Harper's "anti-Terror" Bill C-51 IS WRONG And Here's Why

This article will deal only with the proposed bill’s general and alleged raison d’etre, not the specifics of why such vaguely-defined extra-judicial powers would be an extremely BAD IDEA if left in, say, the hands of Justin Trudeau’s fascist liberals, or a joint Liberal/NDP coalition government.

=========

I’m Conservative as heck, but even I don’t think we really need this redundant Bill C-51 nonsense just to fight “terrorism” (i.e: only already-criminal violent extortion gangs)!

Here’s my response to THIS Conservative Party of Canada email which I just received today from them as they tried to get my endorsement for it:

Conservative Party
One of the most important aspects of our new anti-terrorism legislation is cracking down on people trying to use Canada as a recruitment ground for ISIS.

If you support us on this, please let me know here.

This is important for two reasons.

The first is we want to prevent the spread of radical jihad here in Canada. Those who would attempt to abuse the rights enjoyed by Canadians to spread their ideology of hate must be stopped. We also want to prevent the heartache of families who have learned that their sons and daughters have, aided by these criminals, flown to Iraq and Syria.

Already we’ve seen too many cases where this has happened, or has almost happened.

Twin brothers in Ottawa were stopped as they were about to leave the country, but six teens from Montreal are now believed to be in Syria.

Our new legislation will give our police and security forces the tools they need to prevent these cases in the future.

So please, show your support for this vital legislation. Let me know you support the efforts of our Conservative team to combat the recruitment of Canadians for radical jihadist terrorist groups like ISIS.

Thank you,
Fred DeLorey Director, Political Operations
Conservative Party of Canada

(Hence, MY REPLY):
To: info@conservative.ca

Not that these replies of mine ever end up actually going anywhere, but …

NO, I don’t think we need any more anti-“Terrorism” (anti-Violent Extortion) legislation in Canada – extortion is already a crime! Advocating violence against innocents is already a crime! Being a member of a crime-gang is also already a crime! JUST ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS!

Re: “The first (reason) is we want to prevent the spread of radical jihad here in Canada.

OK, FIRST: Terrorism is an entirely normative, not in any way “radical,” component of islam itself.

SO, YES, I AGREE WITH you assertion that:
“Those who would attempt to abuse the rights enjoyed by Canadians to spread their ideology of hate must be stopped.”

So, just BAN ISLAM!

Isn’t it strange how “extremist,” “fundamentalist,” and “radical” are all oxymorons? If one is extremely fundamental to the core message of the source texts, then how can one also be “radical” (divergent to it)?!

Here’s the real “difference” between “radical” and “moderate” muslims:
“Radical” muslims want to murder us for not being muslims. “Moderate” muslims want “radical” muslims to murder us for not being muslims.

;-)
Get it, yet?!

And why is this? Simple!

In Judeo-Christian lore, of one commits suicide (much less by, or when, also trying to murder others) one learns that one is destined for Hell.

But the criminal Qur’an tells it’s Submissive “muslim” dupes that, if and when they’re feeling down, they can instantly get to Heaven itself BY randomly murdering others!

So it’s obviously islam itself which causes any and all “radicalization!”

The only pretended “mystery” is why more rank-and-file muslims aren’t already “radicalized:” and the easy and obvious answer is that it’s simply because they’re still somewhat ignorant of what’s written the Qur’an concerning allah’s ultimate expectations of them. Most muslims aren’t allowed to read the Qur’an in their native languages.

Here’s how and why any and all “Radicalism” and “radicalization” occurs in islam:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzmyuCXS2sTdZDcxYTA1YzYtOWJmNS00YzNmLWI4YTMtNjRiNDRmMDExYzg3/edit?pli=1&hl=en
(Official ‘Abrogation’ of all the semi-peaceful verses in the Qur’an)! In handy web-based .PDF format!

Bottom line: There are no “moderate” muslims, simply because there is no “moderate” islam!

So, why are the liberals and socialists and their pet enemedia lying to us all the time about this?!

Here’s what’s really going on:

Although it’s true that not all Germans were Nazis, not all Italians are Mafiosis, not all whites are Hell’s Angels, and not all Arabs are muslims …

… it IS nevertheless true that all Nazis WERE nazis, all Mafiosis ARE Mafiosis, all Hell’s Angels ARE Hell’s Angels, and ALL MUSLIMS ARE MUSLIMS!

The politically correct pretence du jour is to pretend that ‘NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE “REALLY” MUSLIMS!’
And in order to sell that lie to people, some mythical and entirely unsupported sub-categories of “muslims” (“Fundamentalists,” “Extremists,” Radicalists,” “Militantists,” etc and of course the most mythological illusion of all, the “Moderates,”) had to be invented and screamed at us, over and over again.

ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS!

“Terrorism” is really only the simple crime of “extortion” writ large! Extortion is “threats!”

ALL muslims are criminals, simply by being members of the world’s largest and most ancient yet ongoing crime-gang. Being a member of a crime-gang is a crime, even if the member hasn’t committed any specific crime beyond that of their general membership, because they represent the inherent public threat the crime-gang presents. It’s the Law.

The Qur’an and islam itself should be banned, because everything muslims pretend to believe is “holy” is already a crime!

The Qur’an is more than just another flawed book of confusing, contradictory superstitious nonsense, it’s evil.

