We told you to shut up!

One thing the election of Donald Trump has spared us
of is Hillary-style
censorship
à la the European Union, the Muslim
Brotherhood
, and the Organization
of Islamic Conference
(née
Cooperation). Huma
Abedin
, a card-carrying member of the Muslim Sisterhood, ever since high school,
will not be appointed Hillary’s Speech Czarina or anything
else. It’s over for her. It’s back to Riyadh with you, middle-aged lady, where
you can conform to Sharia and wear a burqa all day long.

First of all,
when I logged into my blogger setup, I found this notice. It was not there
yesterday.
European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors
information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also
require you to obtain consent.

As a courtesy, we have added a notice on your blog to explain Google’s use of
certain Blogger and Google cookies, including use of Google Analytics and
AdSense cookies.

You are responsible for confirming this notice actually works for your blog,
and that it displays. If you employ other cookies, for example by adding third
party features, this notice may not work for you.  Learn more about this notice and your
responsibilities.
Your HTTPS settings have changed. All visitors are now able to view your
blog over an encrypted connection by visiting [xxxcom – my blogname].
Existing links and bookmarks to your blog will continue to work.
This notice also appears on my statistical pages. My
response – or “responsibility” – to this notice is and will continue to be a
one-finger salute.
While it claims not to be a terrorist organization, a
document found during a 2004 FBI raid of a Brotherhood safe house reads that
they believe “work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and
destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable
house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated
and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this
level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared
ourselves for jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform jihad and work
wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is
no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack.”
Have the real life heirs of Sergeant Preston of the
Yukon
been tasked to slap Canadians into “right think”?
On October 26th, the
Canadian Parliament
has passed an anti-Islamophobia “motion” that condemns
Islamophobia, just as the OIC and Hillary Clinton do. The text reads:
“Recently
an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted
terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam. Their
actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-Muslim
sentiments in Canada; and these violent individuals do not reflect in any way
the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam. In fact, they
misrepresent the religion. We categorically reject all their activities. They in
no way represent the religion, the beliefs and the desire of Muslims to
co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world. We, the undersigned, Citizens
and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in
recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam,
and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia”.
All I said was I don’t want a halal cheeseburger!
Knowing little or nothing about ISIS’s playbook
adherence to the Koran, the
legislators can get away with a woozy statement such as “an infinitesimally
small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities …as a
pretext for a noble rise in anti-Muslim sentiments in Canada.” And the
statement buys into the notion, repeatedly contradicted by terrorists not
members of ISIS, but who were inspired by ISIS and by the Koran.
“Hate speech”:Man arrested for giving a Muslim a dirty look
The Gatestone article, continues:
While a
motion will have no legal effect unless it is passed as a bill, the symbolic
effect of the Canadian parliament unanimously condemning “all forms of
Islamophobia,” without making the slightest attempt at defining what is
meant by “Islamophobia,” can only be described, at best, as alarming.
What exactly
are they condemning? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Debating
Mohammed? Depicting Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation
of Islam? Is any Canadian who now writes critically of Islam or disagrees with
the petitioners that ISIS “does not reflect in any way the values or the
teachings of the religion of Islam” now to be considered an “Islamophobe”?
No one
knows, and it is doubtful whether the members of the Canadian parliament know
what it means themselves. It would seem, however, that the initiator of the
petition, Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Samer Majzoub, knows. This is
what he had to say in an interview
with the Canadian Muslim Forum after the motion passed:
“Now
that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the
beginning … We need to continue working politically and socially and with the
press. They used to doubt the existence of Islamophobia, but now we do not have
to worry about that; all blocs and political figures, represented by Canada’s
supreme legislative authority, have spoken of that existence. In the offing, we
need to get policy makers to do something, especially when it comes to the
Liberals, who have shown distinct openness regarding Muslims and all
ethnicities… All of us must work hard to maintain our peaceful, social and
humanitarian struggle so that condemnation is followed by comprehensive
policies.”
We really expected more from the Canadians than to
take Samer Majzoub, at his word, but under Justin Trudeau. He is  Canada’s prime minister and a kind of “red
diaper baby,” except you can call him a niqab baby, he is acting as Canada’s
elected undertaker. Calling Sergeant Preston! Leave
King behind. Bring plastic cuffs and duct tape to silence these warped people!
In the meantime, most European governments, especially
those with a major presence in the European Union, are
determined to punish anyone for speaking his mind about Islam, Muslims, and the
“migrant” invasion. Douglas Murray at Gatestone reports in his article, “Europe’s
New Blasphemy Courts
”:
… The
front-door reintroduction of blasphemy laws, meantime, is being initiated in a
country which once prided itself on being among the first in the world to throw
off clerical intrusion into politics. The Dutch politician Geert Wilders has
been put on trial before. In 2010 he was tried in the courts for the contents
of his film “Fitna” as well as a number of articles. The trial collapsed after one of the expert witnesses — the
late, great Dutch scholar of Islam, Hans Jansen — revealed that a judge in the
case had tried in private to influence him to change his testimony. The trial
was transparently rigged and made Dutch justice look like that of a tin-pot
dictatorship rather than one of the world’s most developed democracies. The
trial was rescheduled and, after considerable legal wrangling, Wilders was
eventually found “not guilty” of a non-crime in 2011.
But
it seems that the Dutch legal system, like the Mounties, is intent on always
getting its man. On Monday of this week the latest trial of Geert Wilders got underway in Holland. This
time Wilders is being tried because of a statement at a rally in front of his
supporters in March 2014. Ahead of municipal elections, and following reports
of a disproportionate amount of crimes being committed in Holland by Muslims of
Moroccan origin, Wilders asked a crowd, “Do you want more or fewer
Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?” The audience responded,
“Fewer, fewer.” To which Wilders responded, “Well, we’ll arrange
that, then….”
On trial again for bad-mouthing Muslims and Moroccans.
Opinion
polls suggest that around half the Dutch public want fewer Moroccans in the
Netherlands and many opinion polls going back decades suggest that the Dutch
people want less immigration in general. So at the very least Wilders is being
put on trial for voicing an opinion which is far from fringe. The long-term
implications for Dutch democracy of criminalizing a majority opinion are
catastrophic. But the trial of Wilders is also a nakedly political move.
There’s more, as Judith Berman reports in “Europe:
Let’s End Free Speech!
In
Europe, is the enemy now the governments? Evidence is mounting that expressing
even a mild opinion that runs counter to official government policy can land
you in prison, or at least ensure a visit from your friendly local Kafkaesque
police. Has Europe effectively become a police state?
Several
European governments are making it clear to their citizens that criticizing
migrants or European migrant policies is criminally off limits. People who go
too far,” according to the authorities, are being
arrested, prosecuted and at times convicted.
In
the Netherlands, the police visited people who naïvely made critical comments
about asylum centers on Twitter in October 2015. In the town of Sliedrecht,
police came to Mark Jongeneel’s office and told him that he
tweeted “too much” and that he should “watch his tone”: his
tweets “may seem seditious”. His offense? The town had held a
citizens meeting about a refugee center in the region, and Jongeneel had posted
a few tweets. One said: “The College of #Sliedrecht comes up with a
proposal to take 250 refugees over the next two years. What a bad idea!” Earlier
he had also tweeted: “Should we let this happen?!…”

He was not
the only one. In Leeuwarden, according to New Europe:
“…about
twenty opponents of the plans [to establish asylum centers] in the region
received police visits at home. It also happened in Enschede, and in some
places in the Brabant, where, according to the Dutch media, people who had been
critical of the arrival of refugees and ran a page on social media on the topic
were told to stop”.
A
spokesperson for the national police explained that ten intelligence units of “digital
detectives” monitor Facebook pages and Twitter accounts in real time, looking
for posts that go “too far,” so that they can visit with people to
tell them “what effect a post or tweet on the internet can have.” In
other words, the Netherlands are engaging in state censorship, thus raising the
question: Is the Netherlands now a police state?
In the
United Kingdom, Scott Clark was arrested in February 2016 for writing on the
Facebook page of the Scottish Defense League that Syrian refugees would
“see the nasty side to us.” According to a news report, he referred to sexual assaults on women in Cologne,
Germany on New Year’s Eve by men of Arab or North African appearance as
justification for his online comments, in which he also wrote, “If
anything happens to any young girl I will personally spit in the face of
councilors who pushed and pushed to get them housed here…” He also
wrote, “There’s defo an Islamic invasion. Defo something going down. Just
witnessed 15 Syrians in the local boozer… I opposed their arrival from the
start.”
Inspector
Ewan Wilson from Dunoon police office told the Guardian:
“I hope
that the arrest of this individual sends a clear message that Police Scotland
will not tolerate any form of activity which could incite hatred and provoke
offensive comments on social media.”
Bergman has much, much more to report on the government
depredations against citizens. What Sharia Law
under and on the table.
Donald Trump vs. the Cloaks of  Darkness

Britain, the EU, and the member governments
are practicing is

But
relief, at least in the U.S., may be in sight, and Google Analytics’ days may be
numbered and I can rest my middle finger. Paul Bremmer of The
Counter Jihad Report
wrote:
The
Muslim Brotherhood’s days of influencing the United States government may be
coming to an end, and those who are expert in the field of Islamist activism
and the threat of terror are pleased.
WND
reported earlier
President-elect Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to
jumpstart a bill in Congress that would ban the Muslim Brotherhood by declaring
it a terrorist organization.
Walid
Phares, a foreign policy adviser to Trump, says he believes Trump will support
the plan to make the designation.
Philip
Haney, a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security and author of “See
Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s
Submission to Jihad,”
greeted the news with hope, saying his former agency
is finally returning to its initial mission.
Julian Assange, who blew the lid off of the Clinton campaign
As the National
Review
and other outlets have reported, Barack Obama from the very
beginning
has refused to designate the Brotherhood as a terrorist
organization.
Barack
Obama has spent his presidency cultivating Islamists, particularly from the
international Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates in the United States. As we
saw this week, he chafes at the term “radical Islam” — as do his Islamist
advisers. At their insistence, he had instructional materials for training
government agents purged of references to Islamic terms that illuminate the
nexus between Muslim doctrine and jihadist terror. Obama’s vaunted
national-security strategy, “Countering Violent Extremism,” is Orwellian. The
term CVE supplants identification of our jihadist enemies with the woolly
notion that “violence” can be caused by any form of “extremism” — it has
nothing to do with Islam. By transferring security responsibilities from
government intelligence agents to Muslim “community leaders” (often, Islamist
groups), CVE actually encourages violent extremism.
So, it seems that come January, we are going to have
a radical change of tune about Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood. It can’t
happen too soon.