The Netherlands: The Geert Wilders Show Trial Continues

Most European Union (EU) nations operate under a Parliamentary political system rather than a Federal political system as in the USA. As such the Parliamentary system in the Netherlands is now being exposed in doing its version of a Trump-frame against Party for Freedom (Dutch acronym – PVV. Interesting irony on Wikipedia PVV info: the English Wikipedia listing is quite negative while the Dutch language Wikipedia [I used Google Translate] is more informational and balanced) leader Geert Wilders. WHY? Wilders is anti-Multiculturalist and anti-Muslim immigration all to preserve Western Culture.


It is extremely apparent Netherlands (and EU) power elites fear a drain-the-swamp avalanche if Wilders ever wins enough of a Parliamentary election to be the Netherlands Prime Minister.


The Gatestone Institute authored by Soeren Kern reports on exposé of Netherlands government corruption leveled against Wilders by Amsterdam-based newspaper De Volkskrant.


JRH 2/8/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee.

BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”


The Netherlands: The Geert Wilders Show Trial Continues


By Soeren Kern

February 8, 2020 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

  • The emails indicate that Prime Minister Mark Rutte himself was involved in the decision to prosecute Wilders.


  • “Minister Van der Steur has deliberately withheld those documents, as is apparent from these documents. Moreover, it appears that another Justice Minister, Minister Opstelten, lied…” — Geert Wilders, February 5, 2020


  • “Mr. Presiding Judge, the Minister of Justice interfered in detail with my conviction. The documents even state that the Ministry of Justice instructed the public prosecutor — you will find the word ‘instruct’ in the documents….” — Geert Wilders, February 5, 2020


  • “And every day that this trial continues and you do not punish the conspiring prosecution, and the Ministry of Justice for their lies and haggling with the principles of an independent, fair and balanced trial, by declaring them inadmissible, every day this trial continues is a black day in the history of Dutch justice.” — Geert Wilders, February 5, 2020


  • “In the Wilders case, we certainly do not have to rely on the judge to agree with Wilders and to reach the conclusion that there has been a political trial, which is therefore not legally valid…. Wilders case appears to have been pre-cooked in the cabinet itself…. [Prime Minister] Rutte himself was involved…. The lying and spinning must stop somewhere…. This rule of law, in which judges and prosecutors receive instructions by the politicians on how to act, is rotten from within.” – Joost Niemöller, Dutch Journalist,, February 5, 2020

Newly released documents show that senior members of the Dutch government — including the former prime minister and justice minister — applied political pressure on public prosecutors to indict Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom for “hate speech.” Pictured: Wilders (left) sits next to current Prime Minister Mark Rutte at a meeting of political party leaders at the Dutch House of Representatives on March 16, 2017 in The Hague. (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)


Newly released documents show that senior members of the Dutch government — including the prime minister and two former justice ministers — applied political pressure on public prosecutors to indict Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV), for hate speech for comments he made about Islam and Moroccan immigrants.


The documents, which the government turned over to the Amsterdam-based newspaper De Volkskrant in compliance with a Freedom of Information request, appear to confirm long-standing allegations by Wilders that the government’s decade-long legal war against him is far from a principled pursuit of justice, and instead politically motivated aimed at silencing his criticism of multiculturalism and mass migration from the Muslim world.


On February 3, De Volkskrant reported that the government documents — numbering nearly 500 pages — show that as early as 2008, then-Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin was “intensively involved” in the decision to prosecute Wilders.


According to De Volkskrant, the Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie, OM) found nothing illegal about Wilders statements, but Hirsch Ballin pressed the OM on three separate occasions to change its assessment.


In June 2008, the OM dismissed more than 40 criminal complaints against Wilders on the grounds that his statements were made “in the context of political debate” and therefore “not of a punishable nature.”


In January 2009, the Amsterdam Appeals Court, the second-highest legal authority in the Netherlands, overturned the OM’s decision and ruled that Wilders could be tried for inciting hatred. Wilders said that it was a “black day for myself and for freedom of speech.”


The first trial against Wilders began on October 4, 2010. He was accused of insulting religious and ethnic groups and inciting hatred and discrimination for describing Islam as fascist and comparing the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s book Mein Kampf. Wilders argued that his statements were directed at Islam as an ideology and not at individual Muslim believers.


The trial collapsed on October 22, 2010, after it emerged that Tom Schalken, one of the judges in the case, had tried to sway a potential witness.


The retrial began on February 6, 2011 with three new judges. Wilders said that his trial was about preserving freedom of expression in the West.


On June 23, 2011, Wilders was acquitted of all charges. Judge Marcel van Oosten ruled that the statements by Wilders, while “gross and denigrating,” did not meet the standard of hate speech and as such were “acceptable within the context of public debate.”


Despite the acquittal, the government’s harassment of Wilders continued. Internal government emails recently published by RTL Nieuws show that Hirsch Ballin’s successor, Justice Minister Ivo Opstelten, repeatedly pressured the OM to bring a new case against Wilders. Opstelten, his aides and the prosecutor repeatedly consulted with each other before the decision to prosecute Wilders a second time was made in the fall of 2014. The OM has always denied that it was subject to outside political interference; the emails show that the OM denials were untruthful. An email sent by the lead prosecutor, Wouter Bos, on October 8, 2014, warned: “This must not leak!”


Other government emails show that the decision to bring a new case against Wilders was discussed as early as March 2014 in the Council of Ministers, the executive council of Dutch government, formed by all the ministers, including the prime minister. The emails indicate that Prime Minister Mark Rutte himself was involved in the decision to prosecute Wilders.


On March 18, 2016, Wilders went on trial again for allegedly inciting hatred against Moroccan immigrants. Prosecutors said that in March 2014, Wilders, while campaigning in The Hague, asked a crowd of supporters if they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. The crowd said fewer. Wilders responded: “We’ll take care of that.”


Prosecution spokeswoman Ilse de Heer said that Wilders “targeted a specific race, which is considered a crime.” Wilders countered that his comments referred to Moroccan criminals, not to Moroccans in general, and that, in any event, Moroccans are not a race.


On December 9, 2016, Wilders was found guilty of inciting discrimination. The court, however, imposed no form of punishment; it said that the verdict was sufficient penalty. The Public Prosecutor demanded a fine of €5,000 ($5,500). Both Wilders and the Prosecutor appealed.


Since then, Wilders has been entangled in a protracted legal process that shows no signs of ending anytime soon. In an appeal hearing on February 5, 2020, Wilders voiced his anger over the political nature of the case against him:


“Presiding Judge, members of the court: The shamelessness of the Public Prosecution Office knows no boundaries. In a report we received yesterday and heard about today, they claim — one-and-a-half days after they received the documents from the Ministry of Justice — that nothing is wrong, that nothing has been found that indicates political influence.


“Rarely have I seen attorney generals who are so damaging to the rule of law, who don’t care about a fair trial. They are blinded by their hatred for me and the PPV. These kinds of people, like those two attorney generals, ensure that the trust of ordinary people, the common man and woman in the Netherlands, in the public prosecutor and the judiciary has fallen to a low point.


“The Public Prosecutor says that there is nothing wrong. Shame on you, attorney generals. What we all know now is enough to immediately end this political process, this charade….


“We already knew, Mr. Presiding Judge and members of the court, that officials from the Ministry of Justice, under the responsibility of former Justice Minister Ivo Opstelten, had adjusted press releases from the public prosecutor. That it was Minister Opstelten himself who wanted two press releases. That his officials had made a legal analysis of this case. And shared this with the public prosecutor.


“We already knew that they had helped the public prosecutor refute the defenses of the defense. That, for example, the phrase, ‘we will arrange that’ was brought to the attention of the public prosecutor by the Ministry of Justice. That they wanted to see the requisites in advance to provide comments.


“And now there are 475 pieces again. And indeed, we have not been able to read all of them, I mean, we could hardly read any of the pieces. But if I only look at what the media writes about it, such as Volkskrant or RTL journalist Pieter Klein, then only more shocking things have come to the surface.


“It even appears now that it [the case] has been discussed in the Council of Ministers, Mr. Presiding Judge. In the Council of Ministers. How much more political does it get?


“The documents show that a senior official of the Ministry of General Affairs of Prime Minister Rutte informed a senior official of Ministry of Justice of Minister Opstelten that the Prime Minister expects the Minister of Justice to be able to say something meaningful during the Council of Ministers of March 21, 2014 about whether the prosecution of Wilders is promising.


“How promising it is! Promising: according to the dictionary, I looked it up, that also means likely, successful. It has a positive connotation. The Council of Ministers, Mr. Presiding Judge. This concerns an opposition leader in the House of Representatives. That is shameful, but that is, unfortunately, not unique, because we also know from the documents that we received yesterday that it was — in relation to the Wilders 1 trial, but I still want to have mentioned it, to indicate what they are capable of — that it was then Justice Minister Hirsch Ballin who requested legal advice three times because he did not like the earlier advice that it was impossible to prosecute Wilders. He repeated his requests for advice until he received the advice he wanted.


“Back to this trial. Apart from the fact that it was discussed in the Council of Ministers — words cannot express, it does not become much more political and corrupt — former [Justice] Minister Van der Steur, the documents show, deliberately and personally stopped the publication, on the basis of the Dutch Freedom of Information Act (WOB), of an official message about my persecution. Minister Van der Steur stopped that.


“According to the documents, the decision on the WOB request was delayed until after the decision of the Court of First Instance. Until after my conviction. Imagine that. Mafia practices. Pure political influence of the worst kind. A minister who deliberately withholds relevant and possibly exculpatory documents until after the conviction. Words really cannot express…


“If we had received those documents earlier and also all the other documents requested on that basis, and now also obtained with the permission of your court, then perhaps it might not have come to a conviction at all…then the court might not have decided on a conviction in the first instance.


“Minister Van der Steur has deliberately withheld those documents, as is apparent from these documents. Moreover, it appears that another Justice Minister, Minister Opstelten, lied when he said during his interrogation by the commissioner, that outside the Council of Ministers — you can find it literally in the reports — he never spoke about this matter with other ministers.


“The documents that we received yesterday show that he did indeed talk to other ministers about this outside the Council of Ministers, namely with Interior Minister Ronald Plasterk.


“Mr. Presiding Judge, the Minister of Justice interfered in detail with my conviction. The documents even state that the Ministry of Justice instructed the public prosecutor — you will find the word ‘instruct’ in the documents — when and at what time they had to call me on October 9, 2014, to say that I was a suspect. For a phone call to me, saying that I was a suspect, the Public Prosecutor’s Office was instructed by the Ministry of Justice when and at what time and on what day that had to happen.


“My case has been dealt with in detail. And this whole trial, just like the Wilders 1 trial, is permeated with political influence. From phone calls, up to the Council of Ministers, and to ministers who withheld or delayed documents, an opposition leader from the national parliament has been prosecuted for ten years that way.


“Politics have always been involved, from civil servants to ministers and the Council of Ministers. Every day that this trial continues and you do not punish the conspiring prosecution, and the Ministry of Justice for their lies and haggling with the principles of an independent, fair and balanced trial, by declaring them inadmissible, every day this trial continues is a black day in the history of Dutch justice.


“This trial will have to stop today. I have said it many times. To be honest, I find it incomprehensible that this has not been decided long ago by declaring the prosecution inadmissible. If in the unfortunate event, even after today, you want to continue with this trial again, then indeed, and you have just said that, Mr. Presiding Judge, we need ample time to read all those documents and possibly based on those documents, also call new witnesses, like Minister Van der Steur. Like the prime minister. Like all the people involved.


“It is clear from these documents that they are more involved than we already knew. And see the minutes, the records, of the Council of Ministers as well. It appears to have been discussed. It has been said by the General Affairs official against the Justice official: ‘[Prime Minister Mark] Rutte wants to say something about the chances of this trial, Ivo [Opstelten].’ And Ivo went to the Council of Ministers on March 21. This has always been denied. Denied during the interrogations. Now it appears to have just happened. I want to see those documents from the Council of Ministers. I want to talk to people about it. It is not just about someone who steals a roll of licorice. It is about the opposition leader in the Dutch parliament whose persecution has been influenced up to the Council of Ministers.


“I want to hear the truth. I want to hear more than the truth about the political influence in this trial so that this trial is taken off the table as quickly as possible.


Veteran Dutch journalist Joost Niemöller wrote:


“On February 3, just before another hearing in the endless criminal case against Wilders, a bulk of internal documents were dropped by Justice Minister Ferdinand Grapperhaus which relate to the official and political involvement in this trial. These documents were intended for the House of Representatives and are now public.


“If the Chamber takes its task seriously, it must investigate the political nature of this lawsuit. That is emphatically not an investigation into the trial itself — after all, we have a separation of powers here — but an investigation into the political role behind the continuation of this trial….


“In the Wilders case, we certainly do not have to rely on the judge to agree with Wilders and to reach the conclusion that there has been a political trial, which is therefore not legally valid…. After the internal documents released, the issue has become even more flammable.


“The Wilders case appears to have been pre-cooked in the cabinet itself…. [Prime Minister] Rutte himself was involved…. The lying and spinning must stop somewhere.


“The anger of Wilders in court was only too understandable, and all too justified. It is the anger of more and more Dutch people. Even in the mainstream media it is now recognized that this political pre-cooking goes beyond all limits.


“This is the umpteenth example in which democracy is excluded by the judiciary, because the judiciary and the OM have become an extension of politics.


“This point is increasingly emphasized by, among others, Forum for Democracy leader Thierry Baudet, whose hypocritical opponents accuse him of rejecting the rule of law.


“This rule of law, in which judges and prosecutors receive instructions by the politicians on how to act, is rotten from within.”


Wilders’ trial will continue on March 23. Four additional hearings are scheduled for April. It remains unclear when his trial will end.


BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”


Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. Follow Soeren Kern on Twitter and Facebook


© 2020 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor: Full disclosure – I did not seek permission and post will be removed if Gatestone Institute requests so.]


Donate to Gatestone Institute


The West has to DECIDE what Bigotry is and what Cultural Survival is

Doubting Thomas. reduced size

John R. Houk

© April 26, 2014


Numerous people in the blog world and even my own family have labeled me a bigoted homophobe and Islamophobe propagator of hate-speech because of my agreement with the Biblical moral standards and the New Testament message that Jesus Christ is the only way to God. I am definitely not the perfect Christian by Biblical standards. I mess up way more than I should. BUT, I am quick to repent to turn myself around with conviction. As a Christian the most prominent reason I can offer ‘messing up’ is that I do not meditate on the Word of God enough and neither do I commune with God in prayer as often as I should. I find when I am lacking in those two qualities I tend to gravitate off the narrow road into a ditch. God have mercy on me in Jesus’ Name.


Yeah … That is about as much holy groveling that a human will hear or read from me so let’s move on.


There is absolutely no doubt that homosexuality is clearly morally reprehensible to God Almighty. It is only in the moral dilution of secular-minded Leftists that the Bible is pronounced an archaic book with some good ideas and some outdated modes of thinking not of the modern age of humanity. And “Progressive” Christians seem to align themselves with secular Leftists in which the Scriptures of the Bible are cherry-picked as applicable to modernity and none of the Bible is God-inspired but rather the sole work of human hands and minds. There might be degrees of agreement or absolute agreement with me when I say the secularist stand is a denial of God and of Christ Jesus the Risen Savior. AND that the “Progressive” Christian mentality is similar in which some of those Church theologians doubt that Christ arose in bodily form from the grave. Ergo the accusation of bigoted homophobia is the same as calling the Creator of all that exists as bigoted. Nope! I will never go there.


Then I absolutely believe that Jesus Christ is the only path to God by the Redemptive act of offering the Lord’s own Blood as a Redemptive price enabling each individual human of choosing life in Christ or choosing death (i.e. the second death) to eventually join Satan in the lake of fire eternally separated from God. Since Jesus as Crucified, Buried and Arisen Bodily in Resurrection is the only way to God by Faith through Grace I reject all other religions that teach something different. I don’t care if it is Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism and so on. I also reject sects that are a spinoff from Christianity but in some way or another reject Christ’s Death, Burial and Resurrection and that as the Son of God is co-equal as God along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Three Persons in ONE God is Biblical. Thus that leaves out Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cult deviations from the basics of orthodox Christianity. On a personal level I’m on board with the Protestants that still respect the Bible, Roman Catholicism, and various Eastern Orthodox Church variations that do not deny the Godhood of Jesus Christ. In my book if a Believer has faith in the Christian basics I can live with differences in dogma. Even if my faith beyond the Christian basics is unacceptable to some of the Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox variations.


Historians have classified three religions as being derived from the Abrahamic Covenant because the Patriarch Abraham holds a prominent starting place for those three religions. If you are unaware of those three religions in historical order are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Historically there has been an element of disdain between all three religions. I am going to briefly talk about these three religions from my Christian perspective.


The Old Testament is basically the Tanakh of Judaism. The Tanakh is divided into the Torah or the Law (Christians call it the Pentateuch or Books of Moses), the Nevi’im (Christians call the Prophets, but includes Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings) and Ketuvim (which roughly corresponds to Old Testament Wisdom books e.g. Psalms, but also include Daniel, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ruth, Ezra-Nehemiah, Lamentations, Song of Songs and Esther). For the Jews the Torah is the preeminent Word of God.


I’m not going to pretend that I know the theology of Judaism in any kind of detail. From the Christian perspective, the Old Testament is the scarlet thread (royal bloodline) that points to Jesus Christ as the promised Savior from Adam’s sin of rejecting God at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The New Testament portrays the Jewish leadership during Jesus’ birth as a human that are also the prime movers of Jesus’ death. And then the Jewish leadership is shown as trying to stamp out the influence of the Apostles in the spread of Christianity in which Saul of Tarsus is mentioned as persecutor-in-chief. Jesus appeared in a vision of stunning light to Saul and transformed him into a Believer and thus became Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles and the God-inspired writer of most of the New Testament.


As Christianity became the State Religion of the Roman Empire then the hostility was reversed. Christians became more numerous than Jews with the infusion of non-Jews into the Christian faith. The Gentile dominated Christian clergy began to vilify Jews as Christ-killers. THIS COUNTER-PERSECUTION IS ONE OF THE MOST HEINOUS SINS OF EARLY CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP!


Among both Roman Catholics and the eventual Eastern Orthodox Christians Antisemitism became embedded among Christians in the same way that the Jewish leaders before the Romans compelled Diaspora of Jews persecuted Christians. Christians persecuting Jews became so much more wicked than the Jewish persecution of Christians in pre-Diaspora Judea. The Roman Empire was huge. Christians became so much more numerous than the Jews of Judea had ever become. Forced conversions, forced deportations and/or ethnic cleansing became the plight of the Jews in the Roman Empire and later Christian Europe and what was left of Christianity under Byzantine rule until Islamic conquest. Christ-killer antisemitism was so embedded in Christianity that Protestantism that emerged from the Reformation initiated by Martin Luther was still present. Indeed, as famous as Martin Luther was for standing up to Roman Catholic theological abuses he was also a rabid antisemite.


A closer reading of the Old and New Testament should have brought at the very least a reverence for Jews from among Christians. The Old Testament pointing toward Jesus as the Deliverer first to Jews and even after Jewish leadership rejection, Jesus is pointed to as the restorer of David’s Kingdom among the Jewish faithful. Who knows? Perhaps a better treatment of the Jews may have hastened the return of Jesus Christ to rule and reign as the Messiah-King already. Christ’s return would have flocked Jews to finally believe that He is the Risen Savior. Even the Apostles had a problem believing the Resurrection of Christ until the Lord revealed Himself to them. When Christ returns there still will be some Jewish rejection of Jesus; however the Bible records that there are also nations with a Christian heritage in which people will believe a supernatural acting Antichrist above Christ Jesus as representative of God’s Kingdom on Earth. So even though there is good reason for Jewish distrust of the motives of Christian Evangelism I am a Christian Zionist in full support of Israel. I’ll let King Jesus handle the belief factor among Jews in the same way He did with the Apostles right after the Resurrection.


This is my view that connects Jews and Christians today. It is my belief the Bible shows this in the Bible.


Historians also classify Islam as being one of the great Abrahamic Religions. In a historical sense there is some validity to this classification of Islam. Islam’s prophet Mohammed looks back to Abraham as one of Islam’s great prophets. In a Biblical sense there is no possible way Islam has a valid connection to Judaism or to Christianity.


The so-called valid collected recordings of Mohammed in the Quran totally warps the message of the Old and New Testament. Mohammed molded his Islam by twisting the Bible to be applicable to the trade and raiding nature of Arabs of today’s Arabic Peninsula. Mohammed had to find a way to connect his Allah with what the Arabs already believed and mix reworked Biblical stories to provide an eternal nature of Islam in Earth’s history. In Mohammed’s early trading days he undoubtedly heard dialogue from Jews and Christians that had migrated to the Arabian Peninsula or were part of the Arab trading routes. The Arab tribes of Mohammed’s day actually had tribal families that were Jews of the Diaspora. Mohammed thought an eclectic message that merged Arabic belief systems with Jewish and Christian theology would inspire Jews and Christians to join him as much as Arabs. Unfortunately for Mohammed Jewish Rabbis and Christian clergy were educated enough in their faith to recognize Mohammed’s version of Biblical history was totally revised to fit the thinking of the majority Arab group he lived and grew up among.


Jews and Christians rejected Mohammed’s message as a message of false prophecy.


After Jewish and Christian rejection of Mohammed’s message I find it amazing how the Allah preached in Mecca became hostile to Jews and Christians when preached from Medina. Medina is the city Mohammed fled to after Meccan leaders grew weary of the anti-polytheistic message and pro-monotheistic message that he hoped would persuade Jews in particular who were quite numerous on the Arabian Peninsula. By a good amount of subterfuge and a little military skill that enriched his followers from raiding parties, Mohammed eventually became the supreme leader of Medina. With a military base Mohammed proceeded to conquer the Arabian Peninsula with a convert, submit or die paradigm. Any resistance was viewed as not submitting which led to the ethnic cleansing of Jews in the Arabian Peninsula.


The Christians of the Byzantine Empire (the old eastern half of the Roman Empire) became a target for enrichment raids which turned into wealth building via conquest. Conquered Christians soon learned that Islam denies that Christ died on the Cross or that the Lord was Resurrected. For that matter Islam rejects Jesus’ Divine nature altogether but has the hutzpah to name the Jesus of the Bible as one of a long line of Muslim prophets of which Mohammed was to be the last.


I suspect Jewish rejection of Islam has a lot to do with the Quran making Ishmael who was the son of Abraham and Hagar the principle heir of Abraham. The Bible makes it clear that Isaac, the son of Abraham and Sarah, was the child of Promise that would lead to the creation of the nation of Israel (12 sons of Jacob) and for Christians the bloodline on the human side leading to Jesus.


The Islamic denial of Christ as the Messiah-Redeemer, both the Son of God and son of man, the incarnate God born in human flesh that lived as a sinless man for 33 years, died by crucifixion on a cross and returned to life in His human body to be glorified with the return of Divine attributes surrendered at birth to sit at the Right hand of the Father always interceding for the humanity that believes in the Redemptive-Resurrected work of Christ – is the reason I find Islam particularly despicable.


Regardless of the current majority of the so-called Moderate Muslims that believe Islam is peace, the Islamic holy writings and the Sharia Law based on them demand retribution for all insults to Allah and Mohammed. Those insults can be something as simple as apostatizing from Islam to another religion or to atheism, perceived defamation of Mohammed and Allah, refusing to submit to the laws of Sharia if one is in the non-Muslim minority living condition, to being a Muslim that deviates from Sharia. Retribution is up to or including execution or familial honor killing.


No holy writing from any other religions mandate such violence based on rejecting or insulting that particular religion. Now there are many adherents of other religions including my faith historical Christian adherents, who have taken it upon themselves to institute violent retribution as a matter of the rule of law apart from religious holy writings. ONLY Islam mandates violence and/or execution as a course of holy writ against a human being.


Today! In the 21st century, the so-called Muslim minority have terrorized humanity for the perception of insulting Islam, Allah and Mohammed. Even the so-called Muslim majority disown the practice, the fact remains the Muslim terrorists are instituting a reformation to return Islam to the purity of the lifestyle of the so-called perfect man the Prophet Mohammed.


Does exposing this make me a bigoted racist Muslim-hater? That is correct only as far as any Muslim stands by the purist form of Islam espoused by its prophet Mohammed and his immediate shapers of the religion of Islam that conquered in imperial bloodlust, booty and slavery followed by ramrodding the Islamic Sharia system until the remnant non-Muslims eventually became the brainwashed Muslim majority. I deplore purist Islam because I will never submit or honor that false god called Allah or the man placed on the pedestal of prophethood who was either delusionally insane or a demonized individual.


Even though I despise Islam for its antichrist nature, Jesus’ imperative to the early Believers before ascending to the right hand of the Father was to go into the world and make disciples of men. (Yup, I said “men”. I realize that is chauvinistic today but I also realize making disciples of men included women as well.) This includes the poor deluded people that have bought into the load of cow manure that Islam is peace when it is really translated to Islam is submission or else.


I have no clue as to Geert Wilders’ spiritual beliefs. I don’t know if he is a Protestant, a Catholic, a nominal secular-minded Christian or an atheist. But I do know he is looking out for the heritage that has brought the Western World to the freest humanity has achieved ever. Admittedly Europe’s cultural spin downward was given a push by multicultural Socialist-Marxism to allow the Islamic threat the freedom to prosper like cancer cells destroying its host. People like President Obama wants to push the Christian and Western European destructive mode upon America under the fallacy that transformation is good. The European example is proving to be culturally lethal. Geert Wilders is making a stand to withstand European self-destruction. Multicultural laws in Left Wing oriented Europe has made Geert Wilders a target for political elimination by the European Leftists that still believe multicultural diversity is a concept that divergent cultures and immoral lifestyles can be mutually accepted in a humanistic utopia of diverse egalitarian unity.


I am an admirer of Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Why? He is that rare high profile European that speaks his mind of what is threatening Dutch culture in the Netherlands (by the way also a huge chunk of Europe). What is threatening Dutch culture? Could it be a love of America’s free enterprise concepts in business and just taxation? Could it be Socialist/Marxist concepts that undermines the Dutch historical-cultural heritage? Wilders is not as concerned about American Capitalism vs. European Socialism as much as one other huge factor that is altering society in general. That factor is the immigration of Muslims into the Netherlands that not only refuse cultural assimilation but also are encouraged to practice the cultural norms of Islam that run counter to Dutch traditions (well … European socio-historical traditions in generalSee Also book review ofWhile Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within”).


Fjordman provides some fantastic insight on the intrusion of Islam that could have or even should have been written in volumes of books:


Any discussion of an Islamic “Reformation” projects a Western European phenomenon, the Protestant Reformation, onto a totally different religion with more violent core teachings and religious texts than all other major religions on the planet combined. If by “reformation” we mean to imply a peaceful, tolerant religion with no Jihad and secular laws, then no, it is very unlikely whether such a form of Islam will ever exist. There are a few types of what we might term “diluted Islam” that are slightly less violently aggressive than the mainstream version of it, but these are all marginal in the greater scheme of things and are frequently persecuted precisely because they deviate from traditional Islamic practices.


If by “reformation” we simply mean a return to the earliest practices of the religion then we have already had a Muslim Martin Luther: the terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. He was a violent Jihadist because the earliest followers of Mohammed were also violent Jihadists. You can base a peaceful Christian religion with secular laws on the peaceful example of Jesus and his disciples as contained in the Christian Gospels. In Islam, however, such an example can only be found in the early Mecca period. As long as the example of Mohammed and his followers in Medina remain in force, along with the chapters of the Koran supposedly introduced there, any form of Islam based on traditional Islamic texts is bound to be potentially repressive, aggressive and violent. You may successfully question whether the story of Mohammed as told in traditional text is historically accurate. It probably isn’t. But if you abandon traditional sources and state that Mohammed as we think of him never existed, Islam may not be reformed, but could collapse instead.



We are currently mass importing this very conflict to all of our major cities, a process which is already well underway. It is criminal negligence on the part of our so-called leaders to continue this madness and conduct a dangerous Multicultural experiment with hundreds of millions of people as guinea pigs. This needs to end. Now.


If you believe that this analysis is correct then you are left with only one possible conclusion: We must physically separate ourselves from Islam and Islamic culture as much as is practically possible. The American essayist Lawrence Auster has dubbed this strategy “separationism,” which is not a bad term. (Why Islam Does Not Belong in the Western World; By Fjordman; Gates of ViennaNew Website); 11/20/12)


People like Geert Wilders are trying to reverse the Islamic destruction of Europe’s heritage of Western Civilization. Wilders has already been tried and cleared of Hate-Speech charges in relation to his short documentary entitled “Fitna”. Here is an excerpt of a review of the documentary:


Fitna opens with a view of a closed Qur’an, which when opened reveals a bland version of Kurt Westergaard’s turban bomb Mohammed on one page, and a ticking clock counting down from 15 minutes (the length of the film) on the opposite page. The film proceeds in the form of a casual thumbing through a few select pages of the Qur’an. A page is flipped, a few quotes encouraging terrorism and violence toward non-Muslims are presented, numerous video demonstrations of Muslim’s mirroring if not directly obeying the anti-infidel sentiments are shown, and then the page is flipped again and the process is repeated.


Video footage throughout the film includes the World Trade Center attacks, the Madrid train bombing, images of the maimed and dead of various terrorist attacks, the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl, Muslims celebrating the killing of Theo van Gogh and warning non-Islamic Europeans that they should learn from van Gogh’s fate (read: van Gogh acted against Islam and was stabbed to death; anybody else want some?), Mohammed B—one of van Gogh’s killers—saying that he would do it again if he had the opportunity, Islamic leaders inciting extreme violence toward non-Muslims (e.g., Jews) often to the cheers of large and raucous crowds of fervent Muslims, a 3.5 year old Islamic child saying that Jews are apes and pigs because Allah says so in the Qur’an, anti-semitic signs reading “God Bless Hitler” and (READ ENTIRETYSUMMARY OF GEERT WILDERS’ ANTI-QUR’AN FILM FITNA (SPOILER ALERT; Posted by RB; The Frame Problem; 3/27/08)


Showing suras in the Quran which is considered the very word of the uncreated Allah and comparing them to Islamic terrorist attacks got Wilders in trouble with the judiciary in Netherlands. In America such a criminal charge would have been thrown out of Court as a violation of the First Amendment.


Leftists in America still went out of their way to label Geert Wilders a racist Muslim-hating Islamophobe. I have to ask, “How are the words of Islamic holy writings labeled as hate-speech when a non-Muslim informs the world that they exist?”


At any rate Dutch Leftists are trying to imprison Geert Wilders again under hate-speech violations encoded in the Dutch and EU legal system.


JRH 4/25/14

Please Support NCCR


Who is in More Trouble: Wilders or The Netherlands?

Geert Wilders Campaign Interview 3-12-14


By Timon Dias

April 24, 2014 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute: International Policy Council


“Freedom of speech is a great thing and we have said nothing that is not allowed.” — Geert Wilders, MP and leader of the Party of Freedom.


Now, the police have apparently decided to become part of the prosecution. They have drafted pre-filled “Wilders forms” to press charges and have offered to come to people’s homes to help them fill out the paperwork.


Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders again made international headlines. Nazi comparisons are rampant, self-proclaimed victims are lining up to sue and now more than ever there is a chance that Wilders actually might be convicted of hate speech.


In an interview on the Dutch Public News Service [NOS] on March 12, Wilders said (10:10): “[People] will now be voting for a safer, a more social, and… in any case a city with fewer costs, and, if at all possible, with fewer Moroccans.”


Wilders has the numbers to support his concern. Statistics show that 65% of all Moroccan youths have been arrested by police, and that one third of that group have been arrested more than five times.


Wilders emphasizes the inordinate costs associated with the disproportionately high number of Dutch Moroccans registered as social welfare beneficiaries and who are implicated in welfare fraud.


Based on those numbers, Wilders seems to imply that if there were not such a large number of Moroccans, Dutch crime rates and social welfare costs would significantly drop.


Wilder proposes that Dutch Moroccans who are habitual criminal offenders should be deprived of their Dutch passports and sent back to Morocco, an act that is possible as all Moroccans and their descendants are, by Moroccan law, prohibited from relinquishing their Moroccan passports.


Dutch Moroccan criminals are known to be highly indifferent to sentences in Dutch prisons, which are known for their comfort. In a majority, Dutch prisons are populated by Dutch Moroccans.


Moroccans also apparently derive status from prison sentences. Evidently, upon their release, many gloat. Apparently it is only the thought of having to trade the luxury of the Netherlands — even prison — for Morocco that strikes terror into the hearts of potential offenders. In Italy, the same threat is already in effect and acts as a successful deterrent. It seems as if it is only the threat of deportation, more than any other measure, that is likely to deter young Moroccans from a life of crime.


Although the proposal is being used by Wilders’s opponents as either a laughing stock or beating stick, the merits of the proposal are rarely elaborated on, including even by Wilders. A recent poll showed 76% of Dutch voters to be in favor of the measure.


The NOS, interviewing Wilders again on March 14, asked him if he actually meant what he had said regarding Moroccans in general, possibly expecting him to say that he had only been referring to Dutch Moroccan criminals. But Wilders stood firm. He emphasized that his concern lay with the number of Moroccans currently flooding the crime statistics, and repeatedly stated, “The fewer Moroccans, the better.”


“Can you imagine that people are startled by your remarks?” he was asked.

“It is unfortunate if people are startled by the truth,” he said.


This latest round of anger against Wilders began after the announcement of voting results on March 19. At the end of his victory speech, Wilders remarked, “And the third question is, and I’m actually not allowed to say this, because I’m being sued, and there might even be Social Democrat DAs that would prosecute me, but freedom of speech is a great thing, and we have said nothing that is not allowed. We have said nothing that is not accurate. So I am asking you now: Do you want, in this city and the Netherlands, more or fewer Moroccans?” The crowd replied: “Fewer, fewer, fewer!”


That time, however, after the event, Wilders did nuance his views. He stated that he was referring to criminals, and only in favor of the voluntary repatriation of law-abiding Moroccans.


Now the police have apparently decided to become part of the prosecution. They have drafted pre-filled “Wilders forms” to press charges and have offered to come to people’s homes to fill out the paperwork.


Is Wilders a racist? He recently tweeted: “Support for Moroccan businesswomen Elou Akhiat. It is a shame she receives death threats over opening a wine bar.”


The West has to DECIDE what Bigotry is and what Cultural Survival is

John R. Houk

© April 26, 2014


Who is in More Trouble: Wilders or The Netherlands?


Copyright © 2014 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved.


About Gatestone Institute


“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.”
— John Adams


Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:


o   Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;


o   Human Rights


o   A free and strong economy


o   A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world


o   Energy independence


o   Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.



Gatestone Institute conducts national and international conferences, briefings and READ THE REST


Radical Islam -At the Door - In the House bk jk


Jim Fletcher writes a book review of Radical Islam In The House: The Plan to Take America for the Global Islamic State written by Michael S. Coffman and Kate Mathieson. I like the way Fletcher shortens the title as “Radical Islam At the Door In the House”. Note the strike-through on “At the Door”. Radical Islam is no longer knocking on America’s door. It has permeated American society and is taking advantage of Political Correctness, Leftist Multiculturalism and the Constitution’s First Amendment. The irony about Radical Islam and the First Amendment is Islam’s goal to eradicate Constitutional freedom and replace it with Sharia Law. I could go on but Fletcher is much more erudite than I in explaining this Islamic infiltration aimed to destroy the American way of life.


JRH 10/22/13

Please Support NCCR




By Jim Fletcher

July/August Issue



Michael Coffman and Kate Mathieson are brave people. In an era of great peril, brought upon all of us by a sinister worldview originating in ancient Arabia, they are willing to say things in print that need to be said. For example:


Evil is permeating America like never before. The penetration of our society by Islam is but one of the attacks on this great nation. Volumes have been written on the subject, but few Americans have read them.


Exactly. That’s why a new book by Coffman and Mathieson, Radical Islam At the Door In the House, is so compelling. A slim volume—on the lean side at that—the book can be read, for example, while one sits in a doctor’s waiting room (as I did). Indeed, only 85 pages of text are so jammed with information on America being overtaken by Islamic jihad there is no excuse for it not being read widely.


This isn’t reading for the faint-of-heart, but it is one of the most extraordinary books of 2013, and will especially be accessible and relevant for Christian audiences in America. Coffman and Mathieson have done their homework, and then some.


Of particular interest is a rhetorical question they ask repeatedly: Why is the Obama administration mainstreaming the Muslim Brotherhood? The answer is chilling, but those who choose to face reality rather than the bottom of a sand hole just might look back one day and see that a clear-headed assessment of Islam’s plans for America saved many lives.


During an election speech in Cairo, in May 2012, Brotherhood leader Muhammad Morsi stated clearly, “The Qur’an is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, Jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal.”


Is this the kind of person an American government should prop-up? Of course not, but the question comes back to us again and again, like an ominous echo: Why is Barack Obama determined to support the Muslim Brotherhood and elsewhere aid jihadists?


Everywhere in Radical Islam At the Door In the House, we learn how deeply radical Islam has penetrated not only the White House, but educational institutions, interfaith religious bodies, and with the introduction of Al-Jazeera, even media. It is a grim picture that Coffman and Mathieson paint, yet there is still time to turn back this threat to liberty.


The authors note that jihadists like Morsi have learned a great deal about America. Morsi himself earned a Ph.D and taught for three years at California State University, Northridge. Shrewd in the extreme, the now-deposed president of Egypt has implemented every strategy the MB is using to overthrow the U.S., including meeting with evangelical leaders such as Bob Roberts, Jr.


Americans are trusting, and accommodating, and the jihadists exploit this to the full. As pointed out in Radical Islam At the Door In the House, our Muslim enemies in 2006 demanded:


Metropolitan Airport Authority, Minneapolis-St. Paul: a cab driver can refuse to service the blind because of their dogs which are seen by many Muslims as unclean.


It’s this kind of outrageous demand that goes to the heart of the jihadists’ strategy: turn Americans into dhimmis, a concept in Islam which demands total submission by non-Muslims to the agenda of their rulers. Although such a reality is difficult for most Americans to believe is possible, it is not only possible for Muhammad’s followers, but well within their reach.


As has been pointed out, the Muslim Brotherhood plan to compromise America’s Christian leaders is progressing nicely. A “Common Word” document, establishing mutual cooperation between Islam and Christianity, has been signed by 300 church leaders, including kingpins Rick Warren and Bill Hybels. This type of gullibility places our country in danger, yet interfaith leaders work day and night to make it reality.


The authors point out that Obama isn’t the only U.S. president to behave strangely when it comes to confronting jihadists. In the days after 9/11, President George W. Bush allowed scores of Saudi nationals to leave the U.S., though air travel was shut down for Americans. Among those leaving was Prince Turki bin Faisal, “the widely feared head of the Saudi Intelligence Agency.” In November 2013, Faisal will be a featured speaker at Pastor Roberts’ “Global Faith Forum” at Northwood Church in Texas.


The authors also point out a whole host of facts that most Americans are not aware of, such as:


§  Islamists have donated money to many American schools, including $20 million to the University of Arkansas and $5 million to Berkeley “from 2 Saudi Sheiks linked to al Qaeda.”


§  A 2010 broadcast from Nile TV in Egypt reveals Barack Obama’s true nature regarding Islam.


§  Muslims are taught to intentionally lie to “the enemy,” which means non-Muslims.


Radical Islam At the Door In the House outlines so much of the jihadists’ agenda for America that readers will be truly shocked. No longer will we have the excuse that other treatments of this subject are too much to digest, too scholarly, etc. This book is meant for the masses, and it is literally vital that it gains the widest readership possible.


It’s that good, and that scary.



In this video, Clare Lopez talks about the Muslim Brothers in the White House:


VIDEO: TrentoVision – 7.25.13 – CLARE LOPEZ – Muslim Brothers in the White House!

These are some of the comments that added useful information.




This is unheard of: Christians welcome a foreign faith into their home nation, into the Christendom! At that they welcome not just some faith, but the deadliest and bloodiest historic enemy for centuries, islam of all, whose aggression into Christendom had been hardly stopped just 400 years ago at the gates of Vienna.


Such a self-betrayal of Christians is paralleled only by the stupidity and self-betrayal of Jewry, whose major organizations (100% progressive and liberast) have never met a moslem they didn’t like, or a mosque they did not wish to embrace in an “interfaith” fever.


This myopia and stupidity of the “religious leaders” is well backed by the islamic oil money





Actually, the notion that Muslims are perpetrating terrorism in a quest to resurrect a Muslim Caliphate is absurd. Muslims aren’t waging jihad, as opposed to terrorism, to resurrect a Caliphate. Muslims are waging jihad, which is holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment/expansion of Islam, because the subjugation of all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism through jihad and the imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law, is the sole fundamental purpose of Islam. Indeed, jihad is not only the highest pillar in which Islam stands; it is also a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another. Thus, all mainstream orthodox Muslims regardless of sect are jihadists in one form or another. Otherwise they are blasphemous apostates that per the texts and tenets of Islam must be executed. Hence, common sense dictates that Islam must be outlawed and mass Muslim immigration, along with all of its excess baggage, which is really stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad for the purpose of demographic conquest, must be banned and reversed ASAP.


Moreover, we aren’t talking about radical Islam, which is absurd and in which is a term used to garner headlines. Instead, we are talking about mainstream orthodox Islam, which is the only kind, as there is no such thing as a version that is radical relative to a version that isn’t, as the texts and tenets of Islam are immutable since they are the direct word of Allah as dictated to Muhammad by the arch angel Gabriel.


Warren Raymond to ObamaYoMoma


You got it.


The terror is just one part of it, the other forms of jihad (by dawa, by the pen, by money, infiltration, subversion, lobbying, corrupting, by immigration etc.) are far worse because it is much harder to understand.


The goal is the same and Islam exists for no other purpose.




Anybody ever wonder why the subjugation of all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism through jihad and the imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law, is the sole fundamental purpose of Islam?


It’s because the Koran is held by Muslims to contain the divine direct testimony of Allah (God) as dictated to Muhammad by the arch angel Gabriel and as such it is perfectly just since it emanates directly from Allah (God), while no other religion with respect to their individual holy books can make such a similar claim.


Therefore, since Islam alone emanates directly from Allah (God), as the Koran contains his direct unaltered words and testimony, it is thus considered to be by all Muslims the one true religion, while all other religions, on the other hand, are considered to be false and counterfeit since they emanate from the writings of all fallible man.


Furthermore, the infamous sword verses contained in the Medinan portion of the Koran, which were the very last verses issued by Muhammad shortly before his death, collectively commands all Muslims to wage jihad against all religions and all infidels until such time that Islam has been made supreme throughout the world via the imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law.


Additionally, since the universally accepted throughout Islam “doctrine of abrogation” instructs that when two verses of the Koran come into conflict with each other, the latter issued verses of the Koran, i.e., those issued by Muhammad later on in his career, abrogate and replace the earlier issued verses of the Koran they conflict with, the infamous sword verses of the Koran therefore abrogate and replace all the earlier issued peaceful verses of the Koran they come in conflict with. As a matter of fact, those earlier issued peaceful verses of the Koran that have been abrogated and replaced by the infamous sword verses are the same exact verses that Muslims love to show to clueless useful idiot infidels to dupe them into believing that Islam is somehow a harmless “religion of peace”.


Also, remember again that the Koran is the direct testimony of Allah (God). Thus, it is immutable and cannot be questioned without committing blasphemy at the same time, which in Islam is an automatic death sentence. As altering just one single word of the Koran or otherwise questioning the Koran in any way, shape, or form would be to elevate the word of all fallible man above that of the word all infallible Allah (God).


Further, while Islam is considered by 1.6 billion Muslims to be the one true religion, the acceptance of Islam, on the other hand, as being a religion on a par with the other great religions of the world by all non-Muslim infidels would be suicidal. Not to mention as well that the first and foremost prerequisite of Islam is the total, complete, and unconditional submission to the “will of Allah” under the pain of death for blasphemy and apostasy, which not only sets Islam apart from all true religions, it also proves unequivocally at the same time that Islam is not a religion at all, but a cult instead. Indeed, what Abrahamic religions and non-Abrahamic religions compel belief under the pain of death for blasphemy and apostasy the same way only Islam alone does? The answer, of course, is none of them, which again irrefutably proves Islam isn’t a religion, but a cult instead.



Moreover, the “will of Allah” that all Muslims totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the pain of death for blasphemy and apostasy as the first and foremost prerequisite of Islam in essence is Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law. Indeed, the only freedom that Sharia allows is the freedom for Muslims to become more devout slaves of Allah. Yet, the GWB State Department inexplicably enshrined the constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan with Sharia, making it the highest law in each respective country, and thereby creating Islamic totalitarian states at the same time. Is that what our boys were fighting over there for? Hardly!


Finally, because Sharia emanates directly from Allah (God), it is not only perfectly just for the reason that Allah (God) is perfect, it also supersedes all other inherently fallible manmade laws in the world. Since to Muslims the acceptance of inherently fallible manmade laws above that of Sharia would constitute the elevation of inherently fallible manmade laws above that of the infallible direct testimony of Allah (God). As a matter of fact, Islam considers all inherently fallible manmade laws, which includes all democracies as well, to be abominations to be obliterated.


Anyway, why can’t we read this kind of stuff on FPM?




It is reported that radical Islam (it’s mainstream Islam as taught in the Quran and mosques) has penetrated the White House, educational institutions, interfaith religious bodies, and the media.


They did NOT penetrate. The Muslims could not have achieved ANY of the above without the WILLING and EAGER cooperation of the government, educational institutions, religious bodies and the media who intensely HATE Judaism and Christianity……and are working with Muslims to DESTROY America, Britain, Europe and other Western countries.


Freedom-haters, Western ruling elite TRAITORS together with Muslims are determined to destroy our merciful Western civilization.


Photo: President Obama bows to the Saudi King

 President Obama bows to the Saudi King

defcon 4


At my old job, at a Fortune 500 company, there was a division whose VP was muslime. IN time, the division became known as the Dearborn Division because 95% of the employees in this division were muslime and all of the managers and directors.





If Christian photographers can be forced to do a photo shoot of a gay marriage that they don’t want to contract for due to religious beliefs, then Muslim cabbies can be forced to pick up anyone who is trying to hire a cab, service dog or not, regardless of their religious beliefs.




The Muslim Brotherhood plan to compromise America’s Christian leaders is progressing nicely. A “Common Word” document, establishing mutual cooperation between Islam and Christianity, has been signed by 300 church leaders, including kingpins Rick Warren and Bill Hybels. This type of gullibility places our country in danger, yet interfaith leaders work day and night to make it reality. End of quote.


The church leaders (and leaders of international Christian organizations) are NOT gullible! They are WILLINGLY conspiring with the enemy. Throughout the entire Bible, OT and NT, God repeatedly warns of false prophets.


Matthew 7:15 Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.


Acts 20:29 After my departure savage wolves will come in among you…


The savage wolves entered the church when the church was still in its infancy. The savage wolves never left and are in the church today. They are indeed, very savage, but they appear to be so good….


2 Corinthians 11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness…


NEVER forget God’s warnings. Never!


Jim Fletcher is a member of the executive committee for the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel—NCLCI—and a prolific blogger. He can be reached at This article appeared August 27, 2013 in FrontPage Magazine and is archived at


THINK-ISRAEL features essays and commentaries that provide context for current events in Israel. The war Islam is waging against Israel and the West is top priority. We report on global anti-Semitism, Islamism and creeping Sharia. We aim to make sense of what’s going on. 

%d bloggers like this: