PC MADNESS

1 NATION SILENCES LAMBS IN FAVOR OF ISLAMIC WOLVES

Exclusive: Lt. Col. James Zumwalt asks, what if Paul Revere were indicted for his warning?

Imagine this scenario. In 1775, a British invasion force lands near Boston, Massachusetts. American patriot Paul Revere prepares to make a midnight ride to warn fellow militiamen of the danger advancing upon them.

But Revere is stopped as he is informed a new law makes the warning he seeks to shout – “the British are coming” – illegal. The colonies have become so engrained in political correctness, Revere is prohibited from warning citizens about an impending danger. 

Why? It may be construed by Boston’s British sympathizers as “hate speech” because it suggests their fellow countrymen pose a threat to society.

Sound ridiculous? Well, unbelievably, something very similar to this has just occurred in a Western democracy. 

In Germany, a journalist who posted a 1941 World War II photograph on his Facebook account was found guilty by a criminal court of promoting “hate speech.” 

It has come to the point one who simply posts a photograph accurately reflecting an historic fact about a group in society is guilty under the law of promulgating hate speech because that group may be offended by the photograph’s display.

Effective Oct. 1, German law mandated social media platforms censor users, within 24 hours of receiving a complaint, by removing offensive postings. 

The platform acts on behalf of the government – and, should it fail to do so, faces a sizable fine. Delineated as “criminal offenses” demanding removal are libel, slander, defamation or incitement. 

But most frightening is that truth or accuracy of the posting matters not.

Government employees are spared having to determine what qualifies as offensive, passing that responsibility on to the social media’s employees. As might be imagined, the latter – fearing failure to make the right call could result in a substantial company fine and, in turn, cost them their jobs – most certainly will opt in favor of being overly broad as to what is deemed offensive and should be removed.

Among the first to violate this law with a posting was German journalist Michel Sturzenberger. 

Sentenced to six months in jail, Sturzenberger had committed the terrible crime of posting on his Facebook account a photograph – for which the court found him guilty of “inciting hatred towards Islam” and “denigrating Islam.”

The posted photograph had not been altered in any way. It is available on line to anyone searching for it as part of World War II’s historical archives. The photograph in question shows Haj al-Husseini – the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time – shaking hands with a senior Nazi official in Berlin. Along with the photo was Sturzenberger’s review of an article titled “Swastika and Crescent Moon” concerning the close relationship between Nazis and Muslims during the war.

What was Sturzenberger’s purpose in posting the photograph and review? Clearly, it sought to show, historically, Nazis and Muslims shared a common link in their hatred of Jews, suggesting such hatred should concern us today. 

In effect, Sturzenberger’s posting, like Revere’s ride 242 years earlier, was to warn about potential danger ahead.

Learn more about the historical relationships among anti-Semites in “The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin Al-Husseini”

It is incredible a democratic government not only now denies its citizenry the right to educate others about a possible threat to its existence but incarcerates those doing so for fear their message will be taken offensively by the group presenting the threat in question. 

Need the danger actually manifest itself before Germany allows it to be raised as an issue for discussion?

It is not unlike removing road signs forewarning drivers of dangerous conditions ahead. While things have not deteriorated this far yet in the U.S., we are paving a similar roadway to do so.

What has happened in Germany, where the mere posting of an historical photograph can give rise to a criminal offense for denigrating Islam, may well be a precursor of what awaits America. 

Islam’s supporters – political correctness activists, whether Muslim or not, tag as Islamophobes anyone who dares criticize what Islam clearly promotes – an intolerance of other religions and its pursuit of global conquest.

It is frightening how we endanger ourselves in the name of political correctness – a concept Czech President Milos Zeman accurately calls “a euphemism for political cowardice.” 

Democracies of the world historically challenged by ideologies, such as political Islam, that seek to destroy them have always risen to the challenge. 

Sometimes slow to do so, nonetheless, it has always been the character of freedom-loving people cognizant of the threat before them to fight such a threat and defeat it. 

Yet today, we refuse to allow the threat to be identified, embracing the extreme of not tolerating its criticism.

Tragically, Orwellian times are upon us. 

We are seeing the freedoms democracies have long championed fall victim to an environment of their own creation – 

one in which silence is imposed upon the lambs for fear of upsetting predatory wolves.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/11/1-nation-silences-lambs-in-favor-of-islamic-wolves/

My comments: When the West Abandoned God and His Word it was as good as DEAD. The West's surrender to Islam is simply a Manisfestation of that reality.