of truth". The kuffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Qur'an; they are described in the Qur'an as “a people of no intelligence”, Allah describes them as not of no morality, not as people of no belief – people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Qur'an describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world. Homophobia Homosexuals are severely punished in Islamic states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia (except that Iran doesn't have any). Punishments can include flogging, beatings, mutilation of the genitals, and in some cases, execution. Gays being thrown off roofs and then stoned (not in the good way) has been the common punishment in ISIS-controlled parts of Syria and Iraq. It is clear that this religion is a violent one with no remorse for forgiveness for mistakes, the lack of tolerance for Christianity is not acceptable for us. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Islam Hinduism Hinduism, like many Eastern spiritual schools of thought, does not fit into the Western concept of religion. Hinduism is not characterized by rigid beliefs in the same way that Christianity and Islam are, although it does have its own peculiar share of them. In fact, Hinduism does "not have a unified belief encoded in the declaration of faith or a creed", except for a firm belief in the caste system Hinduism as a concept came into existence in the 19th century. According to Pankaj Mishra, a contributor to the New York Review of Books, "the British invented the holdall category in the early nineteenth century, and made India seem the home of a 'world religion' as organised and theologically coherent as Christianity and Islam". However, as mentioned in the first paragraph, Eastern religions were not categorized according to rigid definitions the way Western/Mid-east religions are. The word "Hindu" was derived from the Sanskritword "Sindhu", and was first used by the Persians to refer to people living beyond the Indus River, regardless of spiritual beliefs There are atheistic and theistic schools of thought within Hinduism. The Rig Veda (10.129.7), the oldest sacred literary work, takes an agnostic view of creation by saying: Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation? The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe. Who then knows whence it has arisen? Most Hindus believe in a soul, known by the Sanskrit word Atman. According to the non-dualistic school of Advaita Vedanta, the atman is ultimately indistinct from brahman, the universal soul or God. In contrast, the dualistic Dvaita and Bhakti schools state that atman is distinct from brahman. Brahman is a Supreme Being possessing a personality, worshiped in the forms of Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva, or Shakti. The Supreme Being is worshiped as the Trimurti, consisting of the Brahma (creator), Vishnu (preserver) and Shiva (destroyer). These forms of the Supreme Being represent the phases of the universe: Creation, Preservation and Destruction. The thought of Hinduism being a religion is called into question, if we compare the beliefs of a creator as it is in other religions, they would not fit the meaning. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hinduism Buddhism Buddhism began and developed in India and grew out of Brahmanism , the same religious and cultural context as Hinduism, but differs from the latter on three central doctrinal points, which are the following: 1. Hinduism teaches that each individual has a personal soul, called Atman, while Buddhism denies that an unchanging eternal soul exists (anatman); 2. Hinduism teaches that there is a Supreme Being (Ishvara) which is the ultimate reality and Creator of the universe at the same time (worshiped through a huge amount of deities that form the Hindu pantheon), while the Buddha denies a Creator,[4] and goes as far as to "mock" some of the Hindu gods.[5] Buddhism dissuades followers from worshiping any deities; individuals must find salvation from suffering by themselves, following the Buddha's teaching. Therefore, Buddhism is an atheistic religion; 3. Hinduism relies on the Vedas as Sacred scriptures and supreme authority on everything, while Buddhism denies the reliability and authority of the Vedas, suggesting instead that people must put their trust in their own judgement, relying only on rationality and common sense; furthermore, Gautama himself encourages those who are doubtful about his teachings to put them into practice and verify if they don't work or if he's lying. The Eightfold Path can be summed up as follows: • Right View — There are many ways to understand this; the most common is "perceive and know the Four Noble Truths" • Right Intention — The intention of renunciation, harmlessness, and non ill-will • Right Speech — Abstention from lies, harsh speech, malicious speech, and idle speech • Right Action — Abstention from killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct • Right Livelihood — Earning a livelihood legitimately, by not breaking the law or hurting others or being selfish. • Right Effort — Preventing harmful states from arising, abandoning arisen harmful states, promoting the arising of beneficial states, and preserving arisen beneficial states • Right Mindfulness — Cultivating careful attention with respect to 1. the body, 2. the feelings, 3. the moods or mental climate, 4. phenomena • Right Concentration — The development of jhana It should be noted that these are not individual steps, but co-dependent factors. Precepts • Preserve life; do not kill. • Use what you have; do not take what is not given. • Contain your sexual drive; do not screw around inappropriately. • Do not lie, except to preserve life and the like. • Contaminating your body with intoxicants leads to carelessness and clinging, and is to be avoided. Practitioners can also observe the eight precepts which would also include: • Don't eat after noon • Don't sing, dance or listen to music, don't watch television, don't watch entertainment • Don't wear perfumes, makeups or garlands; don't beautify the body Karma Through karma, one's actions are believed to have positive or negative consequences during one's life, or even to determine one's nature when reincarnated. Strictly speaking, karma is simply the concept that actions have consequences. Simplified, abstracted or dumbed-down versions of karmic philosophy have been adopted in many western New Age belief systems ever since the hippie era, and also widely used in popular culture. The westernized conception of karma boils down to the idea that if you do good things, good things will happen to you. In most traditional Indian and Indian-derived religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, and especially Jainism) all karma is considered ultimately unhelpful, and the goal of the serious practitioner is to refrain from incurring any kind of karma, even "good" karma. Judaism You are not practicing Judaism if you celebrate Christmas. Due to their overwhelming refusal over the centuries to convert to either of the other two Abrahamic faiths — Christianity or Islam — and their traditionally strong cultural coherence, Jews control the world via the UN and banks are frequently made the subject of numerous conspiracy theories and libels, as well as pogroms and genocides (by far the most notable being the Holocaust of World War II) Followers of Judaism and ethnic Jews have been subject to different forms of antisemitism. Many conspiracy theories are inherently antisemitic. In modern times, the success of Zionism, a political movement that was successful in the establishment of the secular Jewish state of Israel in the region of Israel/Judea/Palestine/whatever you call it, adds to the mix of theories. In addition to these differences in religious text, there are several major theological differences between Christianity and Judaism. Judaism, unlike Christianity, focuses more on this life than the afterlife, which is hardly mentioned in their scriptures and highly debatable.[1]For Jews, behavior is also more important than faith.[2] Satan never rebelled against YHWH but was created for the purpose of tempting people — usually Satan is more a symbol than an actual being. Most Jews do not believe in Satan at all, nor do they believe in Hell.[3]It would be blasphemous and a violation of monotheism to regard him as a rival to YHWH, as Satan is in some forms of Christianity. Judaism also rejects the concept of original sin Judaism arose several thousand years ago in the Middle East, descending apparently from the local polytheistic traditions of twelve (technically thirteen, one of the tribes was in fact a combination of two tribes that held common descent) tribes of an ethnic group known as the Hebrews (traditionally, the ancient nations of Israel, Judah, Edom, Moab, and Ammon); these people may have had their origins in itinerant tribes known in Egyptian as "Habiru" in the ancient Middle East. Jewish" is a relatively modern term applied to the descendants of the Israelites or Hebrews, specifically those whose ancestry primarily traces to Judah, occupying the central regions of the areas now known as the state of Israel and the West Bank; https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Judaism Sikhism Is a religion founded in India around 1500 CE. It ranks fifth in terms of worldwide membership (about 26 million). Contrary to popular belief, Sikhs are not Muslims. Sikhs look distinctive because they are forbidden to cut their hair unless absolutely necessary (such as for medical reasons), instead keeping it wrapped up in turbans While Christianity has seven deadly sins, Sikhs only have to worry about five: lust, anger, greed, worldly attachment, and pride. Sikhs do not believe in heaven or hell (although they do believe in a form of reincarnation[2]), but do hold that paradise can be found on earth by doing good deeds and helping others. Sikhism includes among its articles of faith the requirement that baptized Sikhs carry a weapon at all times. This usually takes the form of a ceremonial dagger called a kirpan (which may or may not actually be usable as a weapon), though some have been known to wear swords or other weapons. This is considered important enough that in India as well as in several European countries Sikhs' knives are often exempted under certain circumstances from laws against the public carrying of weapons. Sikhs do not practice circumcision, making Sikhism one of the few religions in which the body is considered sacred, and actually consistent on the matter. Sikh holy scripture does not specifically mention homosexuality, and opinion on it varies, with younger generations being more accepting. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sikhism#cite_note-1 The six major religions around the world are the basics for all beliefs we see today. After reviewing the fundamental core values of each religion, there are five that are similar and the sixth which is Christianity stands alone with laws which are clear and can’t be misunderstood in their meaning. The vague natural of the five religions would be easily misunderstood as well as leave one confused. This is a subject that has depth in understanding the full effect of our lives here as well as where our souls will spend eternity. I will not through caution to the wind and hope for the best, this behaviour for me is unacceptable. I will follow my Father’s Will in heaven, through His Son Yahuesh (Jesus Christ), we cannot enter the presence of our Father in heaven except through believing Yahuesh dying for our sins, as well as the only to our Father is through Yahuesh. Will you throw caution to the wind? Is it worth the risk? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/One_world_religion
    Christianity - RationalWiki
    RATIONALWIKI.ORG
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Man Arrested, Facing a Year in Prison for Telling Police They are ‘Pissing on the Constitution’ - After police refused to respond to his calls for assistance, a Texas man gave police a peaceful piece of his mind, but it landed him in jail.
    https://thefreethoughtproject.com/man-arrested-facing-a-year-in-prison-for-telling-police-they-are-pissing-on-the-constitution/
    By Matt Agorist - May 5, 2019

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — (TRI) Warning that the government must not be given the power to criminalize speech it deems distasteful or annoying, The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the prosecution of a Texas man who faces up to one year in jail and a $4000 fine for sending emails to police criticizing them for failing to respond to his requests for assistance.

    In an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court, Rutherford Institute attorneys argue that the prosecution of Scott Ogle for sending complaints to a sheriff’s office, including one email stating that officials were “pissing” on the Constitution, violates the First Amendment’s safeguards for freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Moreover, Institute attorneys argue that the Texas law under which Ogle was charged, which makes it a crime to send “annoying,” “alarming” or “harassing” electronic messages, is so overbroad that it could be used to punish a negative review of a restaurant posted online or caustic Facebook posts.

    “It was Justice William O. Douglas who affirmed the right of Americans to speak softly or angrily to government officials, even if our words challenge and annoy.

    We need not stay docile and quiet, nor must we bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us.

    That is the genius of the First Amendment,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People.

    “Nowhere in the First Amendment does it permit the government to limit speech in order to avoid causing offense, hurting someone’s feelings, safeguarding government secrets, protecting government officials, insulating judges from undue influence, discouraging bullying, penalizing hateful ideas and actions, eliminating terrorism, combating prejudice and intolerance, and the like.”

    In 2016, a frustrated Scott Ogle emailed the Hays County Sheriff’s Office over their alleged inattention to his requests for help. In his emails, Ogle accused one officer of “[being] your typical arrogant, condescending, belligerent self who chooses to look the other way.”

    Another email stated “you have a Constitution to uphold, son, you’re pissing on it” and referred to a deputy as a “little bitch” and a “little state weasel.”

    Based on these emails, Ogle was charged with a crime under a provision of Texas’ Penal Code for making “repeated electronic messages in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another.”

    The law also requires that the messages be sent with the same intent. A violation of this statute is punishable by up to one year in jail and a $4000 fine.

    Prior to trial, Ogle’s lawyer argued that the statute violates the First Amendment—which affirms the rights to freedom of speech and to petition the government for a redress of grievances—because it criminalizes a substantial amount of constitutionally-protected speech.

    However, both the state trial and appellate courts rejected Ogle’s constitutional defense.

    In asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review Ogle’s case and strike down the Texas statute, The Rutherford Institute argues that even if Ogle’s emails were in bad taste, the government must not have the power to judge and punish speech because of its judgment that the speech is rude.

    Pointing out that statutes similar to the one being applied to Ogle have been held unconstitutional by other state and federal courts, Institute attorneys have also urged the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict between those rulings and the ruling in Ogle’s case.

    Affiliate attorney Chris Moriarty assisted The Rutherford Institute in presenting its arguments.

    The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated.
    Man Arrested, Facing a Year in Prison for Telling Police They are ‘Pissing on the Constitution’ - After police refused to respond to his calls for assistance, a Texas man gave police a peaceful piece of his mind, but it landed him in jail. https://thefreethoughtproject.com/man-arrested-facing-a-year-in-prison-for-telling-police-they-are-pissing-on-the-constitution/ By Matt Agorist - May 5, 2019 WASHINGTON, D.C. — (TRI) Warning that the government must not be given the power to criminalize speech it deems distasteful or annoying, The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the prosecution of a Texas man who faces up to one year in jail and a $4000 fine for sending emails to police criticizing them for failing to respond to his requests for assistance. In an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court, Rutherford Institute attorneys argue that the prosecution of Scott Ogle for sending complaints to a sheriff’s office, including one email stating that officials were “pissing” on the Constitution, violates the First Amendment’s safeguards for freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Moreover, Institute attorneys argue that the Texas law under which Ogle was charged, which makes it a crime to send “annoying,” “alarming” or “harassing” electronic messages, is so overbroad that it could be used to punish a negative review of a restaurant posted online or caustic Facebook posts. “It was Justice William O. Douglas who affirmed the right of Americans to speak softly or angrily to government officials, even if our words challenge and annoy. We need not stay docile and quiet, nor must we bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us. That is the genius of the First Amendment,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Nowhere in the First Amendment does it permit the government to limit speech in order to avoid causing offense, hurting someone’s feelings, safeguarding government secrets, protecting government officials, insulating judges from undue influence, discouraging bullying, penalizing hateful ideas and actions, eliminating terrorism, combating prejudice and intolerance, and the like.” In 2016, a frustrated Scott Ogle emailed the Hays County Sheriff’s Office over their alleged inattention to his requests for help. In his emails, Ogle accused one officer of “[being] your typical arrogant, condescending, belligerent self who chooses to look the other way.” Another email stated “you have a Constitution to uphold, son, you’re pissing on it” and referred to a deputy as a “little bitch” and a “little state weasel.” Based on these emails, Ogle was charged with a crime under a provision of Texas’ Penal Code for making “repeated electronic messages in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another.” The law also requires that the messages be sent with the same intent. A violation of this statute is punishable by up to one year in jail and a $4000 fine. Prior to trial, Ogle’s lawyer argued that the statute violates the First Amendment—which affirms the rights to freedom of speech and to petition the government for a redress of grievances—because it criminalizes a substantial amount of constitutionally-protected speech. However, both the state trial and appellate courts rejected Ogle’s constitutional defense. In asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review Ogle’s case and strike down the Texas statute, The Rutherford Institute argues that even if Ogle’s emails were in bad taste, the government must not have the power to judge and punish speech because of its judgment that the speech is rude. Pointing out that statutes similar to the one being applied to Ogle have been held unconstitutional by other state and federal courts, Institute attorneys have also urged the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict between those rulings and the ruling in Ogle’s case. Affiliate attorney Chris Moriarty assisted The Rutherford Institute in presenting its arguments. The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated.
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • JULIAN ASSANGE TORTURED WITH PSYCHOTROPIC DRUG
    https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/72537/julian-assange-tortured-with-psychotropic.html
    SOURCE: KURT NIMMO 5/7/19

    Retired USAF lieutenant colonel Karen Kwiatkowski writes in an article posted at Lew Rockwell’s website that Julian Assange is receiving the same treatment as suspected terrorists while in captivity at “Her Majesty’s Prison Service” at Belmarsh.

    The FBI, Pentagon, and CIA are “interviewing” Assange. Kwiatkowski writes:

    Interviewing is the wrong word. I’d like to say doctoring him, because it would be more accurate, except that word implies some care for a positive outcome. Chemical Gina has her hands in this one, and we are being told that Assange is being “treated” with 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate, known as BZ.

    BZ is a powerful drug that produces hallucinations. “Soldiers on BZ could remember only fragments of the experience afterward. As the drug wore off, and the subjects had trouble discerning what was real, many experienced anxiety, aggression, even terror,” the New Yorker reported. “…The drug’s effect lasted for days. At its peak, volunteers were totally cut off in their own minds, jolting from one fragmented existence to the next. They saw visions: Lilliputian baseball players competing on a tabletop diamond; animals or people or objects that materialized and vanished.”

    Assange is being chemically lobotomized prior to being extradited to the United States to stand trial on bogus computer hacking charges that—and the corporate media won’t tell you this—passed the statute of limitations three years ago (see 18 U.S. Code § 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States).

    Forget about the statute of limitations.

    The US government has long violated both domestic and international law. It is a rogue nation led by an ignorant clown who opened the back door and ushered in neocon psychopaths notorious for killing millions.

    In normal times, these criminals would be in the dock at The Hague standing trial for crimes against humanity.

    But we don’t live in normal times.

    The message is clear: if you expose the massive criminal enterprise at the heart of the US government, you will be renditioned, chemically tortured (a favorite of Chemical Gina, now CIA director), chewed up and spit out until you’re a babbling mental case like David Shayler (who believes he is the Second Coming of Christ).

    Shayler, a former MI5 agent, made the mistake of exposing the UK’s support of terror operations in Libya.

    Shayler spent three weeks at Belmarsh after a conviction for breaching the Official Secrets Act. He emerged from prison broken and delusional.

    I seriously doubt most Americans care about the chemical torture of Julian Assange. On social media, liberals and so-called progressives, along with their “conservative” counterparts, celebrate Assange’s arrest, confinement, and torture.

    Members of Congress have called for his execution, while one media talking head (teleprompter script reader) demanded the CIA send a hit team to London and assassinate Assange.

    Americans are similar to the propagandized and brainwashed citizens of Nazi Germany.

    Most went along with Hitler right up until the end when their cities lay in smoldering ruins and their once proud country was carved up, half of it given over to the communists.

    They set up the Stasi to deal with East Germans who were not following the totalitarian program.
    JULIAN ASSANGE TORTURED WITH PSYCHOTROPIC DRUG https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/72537/julian-assange-tortured-with-psychotropic.html SOURCE: KURT NIMMO 5/7/19 Retired USAF lieutenant colonel Karen Kwiatkowski writes in an article posted at Lew Rockwell’s website that Julian Assange is receiving the same treatment as suspected terrorists while in captivity at “Her Majesty’s Prison Service” at Belmarsh. The FBI, Pentagon, and CIA are “interviewing” Assange. Kwiatkowski writes: Interviewing is the wrong word. I’d like to say doctoring him, because it would be more accurate, except that word implies some care for a positive outcome. Chemical Gina has her hands in this one, and we are being told that Assange is being “treated” with 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate, known as BZ. BZ is a powerful drug that produces hallucinations. “Soldiers on BZ could remember only fragments of the experience afterward. As the drug wore off, and the subjects had trouble discerning what was real, many experienced anxiety, aggression, even terror,” the New Yorker reported. “…The drug’s effect lasted for days. At its peak, volunteers were totally cut off in their own minds, jolting from one fragmented existence to the next. They saw visions: Lilliputian baseball players competing on a tabletop diamond; animals or people or objects that materialized and vanished.” Assange is being chemically lobotomized prior to being extradited to the United States to stand trial on bogus computer hacking charges that—and the corporate media won’t tell you this—passed the statute of limitations three years ago (see 18 U.S. Code § 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States). Forget about the statute of limitations. The US government has long violated both domestic and international law. It is a rogue nation led by an ignorant clown who opened the back door and ushered in neocon psychopaths notorious for killing millions. In normal times, these criminals would be in the dock at The Hague standing trial for crimes against humanity. But we don’t live in normal times. The message is clear: if you expose the massive criminal enterprise at the heart of the US government, you will be renditioned, chemically tortured (a favorite of Chemical Gina, now CIA director), chewed up and spit out until you’re a babbling mental case like David Shayler (who believes he is the Second Coming of Christ). Shayler, a former MI5 agent, made the mistake of exposing the UK’s support of terror operations in Libya. Shayler spent three weeks at Belmarsh after a conviction for breaching the Official Secrets Act. He emerged from prison broken and delusional. I seriously doubt most Americans care about the chemical torture of Julian Assange. On social media, liberals and so-called progressives, along with their “conservative” counterparts, celebrate Assange’s arrest, confinement, and torture. Members of Congress have called for his execution, while one media talking head (teleprompter script reader) demanded the CIA send a hit team to London and assassinate Assange. Americans are similar to the propagandized and brainwashed citizens of Nazi Germany. Most went along with Hitler right up until the end when their cities lay in smoldering ruins and their once proud country was carved up, half of it given over to the communists. They set up the Stasi to deal with East Germans who were not following the totalitarian program.
    Julian Assange Tortured with Psychotropic Drug
    The Best in uncensored news, information, and analysis
    WWW.BLACKLISTEDNEWS.COM
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares

No results to show

No results to show

No results to show

No results to show

No results to show

Sponsored

Canadian Community Project INC.

Please visit our site and share!