It should never be allowed by backwards people to be considered “illegal” to accuse these criminals (muslims) of their crimes, allegedly because the painful truth might offend them or hurt their feelings, and so “make” them commit even more crimes!

No problem was ever solved by ignoring it, and we aren’t doing even any of these muslims (whose own ancestors were among Muhammad’s first victims) any favours by going along with any of their historic lies and alibi excuses for their crimes.

Islam is a threat to everyone because it says it is.

According to their own Eastern histories, islam has an official 1,400 year history of “holy” lies, extortions, robberies, tortures, arsons, kindappings, slaveries, rapes and 270 million murders (that’s OVER A QUARTER-BILLION INNOCENTS SACRIFICED TO ALLAH, so far – it’s a larger death-tally than that of EVERYONE ELSE, both secular and religious, COMBINED, and with an historical average of less than 1% of the global population to have committed it with, too)!

Do the math: 270 million divided by 1,400 is almost 200,000 per year, or over 500 per day, or over 20 per hour or about one person every three minutes being murdered by Muslims ever since Islam was founded.

So, simply and precisely because of their “THOU SHALT KILL!” cultural indoctrination, MUSLIMS ARE STILL FROM BETWEEN FOUR AND SEVERAL HUNDRED TIMES MORE LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN MURDER (and all other crimes,) THAN EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD!

ALL muslims are criminals: by their own rules, they must endorse in public every word in the Qur’an, which tells them that they are so “superior” to all non-muslims, that it’s not only their right, but also their holy duty to their god, to extort, enslave, and murder all the non-muslims in the world, simply for the “crime” of not being muslims.

So the Qur’an is a clearly-written, us-versus-them hate-crime book, endorsing a permanent might-makes-right death-threat.

ALL muslims are criminals, as being members of the ancient, ongoing global extortion racket called islam. In sharia law texts, muslims are SUPPOSED to be regarded as threats (as “objects of fear”) by all the unbelievers, whether or not the individual muslim has itself actually committed any crimes.
That’s why we have laws against simply being a MEMBER of a crime-gang or ‘criminal enterprise’ because their membership endorses the inherent threat. Threats are crimes in themselves: they are psychological attacks, also known as intimidation, bullying, coercion, duress, harassment, activist agitation, extortion, and “terrorism.”

And even any “only” attempted crimes are still considered by civilized people to be crimes.

Here’s islam’s “holy Message from god” as exemplified by the collective words and deeds of it’s Founder:

“I will save humanity by lying to, extorting, torturing, robbing, burning out of their homes, kidnapping and ransoming, enslaving, raping and murdering everyone who even only verbally disagrees with me – and you can, too!”

– Muhammad –

Muhammad was really only a con-man and bandit-king, an arch-criminal who always blamed “god” for his own penchant for committing crimes. If Moe got away with committing a crime (and he tried them all, enthusiastically, more than once, but instead of ever showing contrition, bragged about how much fun it was to commit them, and advised everyone else to join in the fun, too), then it was held to be “obvious” that “god” wanted him to get away with having committed those crimes!

So, islam is not a “religion” (at all, much less one “of peace”) nor is it a “race” (at all, much less one of “Poor, Oppressed, People Of Colour”)!
Obviously, islam is ONLY an ancient, ongoing extortion-racket CRIME-syndicate, and the only “religious” part in it, is where they say: “God told us to commit these crimes!”

(Capisce?)!
;-)

The Qur’an clearly and specifically tells muslims the Bible is wrong and also that all Christians and Jews are infidel criminals who worship a false god, and who must therefore be extorted, enslaved, and murdered for their “crime” of not being muslims:

Sura (Chapter) 47:1-4 of the Qur’an:

1: non-muslims are bad, because they insult allah by dividing his nature;
2: muslims are good, because to them allah is the cause of everything;
3: Allah made them both like that;
4: So muslims should chop off the non-muslims’ heads.
(Allah could have done it himself, but he wants you muslims to do it for him).”

It’s all right there, in context: islamic violence is entirely general doctrine-driven, and not at all specific grievance-driven.
(And chapter 47 isn’t by any stretch even remotely the worst, most violent chapter; that honor goes to either chapter 8 or 9).

So, if and when you consider islam to be a religion, you must agree with it’s main tenet: that God is a violent murderer who wants his muslim tribe to violently conquer the world by extorting, enslaving, and murdering all the non-muslim humans, right?

At WORST, all REAL religions only say:

“Obey our silly rules, or GOD (/‘the gods’) will get you!”

…but ONLY islam says:

“Obey our silly rules, or WE will get you (‘for god’)!”

At forced ‘Faith!’ ISN’T a “Faith!” at all – it’s only extortion, and extortion is always a CRIME.

Bottom line: If you decide to believe in “allah,” you have declared yourself a criminal, and so must be arrested, indicted, tried and convicted. Your confession of “faith” in your crime-god will help us to do so. So, once again, NO, we don’t need more redundant laws to specify what is already generally illegal!

Just ban islam itself as the “terrorist” organization (criminal extortion-gang) that it so-obviously IS!

;-)

Also posted it here:

http://www.therebel.media/video_toronto_s_stopc51_rally

"Commie Core" Slanders Children!

I was just reading an article about “Commie Core” here:

http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/orwellian-nightmare-unleashed-on-schoolkids/

These paranoid “liberals” (criminals) always prejudicially pre-judge and slander everyone else as being Guilty Until Never Proven Innocent.

Morality is very simple, and most if not all small children already instinctively inherently know it as the “But Mom! They Started It!” Rule.

But we all know nannystate kindergarten-teacher types are criminals who pretend to believe – and indoctrinate – kids in the exact opposite, immorally-relativist and victim-blaming opposite, causing untold emotional psychological and mental stress on the kids in their charge, as they torture them with liberal (criminal) nonsense: Being self-serving autocrats, they assert “ALL attacks are equally bad, whether initiated first by aggressive bullies, or second, in defensive counter-attacks by the victims!”

In other words they always “Just want it all to stop!”

But this only encourages the bullies, by splitting the blame between them and their victims! The ‘teachers’ hope in this way to appease and co-opt the bullies into attacking less, as a favor to themselves, but of course it never works out that way.

And it discourages the bullied victims, forcing them to Submit to liberal statism, where the notion that they have no right to defend them selves is forced on them, and they are tortured with the idea that they are and will always remain helpless victims, who must always go running off to seek the help of a parental figure, so that once they become adults (in body, but never in mind) they become dependent on the State and authoritarian governments everywhere, little socialist drones.

The modern liberal “Education System” not only no longer teaches kids how to think, or even what to think, but only how not to think at all – how to remain entitled to being irresponsibly wrong.

Modern “education” only “teaches” (abuses kids with) liberal corruption – they inflict their own infantile delinquency and criminal negligence by offering them alibi-excuses to NOT have to think for them selves:

“Life is too complex for us helpless fallible and so, potentially dangerous mistakes to ever understand cause and effect, so, “since” all facts are therefore really only opinions anyway, our subjective, entirely fact-free opinions are the diversely opposite equals to those silly Conservatives’ objective facts! Whee! And remember, kids: There’s No Wrong Answers!”

To pretend there is no evil crime, and no evil criminals because everyone’s really only a helpless victim, they pretend to a predetermined inevitability excuse: Marxist historical determinism, that people are all helpless victims of society, mere products of their environments, and slaves of allah.

And of course their inevitability alibi involves unavoidable mob-rule extortion, for which idolatrous group rights serve them well:

Ever try arguing with a liberal? It’s pointless trying to use facts to educate people who have been taught that the truth doesn’t exist!

They’ve really only declared a confession of non-compus-mentis!

And their favorite deflection is the childish critical thinking logical fallacy called the Argumentum Tu Quoque, which only amounts to trying to compare two unrelated wrongs in order to pretend to make one of them into a right:

“There’s no evil crime or criminals because we (i.e: you) all do it, too! Whee!”

Beyond that, their crime is all about the objectification: victim-blaming “defensively pre-emptive” slander.

They embrace the slanderous philosophy that the best “defense” is a good offense, to keep their opponents on the defensive so they will remain emotionally off-balance and so never be able to (counter-)attack ‘first!’

Only lying thieves (fraud being the most basic form of theft, the theft of the Truth) slanderously pretend their victims are too dumb to be educated!

The “elites” – including the “education” elites – are cowardly masochists who always want to form ever-larger gangs to protect them selves; they are all about the double-standards of subjectivism, and so oppose universal objectivity; they want rights without responsibilities, and so must offload their responsibilities onto their victims.

The reason they embrace might-made group “rights,” is both offensive and defensive: they can always assert they are “defensively protecting” others if and when they can make even a tenuous connection between some others at least somewhat similar to them selves who, somewhere else, at some other time, were oppressed by some other people who were sort of like YOU; in which case,
YOU OWE THEM!

The corollary is that if and when they get caught for their crimes, they can always use the group idol as an alibi-excuse to dilute their own culpability:

“I didn’t do it! ONLY the GROUP did it! Whee!”

(Substitute “The System,” &/or “The Procedures” or your choice of idolatry for “The Group!”)

I’m pretty sure the main strategy AND subsequent tactics of liberals is to always generalize to dilute personal responsibility. It’s why they endorse group rights and responsibilities and absolutely hate factual cause-and-effect specifics. Generalizations are lies and exaggerations used to hide all the specific details of their individual criminal culpability. And they also get to blame specific victims for general group membership responsibilities, too!

They are criminals.

;-(

By abusing kids with the silly notion that they’re entitled to not be “offended” or have their “feelings hurt” by the often painful truth of new ideas, these crooks are short-circuiting the most basic thinking and learning process itself – because in humans, all new ideas are initially met with rejection (as has been known since at least Aristotle to Elizabeth Kubler-Ross these days)!

Liberals prefer to “rationalize” their crimes – to look backwards to pretend to think their crimes weren’t really crimes at all, but only moral reactions to others’ crimes against themselves – as all criminals always do. At most, they prefer to pretend that there are no real crimes or criminals, because “we (i.e: you) all do it, too!” This argumentum tu quoque critical thinking logical fallacy is the basis for their endless immoral relativism (victim-blaming slander) stance. Everything they do is designed to promote criminals as victims and perversion as just retaliation.

And worse – beyond these basics, Liberalism is sedition. They teach each other in the colleges the lie that “nations” and “nationalism” causes all wars, so, to eliminate these evil restrictive borders which cause jealousy and greed, all they have to do now is to eliminate all sovereign nations and countries (which were invented by evil white racists during the Enlightenment, just to apartheid and oppress all the peaceful swarthy noble collectivist tribal savages) in order for there to finally be “peace!”

But, “strangely” enough, as far as I know, sedition is still illegal. Hmm!

Liberals Progressively Backwards "Think!"

Recently, a (liberal, progressive) “Institute of Higher Learning” decided to effectively end a student’s career because he reminded a rape victim of her attacker. You just can’t make this sort of thing up!

http://personalliberty.com/college-effectively-ends-students-career-reminded-rape-victim-attacker/

CONCLUSION:

Liberals are backwards idolaters and simpletons – they “think:”

“Hey – to eliminate rape, just ban people who look like rapists!”

Just like they say “To eliminate racism, just blend all the races together (but really only the white one, because only whites are racists!”) And let’s not forget their dumb idea that “Nations” were created (by whites) during the Enlightenment, and somehow (due to jealousy over other people’s territory) they “cause” wars, so to eliminate war, just just blend all the nations together into one global union, no borders, because then people won’t have any “territory” to fight over any more!

And of course, since only the whites invented borders and the concept of ownership and (improving) personal property (which “causes” greed) we must import tons of noble tribal collectivist savages who believe in group ownership and no personal dignity whatsoever, because then, with lots more muslims to help us out, THERE WILL FINALLY BE PEACE!

“Progressives” refuse to understand that there is no such thing as “crime PREVENTION.”

That would mean “defensively, pre-emptively” (and so, pre-judicially) slanderously pre-judging everyone as Guilty Until Never Proven Innocent, and arresting people for crimes they had not yet committed.

But then, that’s what “progressive” means – incrementally being a self-defeating criminal MASOCHIST and attacking everyone else first,

“Before they could all ‘inevitably’ attack US first!”

Another recent example, is Obama’s latest gun (people) control attempt, at banning guns by banning the ammunition.

Know how many cops have been killed by the “armor-piercing” ammo they’re trying to ban?

ZERO.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/zero-cops-killed-by-obamas-bad-ammo/

And the whole “Education System” encourages this literally pre-posterous lunacy! Abusing students with the notion that they have the false right to not be “offended” by having their “feelings hurt” by the often-painful truth, that “Generation Entitlement” is somehow entitled to the right to remain irresponsibly wrong, in stead of having the responsibility to become right (as in, factually correct) is a CRIME.

Because as everyone from ancient Greek Logicians to Elizabeth Kubler-Ross has noted, denial of new ideas is only the natural FIRST step in the learning process; to let kids stop at “I don’t want to learn!” is doing the exact opposite of fulfilling these educators oaths to encourage learning in their charges, as is of course represented by their “Remember kids, there’s no wrong answers!” motto.

What Motivates Muslims - Doctrine Or "Grievances"?

The main delusion of the seditionist left is that islam is somehow grievance-driven; that every time they riot maim and murder in the name of their god as defined by their prophet, it is in retaliation for something we did to them first. But it’s simply not so.

Official Islamic scripture asserts their one and only grievance is “allah’s” alone!

It clearly says “allah himself created the infidels by deliberately stopping up their ears and blinding their eyes to his Truth." It further asserts that there is no obligation whatsoever on muslims to try to un-stop the ears or make see the eyes which “allah” himself has so-deliberately blinded.

Bottom line: islam’s main motive is that, for whatever unknown reason, “allah” had created the "infidels" to offend him, and had then also created his "muslims" to destroy the infidels as a test of their loyalty to him. Period.

So, as long as the idea of "allah" is allowed to exist, it's open-season on all the non-muslims in the world!

ISLAM OFFICIALLY SENTENCES ALL THE NON-MUSLIMS IN THE WORLD TO "DEATH BY MUSLIM!" FOR OUR "CRIME" OF NOT BEING MUSLIMS!

The Qur’an clearly and specifically tells muslims the Bible is wrong and also that all Christians and Jews are infidel criminals who worship a false god, and who must therefore be extorted, enslaved, and murdered for their “crime” of not being muslims:

Sura (Chapter) 47:1-4 of the Qur'an:

1: non-muslims are bad, because they insult allah by dividing his nature;
2: muslims are good, because to them allah is the cause of everything;
3: Allah made them both like that;
4: So muslims should chop off the non-muslims' heads.
(Allah could have done it himself, but he wants you muslims to do it for him)."

...


It's all right there, in context: islamic violence is entirely general doctrine-driven, and not at all specific grievance-driven.

To pretend islam is motivated by responding to "grievances" against others, would be to show "weakness!"

Naturally implicit in their sedition is of course the liberals' inherent racism, where they assume that ONLY White Western people (including, of course, the Jews in Israel,) are INTELLIGENT enough to be guilty of being truly evil, while all their pet "People Of Colour" (including the "swarthy palestinians") being mentally inferior and all, just can't help being enslaved by their instincts and emotions into acting as violent animals when frustrated by the sneaky, mentally superior Whites first, the poor oppressed little dears. 

Hence, their presumed "grievances" are ALWAYS all our fault!

So the liberals will always indulge their crimes, much as one ignores the new puppy as it pees on the rugs.

Besides, since "Racism" has caused so much damage worldwide, (and since only Whites can be "racists,") the liberals plan to "progressively," incrementally destroy "racism" by destroying the White race, by diluting it with non-whites, until their final collectivist Utopia will be reached, where everyone in the West is "Diversely the Same!"

And, far from really believing in "Diversity," they only use that cry as a temporary bludgeon, to make sure all the 'races' which are currently minorities IN NORTH AMERICA AND EUROPE, become the majority there. Note how liberals don't attack the Chinese or Japanese for being isolationist "racists" (which they proudly are) or demand hordes of Negroes emigrate to Japan of China? Do they demand that the Blacks in Africa self-dilute with Asians?

;-)

Similarly, Liberals have been taught the fallacy that the idea of "nations" is what has always caused all past wars - the simple and "jealous" struggle for other's territory.

Furthermore, they think that only all the white people, including the Jews, invented the idea of property and territory; that their false ideal of innocent nomadic, and "noble" savages who believe in tribal collectivism, are better than greedy individualists who want to horde (and improve!) personal property! 

To liberals, "Nationalism" began during the Enlightenment.

But the simple truth is, nations were all formed naturally and organically from families, clans, and tribes, and eventually become states and empires over time.

So, naturally (being tool-blaming idolaters) leftists then decided to destroy all sovereign nations, to prevent all future wars: "no nations = no wars for same!"

THEN THERE WILL BE "PEACE!"

Exactly like with islam, which likewise not only believes all sovereign nations are only man-made false idols, which must eventually all be destroyed and replaced by their own one-world global muslim "Ummah," to be ruled by their theocratic Caliphate government, but also pretends to believe that all hope is fraud, (since the future cannot be known for sure, except by their prophet), so it is best to simply destroy all the false hope, and Submit to fear, and there will be the certainty of eternal, static "PEACE!"

;-( 

PROOF? HERE YA GO! (HT to Dajjal, of cuss!) 


47:23. Such are they whom Allâh has cursed, so that He has made them deaf and blinded their sight.

14:4. And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them. Then Allâh misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.

39:36. Is not Allâh Sufficient for His slave? Yet they try to frighten you with those (whom they worship) besides Him! And whom Allâh sends astray, for him there will be no guide.
39:37. And whomsoever Allâh guides, for him there will be no misleader. Is not Allâh All-Mighty, Possessor of Retribution?

    71:26. And Nûh (Noah) said: "My Lord! Leave not one of the disbelievers on the earth!
    71:27. "If You leave them, they will mislead Your slaves, and they will beget none but wicked disbelievers."

2:13. And when it is said to them (hypocrites): "Believe as the people (followers of Muhammad Peace be upon him , Al-Ansâr and Al-Muhajirûn)have believed," they say: "Shall we believe as the fools have believed?" Verily, they are the fools, but they know not.
2:14. And when they meet those who believe, they say: "We believe," but when they are alone with their Shayâtin (devils - polytheists, hypocrites, etc.), they say: "Truly, we are with you; verily, we were but mocking."
2:15. Allâh mocks at them and gives them increase in their wrong-doings to wander blindly.
2:16. These are they who have purchased error for guidance, so their commerce was profitless. And they were not guided.

2:264. O you who believe! Do not render in vain your Sadaqah (charity) by reminders of your generosity or by injury, like him who spends his wealth to be seen of men, and he does not believe in Allâh, nor in the Last Day. His likeness is the likeness of a smooth rock on which is a little dust; on it falls heavy rain which leaves it bare. They are not able to do anything with what they have earned. And Allâh does not guide the disbelieving people.

3:126. Allâh made it not but as a message of good news for you and as an assurance to your hearts. And there is no victory except from Allâh, the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.
3:127. That He might cut off a part of those who disbelieve, or expose them to infamy, so that they retire frustrated.
3:128. Not for you (O Muhammad , but for Allâh) is the decision; whether He turns in mercy to (pardons) them or punishes them; verily, they are theZâlimûn (polytheists, disobedients, and wrong-doers, etc.).

3:129. And to Allâh belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. He forgives whom He wills, and punishes whom He wills. And Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

BLOGSPOT IS SCREWY; YOU'LL HAVE TO HIGHLIGHT THE BELOW QUOTES TO SEE THEM, I GUESS!

• 47:23. Such are they whom Allâh has cursed, so that He has made them deaf and blinded their sight.
• 14:4. And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them. Then Allâh misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.
• 39:36. Is not Allâh Sufficient for His slave? Yet they try to frighten you with those (whom they worship) besides Him! And whom Allâh sends astray, for him there will be no guide.
  39:37. And whomsoever Allâh guides, for him there will be no misleader. Is not Allâh All-Mighty, Possessor of Retribution?
•     71:26. And Nûh (Noah) said: "My Lord! Leave not one of the disbelievers on the earth!
      71:27. "If You leave them, they will mislead Your slaves, and they will beget none but wicked disbelievers."
• 2:13. And when it is said to them (hypocrites): "Believe as the people (followers of Muhammad Peace be upon him , Al-Ansâr and Al-Muhajirûn)have believed," they say: "Shall we believe as the fools have believed?" Verily, they are the fools, but they know not.
  2:14. And when they meet those who believe, they say: "We believe," but when they are alone with their Shayâtin (devils - polytheists, hypocrites, etc.), they say: "Truly, we are with you; verily, we were but mocking."
  2:15. Allâh mocks at them and gives them increase in their wrong-doings to wander blindly.
  2:16. These are they who have purchased error for guidance, so their commerce was profitless. And they were not guided.
• 2:264. O you who believe! Do not render in vain your Sadaqah (charity) by reminders of your generosity or by injury, like him who spends his wealth to be seen of men, and he does not believe in Allâh, nor in the Last Day. His likeness is the likeness of a smooth rock on which is a little dust; on it falls heavy rain which leaves it bare. They are not able to do anything with what they have earned. And Allâh does not guide the disbelieving people.
• 3:126. Allâh made it not but as a message of good news for you and as an assurance to your hearts. And there is no victory except from Allâh, the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.
  3:127. That He might cut off a part of those who disbelieve, or expose them to infamy, so that they retire frustrated.
  3:128. Not for you (O Muhammad , but for Allâh) is the decision; whether He turns in mercy to (pardons) them or punishes them; verily, they are theZâlimûn (polytheists, disobedients, and wrong-doers, etc.).
  3:129. And to Allâh belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. He forgives whom He wills, and punishes whom He wills. And Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
• Mishkat ul-Misabee 3.117

• 
  
• 
• from a short anthology of Mishkat

• from page 47

• 

CSIS opposes anti-muslims in Canada

From the Ottawa Citizen (Thursday march 2, 2015, P.# C1):

"Even if they are not drawing thousands into the streets, the Canadian government is apparently watching right-wing groups like PEDIGA, Quebec Identitaire, and the JDL closely. The Canadian Press reported on Tuesday that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS, Canada's CIA) recently advised the office of Public Safety Minsiter Steven Blaney of its concerns during a secret September briefing, noting that Canada's burgeoning anti-Islam movement poses an "ongoing risk, particularly as its proponents advocate violence."

Well, No shit, sherlocks - we advocate for DEFENSIVE anti-muslim violence, because obviously you overfed government parasite liberals aren't doing your jobs!!!

Google’s Fact Checking Scheme: A War on Truth

OK, this is SCARY! This site, at Blogger.com, is OWNED BY GOOGLE.

Within a day of the FCC taking over the Internet, Google has decided it wants to define the truth of all web content!

From here:

Google to become final arbiter of “facts”?

Google recently published a research paper proposing that the world’s largest search engine change its ranking algorithms to dampen sites with a high number of “false facts”. The paper specifically uses the example of Barack Obama’s nationality, and New Scientist uses the specific example of “anti-vaccination sites”,  leading some to speculate this is an effort to target “conspiracy theories” and alternative news.
It’s a worthy concern. Facebook not long ago launched a feature to do just that. When people don’t like a story that’s getting around, they can report it as false, and Facebook will dampen that link, no matter who shares it. I’m going to speak anecdotally about my own experience here for a moment, but I hope you’ll come to see the bigger picture. For those of us who make enemies on social media, this presents a pretty serious problem, because Facebook does not check these reports, at least not thoroughly. I have been banned from Facebook dozens of times, and usually it is because somebody reported something I posted as containing nudity, violence, or racism, where none existed. Those reports are made by ideological rivals for ideological purposes, and my voice is repeatedly and severely diminished as a result.

The High Tech War on Truth

Whether the issue at hand is Facebook’s reporting system, or Google’s fact checking, those of us with unpopular ideas are going to be contradicting the vast majority of people out there, and a system that punishes us for doing so is troubling to say the least. For me, Facebook is my top referrer for traffic to this website, Google is my second. I imagine that I’m not alone in this. Algorithm changes of any sort damage my business and my voice, and they happen more frequently than you might imagine if you don’t monitor these things. Were the standard for relevancy to change to credibility, and to be measured by “how many people agree with him” I would essentially be erased from the Internet. That might sound like a good idea to some people, but I’m not the one you need to be concerned about.
What I do here, for better or for worse, is start conversations. This works out pretty well in the present paradigm where the primary ranking indicator is popularity in terms of who is linking to and talking about you. I’ve long said that there is no such thing as bad press, in part because all “bad press” does is drive up your relevancy on search engines and social media. I certainly prefer people say nice things about me, but I prefer them to say bad things, than to say nothing at all.

This doesn’t always work out so well on a system like Reddit, where there is a reputation system that includes a downvote. There are coalitions of people on the web who hate me so viciously that they will do anything to damage my reputation and diminish my distribution. One such coalition exists on Reddit, and downvotes anything posted there from this website, without even reading the content. The fact that it comes from my domain is enough. This has caused Redditers to delete posts from this website, because the downvotes on my content damage their reputation on Reddit. Other times it causes the content to become labeled as controversial, and the competition between upvotes and downvotes causes the content to appear more popular, driving a great deal of traffic to this website. In large part, it just depends on who gets to it first, but it has almost nothing to do with the quality, much less the factual accuracy, of the content in question. Point being, agreement has no bearing on quality or accuracy.

Potential Upside

Rather than paint this as all doom and gloom, I should point out that this could be used for good. We’ll talk about problems with the fact checking algorithm later, but for a moment let’s consider the value of a “truth meter”. Presuming one existed and was accurate, this could be an excellent tool.
The paper proposes a similar model to Google’s “Knowledge Vault”. If you ask Google a question, Google will often give you an answer that doesn’t require you to click through to another site. When I want to check the exchange rate of Bitcoin for example, I search Google for “Bitcoin price” and Google displays the current average from Coinbase.com, updated every three minutes. This is fine with me, because I consider Coinbase to be a reputable source for this data. If I search for “cure for cold” I get some information from the Mayo Clinic on cold remedies. Even though we all know there is no cure for the common cold, this is about as close as we’re going to get to an answer to my question.
There are other reputation metrics on the web right now, and clearly there is nothing wrong with that. Web of Trust for example is a browser plugin with over 131 million downloads. It checks the reputation of the website you’re visiting “based on a unique crowdsourcing approach that collects ratings and reviews from a global community of millions of users who rate and comment on websites based on their personal experiences”. That store with the prices that seem too good to be true? WOT might save you from a frustrating and time consuming battle with identity theft. LazyTruth is a browser plugin that checks if the email you’re reading is some kind of chain letter hoax by comparing it against FactCheck.org and PolitiFact, which are themselves a sort of reputation metric.
If Google wants to get into the fact checking business, they could save me the trouble of installing yet another browser plugin, or searching for topics on fact checking sites, similarly to how they save me the trouble of visiting Coinbase or Mayo Clinic now. That’s a valuable service which a lot of people might appreciate.
Additionally, ranking a site highly just because it is already popular might not be the best way to determine the quality of the content, factual or not. New websites pop up every day, and some method of promoting them over a popular competitor whose quality is in decline might be of great benefit to content producers and consumers alike. Fact checking could be one way of establishing that quality.

Mission Creep

The primary problem as I see it, is that Google, Facebook, and other services we use to get ourselves connected to information have largely served to connect us with the information we want by determining what others have found relevant. This is a very specific task, and changing it to fact checking is a dramatic change in protocol. It is a completely different business model that in no way resembles the service you originally signed up for.

As stated earlier, there are already reputation metrics available for people who want to use them. These are specific services provided by entities who specialize in providing it. If they aren’t doing a good job, you just stop using that service, or go to a competitor. You lose nothing other than their fact checking service by leaving that website.
If Google gets into the fact checking business, and does a bad job, you lose your search engine. If Facebook gets into it and does a bad job, you lose your social network. More importantly since the idea behind these algorithms is to prevent you from seeing the content in the first place, you’ll never actually know if the content is fact or fiction, because you’ll never even see it. When the services that connect us to content start hiding it from us because they disagree with it, we never get the opportunity to find out of the service provider is doing a bad job. If we don’t find out that they are doing a bad job, then we lack the information necessary to make the decision to choose a different service provider.
I would have next to no problem with “Google Truth” or “Facebook Reputation” services. Even if they did a poor job, I could always choose a different service, or compete with them if I saw fit. They might wrongly slander and harm the reputations of good people, but if they did so on a large enough scale, it would in turn damage the reputation of those services. Take for example, the Southern Poverty Law Center. They smear people as violent racists and sexists and gay bashers all the time, often on very flimsy evidence. This type of institution gains a lot of sway with race baiters and social justice warriors, but they are despised by most conservatives and libertarians. We just make a value judgement on whose word we’re going to accept and move on for the most part.
The SPLC on the other hand isn’t deciding whether or not I see the content of the people they smear. Google and Facebook do. That presents a far more serious problem, which makes me inclined to stop doing business with them.

Chilling Effect

Let us say that Google takes the position that widgets do not cause cancer. Let us also say that some smaller source says that widgets do cause cancer. Now there is a dispute between these two institutions on the factual accuracy of the question.

As a content producer, I see that Google sends me a great deal of traffic. I am dependent on that traffic for my livelihood. I also see that the smaller source provides me with no traffic at all, because they are not a search engine, that is not their function. Should I come to the side of the smaller entity, Google will punish me by pushing my site down in the search results. Potentially not only the article in question, but the entire domain could become discredited and even content Google sees as credible would be pushed down in the rankings, dramatically injuring my business. This makes content producers extraordinarily unlikely to disagree with Google.
Let us say someone does defy Google, and gets their business ruined as a result. Someone else sees that happening. They know that Google is constantly adding new “facts” to their database, and contradicting those facts will punish your search engine placement. A statement they make today, could be deemed false by Google tomorrow. Even if the content producer who Google punished yesterday was factually incorrect, even if he deserved to be erased from the Internet, doing that to him will have a dramatic impact on other well meaning content producers. They will be weary of challenging main stream narratives in general.
Google’s research paper mentioned the “Birther” conspiracy, and this provides a perfect example. Let us pretend that in 2016 there emerged a presidential candidate whose nationality really was in question. Content producers would be inclined not to report on the issue, for fear of being silenced by the world’s largest search engine, a system they rely on to put food on their tables.
New Scientist mentioned “anti-vaccination” sites. Well, if Google were to take the position that vaccines were safe and anybody who said they weren’t was a liar, then the emergence of a dangerous vaccine at some point in the future would not be as widely reported on due to fears of censorship by their biggest driver of traffic and advertising revenue. The real fact on vaccines is that they are not as safe as marijuana, so would pro vaccine sites that say “vaccines are safe” as a blanket statement be flushed? I have a hard time imagining that this would result in anything positive.

In short, Google would not just be driving down the emergence of incorrect information, they would have a dramatic impact on what people said before they said it. That goes contrary to everything we’ve come to enjoy about the Internet as a place for the exchange of ideas, and competition for hearts and minds.

The Myth of Neutrality

As I recently remarked, there is no such thing as neutral. We all have certain biases, and the best that we can hope for is to make those biases known and let people decide for themselves how to interpret data. The FCC cannot make the net “neutral” they can only control it in the way they see fit. There is no such thing as an unbiased news source, because to even say a thing is news is to take a position on an issue. The pages of Wikipedia are fraught with left wing and feminist bias that has been well reported on by many, not the least of which was to label “Cultural Marxism” as a conspiracy theory.
To decide whether or not a thing is true, and to flush the untrue statement to the bottom of search results, necessarily would make Google an arbiter of debates. Google might make some attempt to appear neutral in that, but the biases of their developers would bleed through in some way no matter what. Say a developer implements a fact checking system, sees results he does not agree with, and then alters the fact checking algorithm to fit his world view. If Wikipedia, a system that anybody can edit, will throw cultural Marxism into the conspiracy theory dumpster, then let us not pretend that a more tightly controlled mechanism like Google’s search algorithms won’t be subject to the same biases.
Were Google search results to begin flushing “conspiracy theories” down the toilet on wikipedia standards, just imagine how many conservative and libertarian websites would cease to have a voice on the world’s largest search engine.

Popularity By Any Other Name

Ultimately, Google is incapable of actually being the arbiter of truth. The proposed method of determining the factual accuracy of a given statement is actually just a different measurement of popularity than they currently use. Instead of determining popularity based on how many people are linking to the content, they would judge the popularity based on how many people were saying the same thing, and call that factual accuracy. This itself, is factually inaccurate, as popularity and truth are often worlds apart.

Per the research paper from Google; (emphasis mine)

We propose using Knowledge-Based Trust (KBT) to estimate source trustworthiness as follows. We extract a plurality of facts from many pages using information extraction techniques. We then jointly estimate the correctness of these facts and the accuracy of the sources using inference in a probabilistic model. Inference is an iterative process, since we believe a source is accurate if its facts are correct, and we believe the facts are correct if they are extracted from an accurate source. We leverage the redundancy of information on the web to break the symmetry. Furthermore, we show how to initialize our estimate of the accuracy of sources based on authoritative information, in order to ensure that this iterative process converges to a good solution.

Facts are accurate because they come from a reputable source, and a source is reputable because it is accurate. They determine if it is accurate based on how many people are saying the same thing. This is just another popularity contest using a different yard stick. Instead of judging relevancy based on inbound links, they are determining “accuracy” based on similar thought processes.
This of course, is no measure of accuracy at all.
For a great deal of time it was thought that tomatoes were evil. This very popular notion parroted by many of the time, turned out to be complete nonsense. It took awhile for people to figure out that aristocrats were dying of lead poisoning, not tomatoes themselves. Imagine that phenomenon in the age of Google fact checking, any site that said tomatoes were safe, would quickly be flushed to the bottom of the search results.

Think about the hysteria that followed the release of “Reefer Madness” in the 30’s. That nonsense went largely unrefuted, and was in no small part responsible for the countless cages and coffins now filled due to the war on drugs. Challenging those ideas on the Internet is why Washington, Colorado, Alaska, and Washington DC have legalized marijuana in defiance of the federal government, and states like New Hampshire are moving towards decriminalization. Now imagine that trying to take place in an era of Google “fact checking” where to disagree with the notion that marijuana leads to rape and murder, would flush you to the bottom of the search engine rankings.
Trying to pass off popularity, however your measurement is taken, as accuracy is a fundamental flaw in the way human beings think. Our confirmation bias is a huge problem in discussions on all sorts of topics from politics, to economics, to health, and beyond. It is specifically because things like Google and Facebook have operated in the way they operate that we’re able to overcome some portion of that hazard, and the proposal by Google’s researchers would put a huge dent in that progress while competitors struggled to gain market share back with better ranking policies.

That doesn’t just harm businesses or screw up your enjoyment of the Internet. That costs lives, fills prisons, and steers nations to war.

FCC's "GENERAL CONDUCT" Rule, RULES THE INTERNET - SUCKERS!

The FCC's new rules include a “general conduct rule” that will let the FCC take action against ISP practices that DON’T count as blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization. Vague rules are a problem.

First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach they claimed we need to protect the open Internet. Second, people should worry that this rule will be extremely expensive in practice, because anyone wanting to bring a complaint will be hard-pressed to predict whether they will succeed. For example, how will the Commission determine “industry best standards and practices”? It's all subjective, you suckers!

The FCC wants to be, in Chairman Wheeler’s words, “a referee on the field” who can stop any ISP action that it thinks “hurts consumers, competition, or innovation.”

To liberals, "competition" and "innovation" (i.e: not-toeing the party line) IS what hurts consumers!

The problem with a rule this vague is that neither ISPs nor Internet users can know in advance what kinds of practices will run afoul of the rule. Only companies with significant legal staff and expertise may be able to use the rule effectively. And a vague rule gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence.