Where's Jeff Bezos' ad addressing this? “A virulent and extremist form of Islam emerged as the number one threat to religious freedom and was revealed as the primary cause of persecution in many of the worst cases.”
Pure Islam.
Open Doors President David Curry told The Christian Post in October that the factors that led to 2015 being the worst year for Christian persecution have stayed in place for 2016 as well.
Top 7 Nations With Worst Record of Christian Persecution: Report
A global charity that investigates the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities has issued a new report that reveals believers are facing a rising level of intolerance and such severe oppression, particularly under seven nations of concern, that “it can scarcely get worse.”
Persecution watchdog group Aid to the Church in Need released its 2016 “Religious Freedom in the World” report on Thursday, highlighting the growing cases of intolerance around the world, particularly between the time period of June 2014 and June 2016 - coinciding with the rise of the Islamic State terror group.
The report included case by case studies of a number of different countries around the world, and the religious discrimination people of faith face. Some of the most extreme forms of oppression were experienced by people in Iraq and Syria, including Christians and Yazidis, who have been targeted in an ongoing genocide campaign by IS.
One Yazidi boy trained for jihad in Syria shared the chilling words his radical instructors told to him: “You have to kill kuffars even if they are your fathers and brothers, because they belong to the wrong religion and they don't worship God.”
The report revealed that 196 countries were examined, with 38 showing “unmistakable evidence” of significant religious freedom violations. Twenty-three of those countries were placed in the top level “Persecution” category, while 15 others in the “Discrimination” group.
Religious freedom conditions “clearly worsened” in 14 countries, the report added, and only three - Bhutan, Egypt and Qatar - showed signs of improvement since the last study in 2014.
Christian church was burnt to the ground by ISIS zealots
The seven nations where persecution was branded so extreme that “it could scarcely get any worse” include: Afghanistan, Iraq (northern), Nigeria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Syria.
“A virulent and extremist form of Islam emerged as the number one threat to religious freedom and was revealed as the primary cause of persecution in many of the worst cases,” the report noted.
It added that “religious hyper-extremism,” such as the actions of IS in their quest to build a caliphate and kill off minorities, has been on the rise, characterized by mass killings, 'horrific' forms of executions, rape, and extreme torture such as burning people alive, crucifixions, or throwing victims off buildings.
The atrocities committed by Islamist radical groups in nations such as Syria, Iraq and Libya were called arguably some of the “greatest setbacks for religious freedom since the Second Wold War,” with victims being subjugated to a system which “insults almost every tenet of human rights.”
Other watchdog groups, such as Open Doors USA, have called on the global Church to resist being too self-centered, and instead reach out to help its brothers and sisters in need.
Open Doors President David Curry told The Christian Post in October that the factors that led to 2015 being the worst year for Christian persecution have stayed in place for 2016 as well.
“You still have rouge nations like Eritrea, North Korea, Sudan and others, who are not concerned about international justice laws, and are persecuting Christians within their government,” Curry told CP at the time, ahead of the International Day of Prayer.
“I'm not encouraged yet by the response of the global Church, but I'm hopeful that they are going to wake up and see what is happening,” he added.
The votes are in, the ballots counted and now starts the analysis – and according to exit polling from the Council for American Islamic Relations, so-called Islamophobe Donald Trump actually received twice as many votes from the Muslim community than his presidential hopeful predecessor, the more moderate-minded Mitt Romney, did during the 2012 White House fight.
Well, that doesn't seem in line with mainstream media narrative, which says hardline view on Islam are counterproductive to relations with the Muslim communities.
Mitt Romney was decidedly more moderate and less blunt-talking than Donald Trump about Islam,.
Remember, Trump at one point in his campaign called for a ban on Muslim immigration – a point that was later softened to call for extreme vetting of those coming from Muslim-dominated nations unfriendly to U.S. interests. Regardless, the media went wild and slammed Trump as an Islamaphobe, a tag that still shadows him to this day.
“Despite campaign rhetoric some called, Islamophobic and calls for a complete ban on Muslim immigration to the U.S., an exit poll of 2,000 voters conducted by the Council for American Islamic Relations found that 13% of Muslim voters backed Trump.
“That is double the Muslim vote that Republican Mitt Romney received in 2012. Hillary Clinton got 74% of the vote.”
CAIR tried to explain it away by noting that while 15 percent of Muslims do self-identify as Republican, the votes were not so much for Trump, as against Hillary Clinton.
The New York Times, meanwhile, suggested it was the Muslim vote that may have actually given Michigan to Trump. Michigan, where Trump won by 11,000 votes, has seen an explosion in Arab population in recent years.
Read this and share widely. This first appeared in The Hill.
The Republican Representative who proposed the critical legislation has been under withering attacks by Muslim apologists and their running dogs in the enemedia.
Yes, ban the burqa - it is a national security necessity
Georgia State Rep. Jason Spencer, a Republican, has given up his efforts to get his state to adopt a bill that, according to the Washington Post, would have forbidden wearing masks or other face coverings in public, and would have “banned men and women from wearing clothing that conceals their faces when posing for their drivers' license photos or while driving on state roadways.”
Spencer should not have withdrawn the bill. There was nothing wrong with it, and it would have curbed criminal and/or terrorist activity committed by people with their faces concealed. But Spencer's bill ran afoul of the “Islamophobia” victimhood industry.
The Post story details what happened:
“The bill did not specifically mention Muslim women, burqas or niqabs, and Spencer insisted he had 'no intention of targeting a specific group.' But officials from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation's largest Muslim civil rights group, said its purpose was pretty apparent.”
Edward Ahmed Mitchell of CAIR-Georgia said: “We suspect it's motivated by a desire to discriminate against Georgia Muslims.”
“This bill is simply a response to constituents that do have concerns of the rise of Islamic terrorism, and we in the State of Georgia do not want our laws used against us.”
He also explained that the measure was simply a public safety issue:
“Number one, you're not (only) a public safety risk by blocking and obstructing your vision while on the road, but also that you're identifiable to law enforcement.”
The idea of banning face coverings in public is not new.
It was done all over the American West when the West was still wild and bandits and thieves routinely covered their faces. Such a ban does not breach the right to freedom of religion, and today it is a key national security issue. The Islamic full-face covering, the niqab and the burqa, have both been used many times as camouflage for jihad activity, as well as simple criminal activity.
This has happened in the U.S. as well as elsewhere around the world; in Philadelphia, people wearing niqabs to hide their faces have been involved in kidnapping and bank robbery.
What's more, the Islamic face covering for women is not a religious symbol; rather, it is iconic of female subservience and debasement.
Muhammad directed that women must cover everything but their face and hands as a sign of their subjugation: “'When a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this,' and he pointed to her face and hands.”
The niqab and burqa are a political statement - one of misogyny, subjugation and oppression of women - but as heinous as that is, that is not the reason why they should be banned.
The tangential benefit of such a ban is that it would constitute support for liberalism against darkness. But the primary reason why such a ban is needed is that the veil hides people's identities - in this dangerous day and age that cannot stand.
And while the French banned the burqa to maintain the French values of individualism and human dignity, the Georgia proposal was purely based on national security issues, and was not specifically religious or directed at any specific group or organization.
Breitbart News noted that Spencer was “seeking to add the language banning the veil, called a hijab and niqab, as well as a burqa, to the state's anti-Ku Klux Klan laws meant to stop Klan members from wearing hoods and other masks to conceal their identity.” Indeed, from a security standpoint, what's the difference between KKK face coverings and the niqab and burqa?
We are at war, despite the fog of misinformation, disinformation and apologetics that keeps people from understanding the nature and magnitude of the war we are in.
And so it is no surprise that it is not just Muslim women, but of course Islamic supremacist groups such as CAIR that worked to make Spencer's proposal all about Islamo”faux”bia.
They portray every security measure as an attack on Muslims - this is an extraordinary strategy and seemed certainly destined to fail, save for the indefatigable support that Islamic apologists enjoy in the media.
The reality is that it would have been a law regarding all face coverings, and it makes sense. Such a law is particularly needed in light of the fact that we have yet to suffer the full consequences of Obama's disastrous immigration and foreign policies.
We dodged a bullet by electing Donald Trump, but we have much to deal with. Jason Spencer should have stood firm. It is time we stopped sacrificing our national security on the spurious altar of “diversity.”
Donald Trump has demanded an apology from the cast of a musical in New York, saying they harassed his Vice President-elect, Mike Pence, who was at Friday's show. Afterwards, a cast member from “Hamilton” read out a letter to Mr Pence: it said there was alarm that a Trump administration would not protect a diverse America.
Pamela Geller, columnist and editor-in-chief of The Geller Report.com, tells BBC World News Anchor Lebo Diseko that people do not pay hundreds of dollars to go to the theatre, to get lectured by the cast.
Tonight's Saturday Night Cinema is an adaption of literary lion and my favorite author, Victor Hugo. I am partial to his heroic portrait of man, “If you seek a glimpse of human grandeur-turn to a novel by Victor Hugo.”
“The Man Who Laughs is a truly great, a devastatingly beautiful film.”
The second of German director Paul Leni's American films (Cat and the Canary was the first), The Man Who Laughs is a lavish adaptation of the novel by Victor Hugo. The story concerns Gwynplaine, the son of an enemy of the evil King (Sam DeGrasse). Putting Gwynplaine's father to death in his torture chamber, the King exacts a further revenge by ordering that the boy's face be carved into a permanent, hideous smile. Abandoned in the snowy hills, Gwynplaine rescues another outcast, a blind girl named Dea. The two join a circus troupe and grow up together. The adult Gwynplaine (played by Conrad Veidt) falls in love with the sightless Dea (Mary Philbin), who “sees” only his kindnesses and not his grotesquely smiling face. When his noble heritage is revealed, Gwynplaine is presented in court before the Queen, who considers his permanent grin an insult. Once more an outcast, Gwynplaine sails to the New World, with the loving Dea at his side. While many existing prints of the silent Man Who Laughs are in washed-out black and white, it should be noted that the film was originally (and exquisitely) tinted and toned, and was also accompanied by a Fox Movietone musical track. Though the property was later optioned by Kirk Douglas, The Man Who Laughs was never remade.
“The Man Who Laughs demonstrates that, however much we gained with sound, we lost opportunities that arise when storytelling prioritizes vision.” David Sanjek
Carl Laemmle, who sponsored “The Hunchback of Notre Dame,” and also the French film version of “Les Miserables,” last night added another pictorial translation of Victor Hugo's works, when he presented at the Central Theatre the rather free film translation of that grim study, “L'Homme Qui Rit,” or “The Man Who Laughs.” With the exception of needless prying through keyholes and extravagant conceptions of the Duchess Josiana, this production has been fashioned with considerable skill. It is, of course, a gruesome tale in which the horror is possibly moderated but none the less disturbing. It is, however, a narrative that has served as the inspiration for more than one short story dealing with a beautiful blind girl and a frightfully ugly man.
Paul Leni, who designed the settings for “Variety,” and who directed “The Three Wax Works,” and, in this country, “The Cat and the Canary,” is responsible for this shadow transmutation of Hugo's bludgeon attack on English rule in the Seventeenth Century. Mr. Leni's handling of this subject is in many passages quite expert, for he revels in lights and shadows, and takes advantage of the full details of a man, who, through mutilation by the Comprachios, goes through life with a hideous grin on his countenance. This part is portrayed with astounding cleverness by Conrad Veidt, the German actor who was brought to this country by Universal Pictures Corporation. Part of the time he covers his abnormal mouth, but on other occasions, through wearing huge false teeth, Mr. Veidt sends a chill down one's spine. His affection for Dea, the blind girl, is disquieting, but at the same time he elicits a great deal of sympathy.
The scenes in the Southwark Fair are well done and so is the enthusiasm of the crowd who come to see the laughing man, the clown, who is the mainstay of Ursus, the philosopher, and others with the little caravan. Day after day and night after night this man with the perpetual laugh affords amusement to the throngs, even when his eyes are filled with tears. Mr. Veidt dexterously conceals the lower part of his face during some scenes, so that the sympathy in his eyes, the sadness at his plight, cause one to forget momentarily his awful mouth.
There is one scene that was minutely described by the author and that is where Gwynplaine, the laughing man, is sought out by the Wapentak, tapped on the back, and taken to Chatham Prison. It is not done with quite the hush one anticipates, but the presence of Ursus, at the prison portals, distracted and terrified by the silent methods of the Wapentak and others succeeds in depicting a sketchy idea of Hugo's pages.
Queen Anne, impersonated by the robust Josephine Crowell, is perceived during one stage of the proceedings, receiving Gwynplaine as a peer of the realm, Lord Clancharlie. She knows not of the man's disfigurement and neither do the members of the House of Lords, and so when Gwynplaine exposes his countenance, they are at first outraged at the thought that a clown in their midst, is laughing at the Queen. The awful grin is contagious, and soon the sober and sedate Lords are themselves splitting their sides with merriment.
Mary Philbin is well cast as Dea. She is comely and calm. Olga Backanova is a little too reminiscent of Hollywood as the Duchess Josiana. Stuart Holmes injects a few brief spells of amusement by his disdain of hoi-polloi. Same De Grasse has a few short innings as James II. Cesare Gravina is excellent as Ursus, and Brandon Hurst serves well the part of Barkilphedro.
There are times when this picture is fairly close to the author's writing, but on other occasions it is snatched away and filled with startling achievements, such as one might imagine seeing in a film with d'Artagnan. It also contains a deal of the stuff of which picture producers are so fond. On the whole, it is gruesome but interesting, and one of the few samples of pictorial work in which there is no handsome leading man.
The proceeds of last night's performance were donated toward Amis de Blerancourt, under the auspices of the Film Bureau.
His Grim Grin.
THE MAN WHO LAUGHS, with Conrad Veidt, Mary Philbin, Olga Baclanova, Stuart Holmes, George Siegmann, Cesare Gravina, Josephine Crowell, Sam de Grasse, Brandon Hurst and Edgar Norton, based on Victor Hugo's novel, “L'Homme Qui Rit,” directed by Paul Leni. At the Central Theatre.
“When Love Comes Stealing” [Love Theme from “The Man Who Laughs” (with Lyrics)]
A Sharia court in Iran sentenced three Christians to 80 lashes each for drinking holy communion wine – a common practice in their faith but a blasphemous act by Muslim standards, which forbids the partaking of alcohol.
Specifically, the trio were sentenced not because they were Christians and took communion, which isn't criminal, even in Iran. But rather they were sentenced because they were once Muslims who converted to Christianity – a crime, according to Sharia law – and therefore committed blasphemy by drinking wine because their conversions weren't regarded as acceptable or legal.
“Yaser Mosibzadeh, Saheb Fadayee and Mohammed Reza Omidi will be flogged in public after being arrested at a house church gathering in Rasht, Iran, earlier this year.
“The trio spent weeks in prison before finally being released on bail, but will now be subjected to the cruel and degrading punishment after being found guilty by Islamist judges. …
“Security agents also raided the home of their pastor Yousef Nadarkhani and his wife Fatemeh Pasandideh and arrested them at the same time, but they were not detained.
“Iranian authorities later charged converts Mosibzadeh, Fadayee and Omidi for consuming alcohol during a communion service.
“It is not illegal for Christians to drink alcohol in Iran but under Islamic law, Muslims are forbidden from drinking and it is illegal for Muslims to convert.
“The trio's conversion from Islam to Christianity is not recognised by Iranian authorities who subscribe to Sharia law.”
The punishment is harsh; some facing lashings actually faint after the first few.
Public floggings in Iran take place with fair frequency.
Defense lawyers are planning to appeal the public flogging, the Express reported. And Release International, a Christian charity that does work around the globe, has petitioned Iran's morality and governing authorities to quit persecuting citizens for their faiths, and to release the just-sentenced Christians from their punishments.
“Release Chief Executive Paul Robinson said: 'Why should Christians be lashed for taking communion?
“'Why is Iran refusing to allow its own citizens that most basic of all freedoms, the freedom to choose their own faith?
“'These men have chosen to call themselves Christians. The state should respect that.'”
Public lashings are commonplace in Iran, a country where Christianity has been forced underground and where morality police keep close watch on the few churches that are public. Of an estimated 108 Christians arrested in the past year for faith-based reasons, 90 or so have been imprisoned, the Express reported. And many of those prisoners have been beaten and threatened with torture and death.
Is Las Vegas realty truly a wonderful property financial investment choice? Well, possibly yes. With the populace rising and also the economic signs signalling growth, one would presume that Las Vegas property should get on the cards of any kind of investor. A great deal of companies are getting arrangement in Las Las vega. So all those growths combined with that Las Vegas is what Las Vegas is, have actually made Las Vegas property investment an actually appealing choice. Las Vegas Strip Clubs
The uptrend in Las Vegas real estate can additionally be judged by the reality that the rental fees in Las Vegas have gone up quite a bit in last few years. With new centers being added and with even more businesses getting setup, you would certainly expect the unemployment rate to go down for Las Vegas (which actually holds true). In addition, as there is more increase of individuals and also services, Las Vegas Real Estate would certainly be expected to be popular (both for organisation purposes as well as domestic objectives). Nevada Continuing Education RE Courses The admiration of Las Vegas property could also be contributed to the avenues for pleasure that exist in Las Vegas.
Las Vegas real estate-- Just what's up?
Posts
