Presidents Trump & Putin at the news conference following their historic summit.
Presidents Trump & Putin at the news conference following their historic summit. Russian election meddling was blandly assumed by one media hack.
So President Donald Trump mixed up his ‘would’ and his ‘wouldn’t’? Apparently it happened in the press conference after his summit meeting with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.
No collusion, but hacking
According to the BBC, Mr Trump insisted there was ‘no collusion at all’ between his campaign and Russia. Mr Putin laughed at the suggestion. The American press has been full of charges of this alleged ‘collusion’. However, US Special Counsel Robert Mueller has not yet alleged any.
The more serious charge is that of ‘election meddling’. That appears to mean attempts, successful or not, to hack into Democratic Party emails. That’s assuming the emails were not leaked by an insider.
The BBC reports twelve Russian nationals have been indicted by Mueller. The DNC leak showed that top Democrats preferred Mrs Clinton for the presidential nomination. In fact, they constantly worked against her left-wing challenger, Senator Bernie Sanders.
Election meddling
Wikileaks published the emails with ‘eighteen revelations’. Julian Assange has denied any Russians were behind what he described as leaks. But such is the feverish level of anti-Russian hysteria in US corridors, his denial simply would not do.
A reporter asked Mr Trump after the summit to condemn Russia and Mr Putin on election meddling. It was not even ‘alleged’, it was taken as fact. In reply, Mr Trump said his intelligence officials – including Director of Intelligence Dan Coats – have told him ‘they think it’s Russia’. Mr Putin, he continued, just told him it was not Russia.
‘I don’t see any reason why it would be,’ Mr Trump concluded, leaning toward the Russian professions of innocence over the apparent conclusions of his own officials.
All hell broke loose
As Mr Trump was flying home from Helsinki, all hell was breaking loose among the US elite.
Senate Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called it a ‘shameful performance’ that was ‘thoughtless, dangerous and weak’. John Brennan, director of the CIA under Barack Obama, not given to understatement, said Mr Trump was guilty of treason.
On the Republican side, political consultant and Jeb Bush advisor Mike Murphy called it a ‘dark day’, after tweeting a string of invective. Former 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain said it was ‘one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory’.
‘The damage inflicted by President Trump’s naivete, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate,’ said the Arizona Republican senator. ‘But it is clear that the summit in Helsinki was a tragic mistake.’
Who are the critics?
Why are Mr Trump’s critics so quick to condemn Russia and President Putin? Why do they not want peace and some measure of tranquility which would allow normal people to trade and do business? Well, Senator McCain is chair of the Armed Services Committee. Senator Schumer, 66, has never had a job outside politics. The Intercept reports he raises millions of dollars for the Democrats from the finance industry. Moreover, that sector is heavily involved in armaments companies.
Mr Schumer voted for the Iraq war, taking at face value the tissue of lies about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction which were peddled by the same ‘Intelligence Community’ that now accuses Russia of election meddling. He warned of Iraq’s imaginary yet ‘vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons’. Like John McCain, he is a member of the US Council on Foreign Relations. Russia is a thorn in the side of the CFR’s globalism. And its president also opposes the advance of sodomy, a liberal sacred cow. That’s unforgivable to someone like Schumer.
Armaments companies’ funding
OpenSecrets.org reveals another Trump critic, Republican Congressman Michael Turner, received $161,000 from defense companies for his 2016 re-election campaign. He also serves on the Arms Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee.
On top of that, he is the liaison to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and has served as its president. ‘Russia absolutely meddled in our election,’ said the prominent warmonger.
Newt Gingrich is another top Republican who sits on the CFR. He called Mr Trump’s statements on intelligence agencies ‘the most serious mistake of his presidency’. Mr Gingrich is also a member of the secretive Bilderberg Group and the disreputable occultist Bohemian Grove.
In the media, the Drudge Report had a headline blaring that ‘Putin dominates’ the summit. Such an approach assumes a zero-sum game where there must be a ‘winner’ and a ‘loser’. On Fox News cable networks, normally pro-Trump, Neil Cavuto called the president’s performance ‘disgraceful’ and said it ‘sets us back a lot’. Fox News White House correspondent John Roberts opined ‘There is a growing consensus across the land tonight … that the president threw the United States under the bus.’
Barrage of criticism
In the face of this barrage of criticism, Mr Trump could easily have stood firm, remembered the intelligence community’s past failings and observed that they haven’t come up with anything stronger than alleged attempts to discredit Mrs Clinton. He could have said she herself did the best job in that direction.
Instead, says the BBC, Mr Trump said he had reviewed the transcript and ‘realised’ he needed to clarify. ‘In a key sentence in my remarks, I said the word “would” instead of “wouldn’t”,’ he said. ‘The sentence should have been: “I don’t see any reason why I wouldn’t’ or why it wouldn’t be Russia”. Sort of a double negative.’
The US president added: ‘I accept our intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place. Could be other people also. A lot of people out there.’
US meddling
Speaking of ‘a lot of people out there’, Mr Trump could also have observed that the US has a long history of interfering in other countries and their elections.
A Channel4 ‘factcheck’ says: ‘The west – and particularly the US – have a long history of rigging polls, supporting military coups, channeling funds and spreading political propaganda in other countries.’
Professor Dov Levin is from the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie Mellon University. He reckons ‘60 different independent countries have been the targets’ of post-war US interventions.
Channel4 goes on: ‘According to Levin’s research, those countries where secret tactics have been deployed by the US include: Guatemala, Brazil, El Salvador, Haiti, Panama, Israel, Lebanon, Iran, Greece, Italy, Malta, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, South Vietnam and Japan.
‘For Russia, the list of covert interventions includes: France, Denmark, Italy, Greece, West Germany, Japan, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Congo, Venezuela, Chile, Costa Rica, and the US.’
US meddled in Kenya
This author had personal knowledge of US meddling in Kenya’s constitution referendum in 2010. Then Ambassador Michael Ranneberger worked with EU counterparts to secure a vote to adopt a South African-style constitution. In addition to its liberalism, it cemented the role of Sharia courts in the country. Even today, his two immediate predecessors, Mark Bellamy and Johnnie Carson, argue openly for more intervention by the US and ‘external partners’ in Kenya in particular and African nations in general.
On top of that, there is much recent history of Western governments providing funding for NGOs dedicated to overturning Christian morality in African nations. Legal access to abortion, the adoption of gay rights and feminist empowerment are the three favourites of Western governments. Naturally, they are assisted by a plethora of philanthropic -so to speak – western funders, led by George Soros and his Open Society Institute and OS Foundations.
The UK Foreign Office, one has to say, almost exists to interfere in the affairs of foreign nations.
The real election meddling story
Which leads us to the real meddling story hiding away behind all the anti-Russian rhetoric. From June 2016, a British ex-intelligence office, Christopher Steele, supplied the US Democratic Party with gossip on Donald Trump’s business dealings in Russia. Only when Donald Trump was elected in November of that year did the Democrats stop paying Steele’s firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, for information through the intermediary Fusion GPS.
But Christian Voice discovered that Steele linked up with MI6 officers during the time he was working on the dossier memos he drip-fed to the Democrats. Not only that, but his consultant at Orbis was MI6 man Pablo Miller. Miller was Russian double-agent Sergei Skripal’s handler in Salisbury. A US expert in Russia and its intelligence services has said there is no doubt the Trump dosser was not written by Steele but by a Russian intelligence officer. And with which Russian intelligence officer was Christopher Steele in touch through his MI6 pal Miller? Step forward Sergei Skripal.
Clearly, President Trump is wary of vested interests at home. That explains his partial backtrack here and his earlier two half-hearted missile strikes against Syria. He had to be seen to be doing something, but he tried to keep it as inoffensive, particularly to the Russians, as possible. He cannot always rein in his State Department and the Pentagon. Nevertheless, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and appointing at least one pro-life Supreme Court judge (the jury is out on the next one) have been matters of principle.
But his meeting with Kim Jong-Un, his advice to Mrs May on the EU – best not walk away – and his attempt at a reset with Russia all speak of a business man. For the Donald, above all, doing a deal is what motivates him. There are times like 1939 and over the Falklands when a nation has to stand up to an aggressor. But in ordinary times, doing deals, trading, living in peace, is better than daggers drawn. (Except to the armaments industry of course.)
Later, Mr Trump tweeted: ‘So many people at the higher ends of intelligence loved my press conference performance in Helsinki. Putin and I discussed many important subjects at our earlier meeting. We got along well which truly bothered many haters who wanted to see a boxing match. Big results will come!’
He added: ‘Some people HATE the fact that I got along well with President Putin of Russia. They would rather go to war than see this. It’s called Trump Derangement Syndrome!’
Keep praying for peace.
We’ll really appreciate your support
Click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings
Click on the social media links below to share this post:
She is proposing a £4.5 million ‘action plan’ aimed at making society ‘more inclusive’ for homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders. They make up the media’s so-called ‘LGBT community’. And part of the ‘action plan’ is to brand any course of treatment or healing for same-sex desires as ‘abhorrent’.
As the Bible says:
Proverbs 29:27 An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked.
The initiative follows a major Government survey to which more than 108,000 LGBT people responded. The rest of the population, 99% of us, knew nothing about it.
The survey found out of the 1% of the population who are sadly L or G, as many as 2% had undergone conversion therapy and a further 5% had been offered it. That, clearly, will never do.
The action plan states: ‘We will consider all legislative and non-legislative options to prohibit promoting, offering or conducting conversion therapy.’
Avoid holding hands
The survey showed LGBT’s claim to experience ‘prejudice’ on a daily basis, the Government said.
More than two thirds of those who took part in the survey said they avoided holding hands with a same-sex partner in public for fear of a negative reaction. 23% said work colleagues had reacted negatively to them being LGBT. So not everyone has been steamrollered by the LGBT juggernaut.
LGBT hate incidents had been experienced by 40% of people in the survey. More than nine in 10 of the most serious offences went unreported, says the Standard. But a ‘hate incident’ could be someone like me objecting to repellent homosexual propaganda in Lloyds Bank, or a mother not being too pleased about dirty boys holding hands in front of her children.
The Prime Minister said: ‘We can be proud that the UK is a world leader in advancing LGBT rights, but the overwhelming response to our survey has shone a light on the many areas where we can improve the lives of LGBT people.’
Will DUP support the plan?
Arlene Foster’s DUP have kept Theresa May honest over Brexit. Can they do the same in respect of the LGBT action plan?
Mrs May’s administration depends on the support of the Democratic Unionist Party. The DUP has remained a shining light in Northern Ireland, preventing ‘gay-marriage’ and abortion reaching the Province. Can the DUP shut down this ludicrous and freedom-sapping initiative?
Mrs May went on: ‘I was struck by just how many respondents said they cannot be open about their sexual orientation or avoid holding hands with their partner in public for fear of a negative reaction.’
‘No one should ever have to hide who they are or who they love.’
Does that include paedophiles and serial adulterers? Mrs May needs to understand that many of us, from strong religious convictions, seriously object to homosexuals flaunting their perversions in public. She continued:
‘This LGBT action plan will set out concrete steps to deliver real and lasting change across society, from health and education to tackling discrimination and addressing the burning injustices that LGBT people face.’
LGBTs matter more than others
The plan aims to investigate ‘LGBT abuse online’; as if no other form of abuse online is anywhere near as important. It also wants to improved ‘mental healthcare for LGBT people with a focus on suicide prevention’. That means other suicides, like those of young men in general, do not matter as much.
Lev 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
It will also say that society is to blame for suicides among homosexuals, not the disorder of homosexuality itself.
Inevitably, it will step up gay propaganda in state schools under the guise of ‘combating homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying’.
Finally, a national adviser on reducing LGBT inequality will be appointed as part of the initiative. And a BBC internal survey just found 10% of their staff were ‘that way inclined’. That’s five to ten times as many as in the population. Homosexuals are also over-represented in Parliament and academia. There is no ‘LGBT inequality’ in our law or in our public institutions. Just in the public mind.
Pastors may not pray?
And of course there will be the ban on ‘gay conversion therapy’. The psychological profession’s regulation bodies already prohibit their members from offering any such therapy. In the 1970’s activists such as Peter Tatchell browbeat the psychiatric profession into removing homosexuality from any list of disorders.
Therapist Lesley Pilkingon was struck off by her professional body, the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. She was targetted in a sting operation by activist Patrick Strudwick, as he boasts in the Independent here.
But what if someone goes to their pastor and asks for prayer to rid themselves of unwanted same-sex desires? What if the pastor suggests a Christian healing ministry? Will ministries, even churches, that take a Biblical view on sodomy and lesbianism be banned? What if the pastor or a friend of one seeking healing offers to cast out a demon?
Attack on basic freedoms
Let us be under no illusion. This is an attack on freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom of association, and inasmuch as Christianity forms the backdrop to a desire to be free from same-sex desires, or constitutes an element of the healing process offered, on religious freedom.
And why is such a ban being proposed? Simply to protect the fragile sensibilities of homosexual activists:
Firstly, the mere thought that someone could be dissatisfied with being homosexual and want to change is politically incorrect.
Secondly, the very idea that someone could actually change is politically inconvenient.
Thirdly, the concept that human sexuality is not rigidly determined at birth is at odds with the gay agenda.
Fourthly, the idea that there is something inherently wrong with sodomy and all things gay may not be entertained.
Gay Conversion Therapy ban criminalises ideas
There are people walking away from the homosexual lifestyle? How very dare they.
Homosexual activists cannot get over the fact that many ordinary people view same-sex desires and those outwardly expressing them as abnormal, unnatural, deviant and pathological. In particular, they cannot abide the church not honouring their perversion. But it never can:
Mark 10: 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
And becoming one flesh in the Bible’s full emotional, spiritual and physical sense is something a pair of gays or two lesbians can never do.
So to be blunt, Mrs May is going to try to criminalise ideas. And that way lies tyranny. Another part of George Orwell’s nightmarish 1984 vision is in place. Here come the Thought Police.
We’ll really appreciate your support
Click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings
Click on the social media links below to share this post:
Germaine Greer has told an audience at the Hay Literary Festival that ‘most rape’ is not violent but ‘lazy, careless and insensitive.’
Her intervention prompts us to look at what the word of God says. We shall find it is at odds with both contemporary views and Miss Greer’s revisionism. But first, what did she actually say?
She suggested offenders could have an ‘r’ tattooed on their hand, arm or cheek. They should also, she proposed, do 200 hours’ community service.
Neither will happen, but her intention was both to irritate and trivialise the crime. As an exercise in provocation, some commentators said, it worked. The audience, said one, was ‘stunned’.
The academic argued that rape is rampant in society and ‘the legal system cannot cope with it’. She said it always ‘comes down to the issue of consent’. In her view, the alleged victims become little more than ‘bits of evidence’.
No communication
‘Most rapes don’t involve any injury whatsoever,’ Miss Greer said. ‘We are told that it is a sexually violent crime. An expert like Quentin Tarantino will tell us that when you use the word rape you’re talking about violence, a throwing them down. It is one of the most violent crimes in the world.’
Dr Greer said she firmly disagreed with that.
‘Most rape is just lazy, just careless, insensitive. Every time a man rolls over on his exhausted wife and insists on enjoying his conjugal rights he is raping her. It will never end up in a court of law.
‘Instead of thinking of rape as a spectacularly violent crime, and some rapes are, think about it as non-consensual … that is bad sex. Sex where there is no communication, no tenderness, no mention of love.’
Germaine Greer is controversial!
Dr Greer acknowledged her thesis would be controversial. “It is moments like these, I can hear the feminists screaming at me, ‘you’re trivialising rape!’
“Well I’ll tell you what … You might want to believe that the penis is a lethal weapon and that all women live in fear of that lethal weapon, well that’s bull****. It’s not true. We don’t live in terror of the penis … A man can’t kill you with his penis.”
She questioned a statistic which said that 70% of rape victims had suffered post-traumatic stress disorder compared with 20% of conflict veterans.
‘What the hell are you saying? Something that leaves no sign, no injury, no nothing is more damaging to a woman than seeing your best friend blown up by an IED is to a veteran?’
Society wanted women to believe that rape destroyed them, she said. ‘We haven’t been destroyed, we’ve been bl***y annoyed is what we’ve been.’
Changed minds
Such a view is supported by the evidence in some recently collapsed rape trials. The accusers were happy to engage in sexual relations with a man. They even sent texts afterwards saying how much they enjoyed it. Then they changed their minds. And rather than put it down to experience, they went to the police and accused the man of rape. It is such an easy accusation to make. And in such a sex-obsessed society as ours, as Miss Greer points out, some will see rape everywhere.
Dr Greer referenced Tarantino, but his view of rape as inherently violent is not new. Seeing rape as less a sexual act and more ‘an act of violence, with sex as the weapon,’ was coined by Professors Burgess and Holmstrom in 1974. Feminists took it up with gusto. However, plainly, Germaine Greer disagrees with that view. But she flies to the other extreme and trivialises sexual congress. She is right at a human level to call for more intimacy and gentleness. But she is wrong to suggest unwanted sexual intercourse is only seriously wrong if actual physical violence is involved.
The Biblical view
The Bible views rape as an act not of violence but one of sexual violation. And that is simply because the Almighty designated marriage as the only place for sexual relations.
Dinah’s brothers Simeon and Levi were outraged their sister had engaged in what she and her boyfriend Shechem intended as pre-marital sex:
Gen 34:1 And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. 2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.
This was not rape. There is no hint of force, as when Amnon raped his half-sister Tamar in 2Sam 13. Nor was it a drunken pick-up in a town-centre pub. It was not a one-night stand. Dinah and Shechem seriously wanted to get married. But the word ‘defiled’ shows the seriousness of doing what they did the wrong side of the wedding feast.
A grammatical dictum explains the correct usage of the word ‘anticipate’. ‘When we say Shechem and Dinah “anticipated” their marriage we do not mean they were looking forward to it.’ Instead, they had jumped the gun. Shechem was a wealthy prince. He was even willing to be circumcised and accept the God of Israel. But to no avail. Simeon and Levi pulled a trick and massacred all the men of his city. When their father Jacob remonstrated with them, they furiously replied:
Gen 34:31 … Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot?
The grace of God in the law
They were hasty, cruel and violent, said their father. Nevertheless, theirs would have been the prevailing view. It is indeed a Biblical view. But all the same, there was another Biblical way, the way Shechem pleaded for. The law, codified on Mount Sinai but in existence in their day, made gracious provision for such an occurrence:
Exodus 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
The dowry of virgins was higher than that of non-virgins, for a mixture of spiritual and practical reasons. Despite what Dr Greer said and what much of our society believes, the loss of her virginity outside marriage was – and is – a devastating thing to happen to a girl. Moreover, the Lord expected families to safeguard their daughters:
Lev 19:29 Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.
Despite what Germaine Greer says, consent is not remotely the issue. The Bible commends grace, love, tenderness, respect and patience within marriage, but neither is that the issue. The only consideration is, ‘Are they married?’ Only within marriage is consent to sexual intercourse valid. Going further, within marriage, consent to sexual intercourse is assumed.
Death penalty for adultery and rape
Seen in this context, we can understand the death penalty for adultery in Deuteronomy 22:22. It is a violation of the sacred bond of marriage. We can see why a man who really does rape a betrothed woman faces the death penalty a few verses on:
Deut 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
We can see why, if the laying together is consensual, the verses that follow lay the death penalty on both. In all these cases, as Deut 24:1-4 and Numb 35:31 make clear, the death penalty could be commuted to a payment of money. But it remains a serious violation of God’s created order, given for our good.
Stability of marriage
God’s design for society is far away from our own, and a world away from the one Germaine Greer proposes. God takes sex seriously because he takes marriage seriously. And he takes marriage seriously because he takes the stability of society seriously.
On the issue of sentencing, Prof Greer is wrong again. There can never be two classes of convictions. There cannot be a serious, proper, proven rape which leads to prison, and a sort of second class, barely-proven, semi-rape which merely requires community service.
The Bible, all the way through, in both Old and New Testaments, demands a case be proven by witnesses:
Deut 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Matt 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Our current practice is to grant anonymity to accusers but not to the accused. Such different treatment is what the Bile calls ‘respect of persons.’ It too flies in the face of the Biblical witness:
2Chron 19:7 Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.
Germaine Greer as ‘TERF’
Germaine Greer wrote the book ‘The Female Eunuch’ in 1970. It probably did as much as anything to set the feminist ball rolling. It played a part in the so-called sexual revolution. But maybe its author now sees what she set in motion has become the monster it always would be.
Certainly she is not now afraid to annoy the chattering classes. To take another example, Prof Greer has infuriated what we these days call ‘snowflakes’ with her views on transsexuals. Students at both Cardiff and Bristol have tried to ‘no-platform’ her. Why? She maintains male-female transsexuals are ‘not women’. That makes her a ‘TERF’, a ‘Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist’ and a holder of ‘transphobic’ views.
Thank you, Dr Greer
So we thank her for raising this issue, which has allowed us to seek the Lord. We pray to have done that faithfully. No doubt our many contributors will correct and clarify in the comments.
We’ll really appreciate your support
Click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings
Click on the social media links below to share this post:
Sky News reports, ‘The former leader of the English Defence League, Tommy Robinson, has been jailed for 13 months after flouting court orders for a second time.’
It goes on, ‘The EDL founder – whose real name Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon was listed on court documents – was sentenced to 10 months for contempt of court. He was given a further three months for breaching the terms of a previous suspended sentence.’
Mr Robinson was arrested on Friday outside Leeds Crown Court. Apparently, he and his cameraman Caolan Robertson were broadcasting details of a current trial live on Facebook. A number of mainly Muslim men stand accused of grooming under-age girls for sexual purposes.
‘Swift injustice’
The trial itself is subject for some reason to blanket reporting restrictions. Astonishingly, Judge Geoffrey Marson QC also placed reporting restrictions on details of Mr Robinson’s sentence. Only when these were lifted yesterday ((Tuesday) could the mainstream media report it. But the details were already all over social media and on news outlets worldwide. On Zerohedge, Tyler Durden described the events as ‘Swift Injustice’. Fox News reported on the case on Friday. The same outlet reported later on political leaders across Europe calling the jailing politically motivated. Even Donald Trump Jr was expressing himself shocked at the UK’s apparent clampdown on freedom of expression.
The judge told Mr Robinson his actions could cause the ongoing trial to be re-run, costing “hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds”. But apparently, to date, the trial is still proceeding.
The hour-long footage had been watched 250,000 times within hours of being posted on Facebook, the court heard. The judge viewed some of it, we understand.
Of course Sky News, like most of the media, could not resist referring to ‘the right-wing activist, 35, of Wilstead, Bedfordshire’. All ‘right-wing’ means is that Mr Robinson has taken against Islam. And that stems from his experience of Muslims on council estates in Luton,
Tommy Robinson on Muslim gangs
When Judy and I met Tommy Robinson in 2010 on one such estate, he expressed no ‘right-wing’ opinions. He was not for big money, or opposed to trades unions, or an anti-society individualist. Instead, he told us of drug dealing and prostitution rings all run by local Muslims. He and his friends had become appalled by the Muslim rackets and the racketeers. Moreover, they wanted to call attention to it at a time when politicians were denying any problems existed with Islam. This was even before the Rotherham grooming trial.
At that time I even observed a rally of the English Defence League. It too is always described to this day as ‘right-wing’ or ‘far-right’. It was not much more than a bunch of football supporters concerned about encroaching Islam and Islamification. They were bothered about halal meat in supermarkets, schools and prisons. They were worried about Islamic violence from murderous Al Qaeda. Islamic State was not even on the radar at this time. But for all their chants of ‘E – E – EDL’, the marchers were hardly from the ‘right’. I gained the impression a distinct majority were working-class Labour Party voters.
As for the Muslims Mr Robinson spoke about, it appeared criminality sat easily with their Muslim faith. These Muslims went to the mosque and did their prayer. That alone made them ‘good Muslims.’ Our elite will never admit it, but repentance of sin is not big in Islam. It is not like Christianity at all. It is a religion of works. By that we mean it is built around doing faith activities, the ‘pillars of Islam’.. It is not framed around forgiveness and gentleness. There is no fruit of the Spirit in Islam. And no Saviour.
Restrictions Political?
Going back to the court, I am puzzled as to why Tommy Robinson pleaded ‘guilty’. Such a plea removes a major plank of an appeal. He can only appeal the sentence, not his conviction. But these things happen when you are under duress and have an inexperienced duty lawyer. Maybe he can appeal his conviction on the grounds of being wrongly advised.
Alex Jones on InfoWars is not known for restraint. But while interviewing Tommy’s cameraman Caolan Robertson (Twitter account here), he described Tommy Robinson as a ‘political prisoner of the West.’ That provocative statement actually seems difficult to argue against.
What tells us that charging and sentencing Tommy Robinson was a political act? For this writer, above all it was Judge Geoffrey Marson QC imposing reporting restrictions on his jailing. The Independent newspaper and Leeds Live went back to court to challenge Judge Marson’s order. The Washington Post says this was ‘in part by arguing that their competitors were already violating it.’
Either the judge himself or another judge lifted the restrictions. That means they were wrong in the first place. And that makes their imposition a political act.
In an editorial, the Indy itself said: ‘Like him or loathe him, the jailing of Tommy Robinson for contempt of court was an event of legitimate press and public interest. It cannot be right, whatever else, that a British citizen can be deprived of their liberty “in the dark”, the very fact of their whereabouts made a secret. It feels wrong, and, in spirit at least, partly in breach of the ancient principle of habeas corpus.’
Impact on the trial
So the reporting restriction on Tommy’s imprisonment was a political act. Now, where does that leave the restriction on reporting on the actual trial itself?
The Daily Mirror tries to show in this article why jailing Tommy Robinson was the right thing to do. It says of his Facebook live stream: ‘The video included comments that could have caused the collapse of a long-running trial, costing hundreds of thousands of pounds.’
That’s ‘could have’. Did the trial collapse? It does not appear to have done.
The Mirror goes on, ‘As well as breaching this order, Robinson also made comments that impacted on the defendants’ right to a fair hearing before a jury.’
Tommy of all people ought to know that being charged is not the same as being guilty. It really is not right to shoot footage assuming defendants’ guilt before the jury have reached a verdict.
Nor is it right to go up to defendants in the street during a trial and ask if they have their prison bag packed. And that is what Tommy Robinson was doing on some occasions.
The jury – the weak link
The jury is considered a weak link. Judges tell jurers not to pay any attention to social media. In some cases they advise jurers not even to look at it. It is hard these days to avoid social media. But it is do-able. Moreover, jurers are obliged to do their job fairly. They are essential to the system. We cannot trust judges alone.
The Mirror asserts, ‘His arrest and conviction were to protect our justice system – under legislation that ensure trials don’t collapse’.
Fair enough, except there appears to be scant evidence that what he did actually prejudiced the trial. So could there be a political motive behind reporting restrictions on the Leeds case and the earlier one in Canterbury?
It is a fact that those charged were predominantly Muslim. It is a loathing of Islam that motivated Tommy Robinson to make his broadcasts. And the establishment have a corresponding defensive attitude towards Islam. Tony Blair may have been the first politician to say ‘Islam is a religion of peace’. Even today our leaders do not want to upset the multi-faith applecart. Muslims are rising to positions of power and influence. Many are councillors, some are MPs. And of course a Muslim is now Home Secretary. Another is the Mayor of London.
Muslim grooming gangs
The backdrop is this. A malaise has affected Rochdale, Rotherham, Telford, Newcastle, Oxford, and, says the Spectator, eleven other English towns. In all cases, gangs of Muslim men have been convicted of grooming young non-Muslim girls for sex. Adherents of the Mohammedan religion see those outside it as inferior. They would not do it to Muslim girls. They are seen as ‘haram’. Their whole community would be outraged.
But other young women hanging around parks or city centres, perhaps involved in the care system, are easy and permitted prey. They are ‘halal’. The problem is inherent in the religion. It is a national scandal. And apart from a few brave mainstream politicians like gutsy Anne Cryer in Rochdale, no-one wants to admit it. No-one from the police, to social services, to local councillors, right up to the Prime Minister, will talk about it.
The subsequent vacuum was always going to be filled. And Tommy Robinson has taken it upon himself to fill it. Well, someone had to. It seems prophets, not just angels, can come in strange guises.
We’ll really appreciate your support
Click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings
Click on the social media links below to share this post:
The Republic of Ireland has voted for the evil of abortion with duplicitous language employed by the 'Yes' side.
The Republic of Ireland has voted for the evil of abortion with duplicitous language employed by the ‘Yes’ side.
As the BBC reports here, the Republic of Ireland has voted overwhelmingly to overturn its constitutional ban on abortion by 66.4% to 33.6%.
A referendum held on Friday resulted in a landslide win for the Eighth Amendment repeal side.
Currently, said the BBC, abortion is only allowed when a woman’s life is at risk, but not in cases of rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormality.
The Eighth Amendment, which grants an equal right to life to the mother and the unborn, will be replaced.
The Eighth Amendment
It is worth reminding ourselves of what the Eighth Amendment actually says, or said:
The Eighth Amendment of the Irish Constitution:
“The state acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”
Voters in Ireland have by a two-to-one majority specifically rejected the right to life of human beings yet to be born. It is an astonishing snub to Almighty God:
Deuteronomy 27:25 Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.
A baby of eight weeks gestation, just a month younger than the typical age for abortion
Is this a manifestation of what writer G F Dalton described in his 1974 book, “The Tradition of Blood Sacrifice to the Goddess Eire”? Eire, or Erin, was an earth-goddess closely identified with the land. Or perhaps still is, if she has never been formally cast out. And according to Dalton, she demands blood sacrifice. As we shall see below, ’twas ever thus among the pagans.
For ‘women’s lives’?
But what can our excuse be in the United Kingdom? The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children says 8.4 million abortions have been carried out in Great Britain since the Abortion Act 1967 came into force in 1968. If Satan draws power for the shedding of innocent blood, over 160,000 legalised murders per year will do him just nicely.
As always, the pro-abortion side employed duplicitous language in the Irish referendum. One popular ‘Yes’ poster had the slogan, ‘For women’s lives’. Women’s lives were already protected by the 8th Amendment. It was unborn babies’ lives which were at stake.
As John McGuirk from ‘Save the 8th’ put it, “The unborn child no longer has a right to life recognised by the Irish state.” “Shortly, legislation will be introduced that will allow babies to be killed in our country,” he said.
Tweeting on Friday night, homosexual Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said: “Thank you to everyone who voted today. Democracy in action. It’s looking like we will make history tomorrow… ”
Irish health minister Simon Harris tweeted: “Will sleep tonight in the hope of waking up to a country that is more compassionate, more caring and more respectful.” How can killing the defenceless be compassionate, caring or respectful?
Mrs May is pro-abortion
Theresa May: pro-sodomy and pro-abortion.
UK politicians joined in, the Prime Minister disgracefully leading the way. Mrs May tweeted gushingly on Sunday: “The Irish Referendum yesterday was an impressive show of democracy which delivered a clear and unambiguous result. I congratulate the Irish people on their decision and all of #Together4Yes on their successful campaign. – PM @theresa_may #repealedthe8th”
Well, at least we now know where the vicar’s daughter stands. Moreover, she was urging gay rights on the Commonwealth last month. That came days after bombing the sovereign state of Syria, an illegal act of aggression. Does anyone still think she will deliver Brexit without our prayer and a mighty move of God?
Penny Mordaunt MP, the UK’s minister for women and equalities, rallied to the pro-death banner, speaking of a “historic and great day for Ireland and a hopeful one for Northern Ireland”.
Dr Sarah Wollaston MP, chair of Westminster’s health committee, also called for Northern Ireland to legalise abortion. Currently, the Province is the only part of the United Kingdom to stand against both abortion and gay marriage.
‘No impact’ on Northern Ireland
Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill and Mary Lou McDonald celebrate the result of the abortion referendum in Dublin by calling for abortion in Ulster. Photograph: Reuters
Indeed, all the media are talking up invented implications for Ulster. Naturally, the BBC is taking the lead. Meanwhile, Sinn Féin’s Mary-Lou McDonald and Michelle O’Neill held up a sign saying: “The north is next”. So much for respecting the teachings of their church, eh?
But Arlene Foster MLA, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) leader, said the result would have ‘no impact’ in the North.
“Friday’s referendum has no impact upon the law in Northern Ireland, but we obviously take note of issues impacting upon our nearest neighbour,” Mrs Foster said in a statement.
“The legislation governing abortion is a devolved matter and it is for the Northern Ireland Assembly to debate and decide such issues.”
Feminism’s dirty little secret
Shadow Attorney General Shami Chakrabarti exposed feminism’s dirty little secret. It is inherently pro-death. Abortion is ‘a feminist test,’ she said. She called for the Prime Minister to introduce abortion to Ulster over the heads of the DUP. And why should Mrs May do that? Because she was a “self-identifying feminist,” said Baroness Chakrabarti. “The test of feminists is whether they stick up for all women”, continued the noble lady.
Abortion is not of course ‘sticking up for all women’. But it is sticking it to Almighty God. And that is what matters to feminists.
Nevertheless, the words of the Lord of life to Israel echo down the ages:
Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Blood defiles the land
Pray for Ireland and for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Pray there will soon come a time when we shall look back in horror at legalised abortion. That we shall hang our heads in shame and repent as a nation. Pray the two-to-one majority will reverse by the grace of God.
Some of us still cite this word to Solomon. We think the actions described, if carried out by Christians, or even some Christians in a gathering for prayer, will bring about the healing of our land:
2Chron 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Here is the stark reality. It does not matter how big the gathering or how sincere the prayer. Our land will never be healed while the blood of innocents flows daily from the abortion clinics of Great Britain. For that matter, it will never be healed while true restoration is not made for the victims of murder. Prayer is never wasted, but how much better to pray targeted prayers. That means prayers for repentance, not prayers of self-delusion. The Bible says clearly:
Num 35:33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.
Abortion is our version of pagan sacrifice
The terrible results of a vacuum abortion on a child of 12 weeks gestation. Innocent blood defiles the land.
God judged the Canaanites specifically because they shed the blood of their own children in pagan sacrifice:
Lev 18:25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
Even the people of Israel and then Judah fell into these evil pagan practices:
Psalm 106:38 And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.
Every pagan society has engaged in human sacrifice. Abortion is our version of it. God is judging us with the violence on our streets. The Almighty is even warning us through that judgment. But make no mistake, a greater judgment is coming should we not repent. Every one of those pagan societies was destroyed and taken over by a spiritually stronger people. Now, who could those be today?
We’ll really appreciate your support
Click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings
Click on the social media links below to share this post:
