HERE I STAND! (with God, not Israel) Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation

Martin Luther

ATEDITOR0216

[Editor’s Note: Not too long ago I read the story of Martin Luther life’s and work as well as the times that he lived in and other personalities of his day who were struggling to break away from the iron-fisted, tyrannical clutches of the Roman Catholic church. I was flabbergasted to read of the number of people who, once they were privy to the actual teachings of Jesus Christ (rather than Rome’s interpretations which the priests, up to that time, were feeding them), were willing to defend their right to follow the teachings themselves. Thousands of individuals ranging across the whole spectrum of society, ended up being burnt at the stake rather than going back to RC church and its dogmatic and decadent system of codes and rites that left believers at the mercy of the church.

While this short article gives the gist of Martin Luther’s work it also avoids his more controversial statements on the Jews which are contained in a small booklet that Martin Luther had published just prior to his ascension. That little booklet was called “On the Jews and their lies” and it outlines Luther’s efforts over his lifetime to try and convince the Jews that they should accept Jesus Christ as their messiah. It also exposes their many faults and deceptions and their influence within the Roman Catholic church itself.]

Here I Stand! Martin Luther & The Protestant Reformation

18 April marks the anniversary of a momentous turning point in world history. The Reformation was led by men of strong faith, deep convictions, great intelligence, high moral standards and tremendous courage. Towering above all these great Reformers, Martin Luther stands out as the most courageous, controversial and influential Reformer of all time.

Facing Certain Death

Summoned to Worms, Luther believed that he was going to his death. He insisted that his co-worker, Philip Melanchthon, remain in Wittenberg. “My dear brother, If I do not come back, if my enemies put me to death, you will go on teaching and standing fast in the truth; if you live, my death will matter little.” Luther at Worms was 37 years old. He had been excommunicated by the Pope. Luther would have remembered that the Martyr, John Hus, a Century before, had travelled to Constance with an imperial safe conduct, which was not honoured.

Determination

Luther declared: “Though Hus was burned, the truth was not burned, and Christ still lives… I shall go to Worms, though there be as many devils there as tiles on the roofs.” Luther’s journey to Worms was like a victory parade. Crowds lined the roads cheering the man who had dared to stand up for Germany against the Pope.

Before the Emperor

At 4 o’ clock on Wednesday 17 April, Luther stood before the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire. Charles V, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, ruled all the Austrian domains, Spain, Netherlands, a large part of Italy and the Americas. At 21 years old, Charles V ruled over a territory larger than any man since Charlemagne.

Amidst the pomp and splendour of this imperial gathering, stood the throne of the Emperor on a raised platform. It was flanked by Spanish knights in gleaming armour, 6 Princes, 24 Dukes, 30 Archbishops and Bishops, and 7 Ambassadors.

Confrontation

Luther was asked to identify whether the books on the table were his writings. Upon Luther’s confirmation that they were, an official asked Luther: “Do you wish to retract them, or do you adhere to them and continue to assert them?” Luther had come expecting an opportunity to debate the issues, but it was made clear to him that no debate was to be tolerated. The Imperial Diet was ordering him to recant all his writings. Luther requested more time, so that he might answer the question without injury to the Word of God and without peril to his soul. The Emperor granted him 24 hours.

A Date With Destiny

The next day, Thursday 18 April, as the sun was setting and torches were being lit, Luther was ushered into the august assembly. He was asked again whether he would recant what he had written. Luther responded that some of his books taught established Christian doctrine on faith and good works. He could not deny accepted Christian doctrines. Other of his books attacked the papacy and to retract these would be to encourage tyranny and cover up evil. In the third category of books, he had responded to individuals who were defending popery and in these Luther admitted he had written too harshly.

The examiner was not satisfied: “You must give a simple, clear and proper answer… will you recant or not?”

Christian Conviction and Courage

Luther’s response, first given in Latin and then repeated in German, shook the world: “Unless I am convinced by Scripture or by clear reasoning that I am in error – for popes and councils have often erred and contradicted themselves – I cannot recant, for I am subject to the Scriptures I have quoted; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. It is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against ones conscience. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. So help me God. Amen.”

Steadfast

Amidst the shocked silence, cheers rang out for this courageous man who had stood up to the Emperor and the Pope. Luther turned and left the tribunal. Numerous German nobles formed a circle around Luther and escorted him safely back to his lodgings.

Condemned

The Emperor was furious. However, Prince Frederick insisted that Charles V honour the guarantee of safe conduct for Luther. Charles V raged against “this devil in the habit of a monk” and issued the edict of Worms, which declared Luther an outlaw, ordering his arrest and death as a “heretic.”

Kidnapped

As Luther travelled back to Wittenberg, preaching at towns on the route, armed horsemen plunged out of the forest, snatched Luther from his wagon and dragged him off to Wartburg Castle. This kidnapping had been arranged by Prince Frederick amidst great secrecy in order to preserve Luther’s life. Despite the Emperor’s decree that anyone helping Luther was subject to the loss of life and property, Frederick risked his throne and life to protect his pastor and professor.

Wartburg Castle

For the 10 months that Luther was hidden at Wartburg Castle, as Knight George (Junker Jorg), he translated The New Testament into German and wrote such booklets as: “On Confession Whether the Pope Has the Authority to Require It; On the Abolition of Private Masses” and “Monastic Vows.” By 1522, The New Testament in German was on sale for but a week’s wages.

A Time of Change

The Reformation not only brought about sweeping changes in the church, but dramatic changes in all of society. First of all the Reformation focused on bringing doctrines, forms of church government, and of worship and daily life into conformity with the Word of God. But this of course had tremendous implications for political, economical, social and cultural life as well.

God’s Word Above All Things

Luther revised the Latin liturgy and translated it into German. Now the laity received the Communion in both bread and wine, as the Hussites had taught a Century earlier. The whole emphasis in church services changed from the sacramental celebration of the Mass as a sacrifice, to the preaching and teaching of God’s Word. Luther maintained that every person has the right and duty to read and study the Bible in his own language. This became the foundation of the Reformation: a careful study of the Bible as the source of all truth and as the only legitimate authority, for all questions of faith and conduct.

The True Church

The Church is a community of believers, not a hierarchy of officials. The Church is an organism rather than an organisation, a living body of which each believer is a member.

Luther stressed the priesthood of all believers. We do not gain salvation through the church, but we become members of the Church when we become believers.

Reformation Basic Principles

Luther dealt with many primary issues, including:

Authority – the Bible alone is our ultimate authority and not the councils or leaders of any Church. The Bible is above tradition.

Salvation – is by the grace of God alone, accomplished by the Atonement of Christ alone, received by faith alone. Grace comes before sacraments.

The Church – the true Church is composed of the elect, those regenerated by God’s Holy Spirit. Regenerate Church membership.

The Priesthood – consists of all true believers. The priesthood of all believers.

The Battle Cries of the Reformation

The Protestant Reformation mobilised by Luther rallied around these great battle cries:

Solus Christus – Christ alone is the Head of the Church.

Sola Scriptura – Scripture alone is our authority.

Sola Gratia – Salvation is by the grace of God alone.

Sola Fide – Justification is received by faith alone.

Soli Deo Gloria – Everything is to be done for the glory of God alone.

Luther Survived and Thrived

Despite Luther being declared an outlaw by the Emperor, he survived to minister and write for 25 more years, and died of natural causes, 18 February 1546. In spite of many illnesses, Luther remained very active and productive as an advisor to princes, Theologians and pastors, publishing major commentaries, producing great quantities of books and pamphlets, and he completed the translation of The Old Testament into German by 1534. Luther continued preaching and teaching to the end of his life. He frequently entertained students and guests in his home, and he produced beautiful poems and hymns, including one hymn that will live forever: “Ein Feste Burg Ist Unser Gott”(A Mighty Fortress Is Our God).

Education

Luther also did a great deal to promote education. He laboured tirelessly for establishment of schools everywhere. Luther wrote his Shorter Catechism in order to train up children in the essential doctrines of the faith.

Not the Simple and Obscure Monk of Popular Legend

It has been common to portray Luther as a simple and obscure monk, who challenged the pope and emperor. Actually Luther was anything but simple, or obscure. He was learned, experienced and accomplished far beyond most men of his age. He had lived in Magdeburg, Eisenach and was one of the most distinguished graduates of the University of Erfurt. Luther travelled to Cologne, to Leipzig, and had crossed the Alps, and travelled to Rome. Luther was a great student, with a tremendous breadth of reading, who had excelled in his studies, and achieved a Master of Arts and Doctorate in Theology in record time.

Extraordinary

He was an accomplished bestselling author, one of the greatest preachers of all time, a highly respected Theological professor, and one of the first professors to lecture in the German language, instead of in Latin. Far from being a simple monk, Luther was the Prior of his monastery and the district vicar over 11 other monasteries. Luther was a monk, a priest, a preacher, a professor, a writer, and a Reformer. He was one of most courageous and influential people in all of history. The Lutheran Faith was not only adopted in Northern Germany, but also throughout Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland.

Controversial and Accomplished

Luther was a controversial figure in his day and has continued to be considered controversial to this very day. There is no doubt that Luther’s search for peace with God changed the whole course of human history. He challenged the power of Rome over the Christian Church, smashed the chains of superstition and tyranny and restored the Christian liberty to worship God in spirit and in truth.

“For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes …For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, the just shall live by faith.” Romans 1:16 – 23

——–

Dr. Peter Hammond

Frontline Fellowship

P.O. Box 74 Newlands 7725

Cape Town South Africa

Tel: 021-689-4480

Email: mission@frontline.org.za

Website: www.frontline.org.za

This Article is adapted from: The Greatest Century of Reformation book (220 pages, 160 pictures, maps and charts), by Dr. Peter Hammond. To see the whole article: Martin Luther – Captive to the Word of God.

See also:

A Bold New Initiative for Reformation Today

Reformation FIRE for Africa

95 Theses for Reformation Today

MUSLIMS (AND CHRISTIANS) THE BAD GUYS? a Radical Press Public Service Announcement

KeepYerEyeontheBall!BLUE copy

Editor’s Note: Let’s not delude ourselves about who the real enemy of humanity is. Those who fall for the lies of the Zionist media campaign against the Muslims (as well as the Christians) are being hoodwinked into aiding and abetting the Jewish agenda of divide and conquer of nations for the benefit of their NWO program. Stay focused on the ultimate designers of deception – Israel and World Jewry headed by the Rothschild criminal cartel.

Report on week two of  Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham    by  Arthur Topham

Screen Shot 2015-11-01 at 12.18.21 PM

ATEditorPic185

EDITOR’S NOTE: Once again, please feel free to use whatever information is contained in this Report in order to spread the news concerning this important trial further afield.

To date only the local Quesnel Cariboo Observer, and CBC Prince George have given coverage to the story so it’s now firmly established that Canada’s major news networks (all of which are either controlled or heavily influenced by the foreign Zionist lobby) have no intention of informing the general public on this matter.

As I previously stated in the first report it’s up to the alternative news media to do its best to cover this important historic event in Canadian jurisprudence and bring it to the attention of internet readers around the world.

The original time period allotted for the trial indicated that it would conclude by Friday, November 6th but such is not the case. It will now carry on into week three and likely conclude on Tuesday, November 10th one day prior to Canada’s federal holiday known as Remembrance Day.
Thank you.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

To Alternative Media Sources
Report on week two of
Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham

by
Arthur Topham

The second week of Canada’s Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial R v Roy Arthur Topham got underway Monday morning, November 2nd, 2015.

Witness #1 former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team

During the fourth day of the first week of testimony (October 29, 2015) Defence attorney Barclay Johnson had cross examined former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson the lead investigator involved in the current Sec. 319(2) charge, arrest and incarceration of Mr. Topham back in May of 2012. Throughout his questioning of Wilson it was clearly shown that the former detective was not an “expert” on what constituted “hate” and that Wilson was solely relying upon only one definition of “hatred” which appeared in the Keegstra case from back in the 1980’s. It was also evident from the former Hate Crime Unit investigator’s statements that after the second complainant had filed his complaint to the BC Hate Crime Team back in May of 2011 Wilson traveled over to Victoria, B.C. to interview the complainant who, during the course of the taped conversation, told Wilson that he’d also been involved in laying an earlier complaint against Topham back in 2007 as a representative of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada. That earlier Sec. 13(1) complaint on the part of B’nai Brith Canada, fortunately for Topham, was stayed in 2010 pending the outcome of a Constitutional challenge to the Canadian Human Rights Act (where the legislation existed); one that ultimately resulted in the repeal of Sec. 13(1) in June of 2012.

In the course of their interview the complainant told Wilson that his organization, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, didn’t think they had any evidence strong enough to gain a conviction under Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada until Topham published his “book” Israel Must Perish! on his website May 28th, 2011. The complainant, upon reading what was in actuality a satire that Topham had written of the actual book Germany Must Perish! concluded that he now had sufficient evidence to prove to a court of law that Topham was proposing the total annihilation of the Jewish population and would therefore qualify as a candidate for a Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” complaint with the BC Hate Crime Team.

Under cross examination Defence attorney Johnson suggested to Wilson that it wasn’t until the complainant had told him about the “book” that he made his decision to charge Topham.

Topham’s attorney also brought forth evidence clearly showing Wilson to have abused his police powers during the course of his investigation when he wrote a personal letter to Topham’s Internet Service Provider (ISP) Netfirms.ca back on November 21, 2012 informing them that Topham had been charged on November 5, 2012 with a Sec. 319(2) CCC offence of “Wilfully Promoting Hatred”. Defence pointed out to the court that Wilson had taken it upon himself to go to Netfirms.ca, read through their policy and then suggested to the company that Topham’s Sec. 319(2) criminal charge “may in fact contravene” said policy under section 4(b)(i). The result of Wilson’s letter to Netfirms.ca was that the ISP wrote to Topham the same day issuing what was basically an ultimatum stating, “We have been advised by a visitor to your web site radicalpress.com that such web site contains content that is alleged to be untrue, offensive, slanderous, harassing or controversial in nature.

Accordingly, please remove such content within 48 hours of this notice. Failure to delete such content within such period will result in termination of your website.” It was signed by “Zach P Corporate Support”.

Given such short notice and not having the technical expertise to shift his website to a new (and more secure) server in the USA Topham had to rely upon an associate of his who also wasn’t fully proficient in downloading and uploading websites. The end result was that all the content on Topham’s website prior to November 21, 2012 ended up infected with computer code script that required hundreds of hours of labour to correct and to this day still hasn’t been fully repaired.

Defence also pointed out to the court that when Wilson wrote to Netfirms.ca on November 21, 2012 there had already been one attempt on the part of Crown to have Topham’s bail conditions changed so that he wouldn’t be able to carry on publishing until after the trial (should he be found not guilty). That attempt had failed and Crown was attempting a second time to change his conditions and a hearing on Crown’s application had already been set for January 2, 2013 but Wilson disregarded the court and proceeded on his own to try and remove RadicalPress.com before that date. Because of these independent actions on the part of former Det. Wilson, Defence suggested to the court that Wilson had acted in an extra-judicial manner and in doing so had attempted to circumvent whatever decision the court may have come to regarding Topham’s bail conditions (Crown’s application was unsuccessful). In other words Wilson had acted as judge and jury and concluded, prior to Crown’s application being heard, that Topham was guilty of the crime before having been tried. In other words, according to Defence counsel Johnson, Wilson’s testimony could not be taken seriously and ought to be disregarded by the jury.

NetfirmsWilsonLet

Crown Expert Witness Len Rudner

The first week’s proceedings concluded Friday, October 30th, 2015 with Crown’s Expert Witness, Mr. Len Rudner, former Director of the Canadian Jewish Congress, completing his testimony. Week two commenced with Defence attorney Barclay Johnson’s cross examination of Mr. Rudner testimony.

Len Rudner copy

As noted in the first report the focus of Crown’s evidence was contained in four large binders of which Binder #1 and #2 composed the complete texts of the following online books posted on RadicalPress.com:

1. Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufmann
2. Israel Must Perish! (erroneously labeled by Wilson and Crown as a “book” rather than a satirical article)
3. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
4. The Biological Jew by Eustice Mullins
5. The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling

Binder #2 was the complete text (580 pages) of Douglas Reed’s historic analysis of political Zionism The Controversy of Zion. Binders #3 and #4 were basically screen shots of all of Topham’s monthly postings on his website which Wilson had “captured” during the course of the Hate Crime Team’s investigation once the initial complaint was laid against Topham and his website on April 28th, 2011. As well, a number of Topham’s personal writings contained in the sidebar on the home page under the heading Arthur’s Court were also included.

Over the course of Len Rudner’s testimony Crown’s Prosecuting Attorney Jennifer Johnston led Rudner through all of the above online books and portions of the articles, most of which contained Topham’s “Editor’s Note” prefaces. It was mainly these prefaces to other writer’s work that Crown zeroed in on as they apparently were having great difficulty in finding anything in Topham’s own personal articles on the site that they felt would meet the stringent standards that the law required in order to prove, “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Topham was “wilfully” promoting hatred toward “people of Jewish ethnicity or religion”.

Fortunately, for the defence, Crown’s Expert Witness Len Rudner provided the court with some extremely revealing evidence while under cross examination which, ultimately, led to some damning conclusions.

Given that Rudner had told the court that during the period of his tenure as a Director for the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), which spanned the years in which Mr. Topham had been harassed and dragged through the whole of the Canadian Human Rights Commission Sec. 13(1) complaint process from 2007 until 2012, Defence counsel Johnson began questioning Rudner on statements he’d made under oath regarding his personal involvement in the laying of these Sec. 13(1) “hate crime” charges against Canadian citizens. What Rudner told the court, was most revealing and in some instances totally unexpected. As it turned out, in his capacity as a director of this foreign Israeli lobbyist organization, Rudner stated that as far back as 2007 he had been personally involved in an attempt on the part of the CJC to file a Sec. 319(2) “hate” complaint against Arthur Topham and his website RadicalPress.com with the British Columbia Hate Crimes Team (BCHCT). This was the very same RCMP unit that on May 16th, 2012 arrested Topham and charged him under the same Sec. 319(2) criminal code section. Rudner’s statements were corroborated by the evident from Crown’s disclosure which contained the following document shown below.

BCHCTFILE 2007-23814

While the document itself hadn’t indicated who, in particular, was responsible for filing the complaint, Rudner having sworn that he was personally involved in drafting a number of such complaints, admitted to having signed off on that one as well.

During the course of his testimony before the court Rudner also admitted to having had contact with Topham’s former Internet Service Provider (ISP) MagNet.com (now defunct) back as far as 2005 wherein he had complained to said company that Topham was publishing “anti-Semitic” materials on his website RadicalPress.com. He admitted under oath that at the time he complained to the ISP he realized that it wouldn’t necessarily guarantee that Topham’s site would be removed from the Internet but that it would at least be an “inconvenience” for Topham! What Rudner and the court, including Defence attorney Barclay Johnson, didn’t realize was that the complaint by the CJC to Topham’s then ISP resulted in Topham losing all of the contents of his website, including a long and lively forum, that dated back to and included the period from 1999 to 2005 and constituted a valuable historic record of a section of history that has since dominated much of the narrative concerning the nascent period of the 21st Century and its reaction to the defining event now known as 911. At the time of the loss Topham had a strong suspicion that the person or persons responsible for filing the complaint to his ISP were most likely connected to either the Canadian Jewish Congress or B’nai Brith Canada (both of whom are admitted lobbyists for the foreign state of Israel), but his then server refused to divulge who had registered the complaint and had only given Topham 48 hours to find a new server. Now the truth regarding that premeditated event finally came to light ten years after the fact.

Given Rudner’s direct testimony that he had personally been involved in two previous attempts to have Topham’s website taken down, Defence attorney Barclay Johnson then questioned Rudner regarding the credentials used in determining his suitability to appear as an “Expert Witness” on behalf of the Crown. Johnson pointed out to the court that in order to qualify for such an esteemed position within the Canadian court system one had to be seen as impartial and unbiased and neutral in order for their “Expert” testimony to be considered credible. He then punctuated this scathing indictment of Rudner’s disingenuousness and confession of complicity by stating that Rudner had, in fact, “a horse in the race” all along and that his admission of these facts could only serve to discredit the worth of all of his testimony in the case before the court.

When Rudner attempted to justify his clandestine attempts to take down Topham’s website Johnson’s response was to suggest that it was nothing but “pure sophistry”.

Defence Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon

GILAD&BARCLAY

Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli-born writer, musician, and political commentator who has written extensively about global politics, and specifically the geopolitical role of the State of Israel. Atzmon is critical of the Israeli government and its approach to other countries in the Middle East. He moved to England in 1994 and became a British citizen in 2002.

Mr. Atzmon had agreed to take the stand on behalf of Arthur Topham and testify as to why he felt that the charge of “hatred toward the Jews” was inappropriate and his decision to do so was based upon his strongly held conviction that the vast majority of criticism being directed toward the Jews was in fact political in nature rather than personal or aimed specifically at Jews based upon either their religion or their ethnicity.

While the Crown had made a big display before the court of the fact that their Expert Witness Len Rudner was being paid $195.00 an hour to appear to testify when Mr. Atzmon appeared on the morning of November 3, 2015 Defence Barclay Johnson pointed out to the jury that Atzmon had volunteered his expertise without pay and that only his airfare and hotel accommodations and food were being covered by Topham’s defence fund.

After much to do about having his status as an Expert Witness accepted by Justice Bruce Butler when Gilad Atzmon stepped up to the podium and began to speak it immediately became apparent to the court that here was an Expert Witness to be reckoned with. Being an internationally recognized lecturer and in possession of the academic credentials to back up his philosophical approach to the issues being discussed in the courtroom, Mr. Atzmon’s quickly took control of the narrative and over the remainder of his testimony spoke with an unabashed air of certainty and conviction. Unlike Rudner whose quiet, monotone presentation lacked any overt sense of passion in what he was saying, Gilad’s outspoken oratory coupled with his obvious depth of knowledge concerning what he talked about left little doubt in the minds of anyone in the courtroom that here was a man of scholarly quality who unquestionably knew his subject.

Defence counsel Barclay Johnson then led Atzmon through the various online publications that were the subject of Crown’s evidence and Atzmon framed each book and quotation cited within his own analysis of the overall question concerning the Jewish Question and what Atzmon referred to as “Jewish Identity” politics. He went on to explain by means of visual aids (a graphic of a triangle with the three points headed by “Religion”, “Ethnicity” and “Identity or Jewish-ness”), all of which formed the basis of his thesis as contained in his internationally renowned book, The Wandering Who? which has been a best seller since it first came out in 2011.

Of particular note were Atzmon’s comments on the controversial satire which Topham had written in response to his reading of the actual book titled Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufmann which Topham then satirically titled  Israel Must Perish! This was the already noted article on Topham’s website that the complainant in the case told former Det. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team was sufficient evidence that Topham was promoting the total genocide of the whole of the Jewish population. When Gilad Atzmon addressed the issue he was adamant in his appraisal of the satire stating that it was an exceptionally important contribution to the overall discussion of Jewish identity in that it basically represented a mirror image of what Kaufmann’s book had said and that this mirror was now being held up before the Jewish people and in particular the Zionist state of Israel as a reminder for them to reflect upon their own actions and behaviour in todays political setting. He made reference to the plight of the Palestinians in his comments but Crown was quick to object (and Justice Butler was also quick to agree with Crown) that Atzmon wasn’t an expert on the Palestinian issue and therefore his testimony in that regard should be disregarded.

As Atzmon stated in his book, “As far as self-perception is concerned, those who call themselves Jews could be divided into three main categories:

1. Those who follow Judaism.
2. Those who regard themselves as human beings that happen to be of Jewish origin.
3. Those who put their Jewish-ness over and above all of their other traits.

Crown’s Cross Examination of Gilad Atzmon

Crown Prosecutor Jennifer Johnson commenced her cross examination of Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 4th and it resumed the next morning of November 5th. It was basically on the second day of cross examination that the Prosecutor began her laborious efforts to try and get Atzmon to agree to the Crown’s position with respect to the term “Hatred” and also to many of the quotations cited throughout the trial that Crown felt showed evidence of Topham’s wilful promotion of hatred toward the Jews in general. Suffice it to say that every attempt at twisting Gilad’s words to conform to Crown’s preconceived mould of what “hatred” meant was met with not only dismissal but further testimony on Atzmon’s part as to what he actually was saying. This process continued on throughout his cross examination and it would not be unfair to say that the following exchange was typical of Crown’s approach and Gilad’s reaction:

Crown: Mr. Atzmon, I’m sure that you would agree that ….

Gilad Atzmon: No.

The jury and members of the public sitting in the gallery witnessed this scenario occurring over and over and the end result was that Crown was unable to refute any of Atzmon’s testimony nor discredit his presentation in any way.

Defence’s Summation to the Jury

Friday, November 6, 2015 was originally the final day scheduled for R v Roy Arthur Topham. But like most things the numerous delays throughout the past two week due to Crown’s own actions (which will be touched on at the end of this report) the only thing that happened on this day was that Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson was able to (after numerous interruptions by Crown and Justice Butler) finally sum up before the jury his arguments as to why they should find the defendant not guilty. That summation, in itself, was prolonged by the presiding Justice so that it wasn’t until 2:30 p.m. that Johnson finally was able to speak to the jurors. He ended at precisely 4:00 p.m.

The main thrust by defence was to speak to the jury about Crown’s two witnesses, former Det. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team and Crown Expert Witness Len Rudner. Johnson outlined for the jury the many instances of bias displayed by both these two individuals while testifying. In addition to that he also (after much wrangling with Justice Butler) presented to the jury some of Arthur Topham’s writings taken from an article which had been included in Crown’s disclosure. That article, titled KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by B’nai Brith Canada was originally posted on the website back in 2008 and dealt with issues related to the first complaint laid against Topham by B’nai Brith Canada under the former Sec. 13(1) Canadian Human Rights Act in the article were references made to the character of Topham which the defence wanted the jury to hear.

Defence then read out the following to the jury: [please note that the defendant is restricted by his current bail conditions from naming his accuser online and therefore the individual in question is simply referred to as “Mr. Z”]

“I have lived, uninterruptedly, in the province of British Columbia since December of 1956. After leaving high school I attended university (SFU) in 1965 and there obtained a Professional Teaching Certificate. I worked for a short number of years in this capacity both in the public school system and for First Nations school districts, all of which were located in the province of B.C., and taught grades ranging from Kindergarten to Grade 5. I left the profession in 1978 and worked for the Provincial Parks Branch for 8 years where I was a Supervisor and Park Ranger in the Quesnel District of the Cariboo region of the province. After losing that profession to government restructuring in the late 1980’s I returned to teaching for a couple of years and worked for the Nuxalk Education Authority out of Bella Coola, B.C. in 1991 – 1992 where I taught on reserve Grades 2 and 3. From there I returned to Quesnel and worked in a substitute capacity for the local School District (#28) until I resigned in September of 1998. It was also during the year 1998 that I established my publishing business known as The Radical Press. From June of 1998 until June of 2002 I published a monthly, 24-page tabloid called The Radical which sold in retail outlets throughout B.C. and across Canada and by subscription around the world. Due to financial challenges the hard copy edition of the newspaper ceased in June of 2002 and from that date I carried on publishing online with my website known as http://www.radicalpress.com . In 2005, using my lifetime of personal experience in the log building trades and construction industry which I had developed in conjunction with my tenure as a school teacher I formed a carpentry business and have been operating said business up to this point in time. I have lived out in the country for the vast majority of my life, have build my own home, grown my own garden, and maintained a philosophy of independence both in thought and deed. Throughout the course of my life I have fathered four children and now, along with my dear wife of thirty years, also have been blessed with seven grandchildren.

In many respects my life has been an open book to the community in which I have resided since 1970. I began writing letters to the local Quesnel newspaper known as The Cariboo Observer, newsroom@quesnelobserver.com beginning in 1976 and have steadily contributed to that publication over the ensuing years both as a regular columnist and an inveterate contributor on matters of public concern. While I would describe myself as a very controversial writer (and most, if not all of my readers would agree) I nonetheless need to stress the fact that throughout all the years of presenting my ideas to the general public on a number of issues ranging from politics to religion to social justice and environmental issues, I have never made any racist, hate-filled remarks against any person of Jewish or any other religious or ethic grouping. All this I state with respect to the present allegations made against me by Mr. Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada; charges that they would fain convey to the public that insinuate I am a person who promotes hatred toward others, in this case Jews. The records of my writings would not, I suggest, indicate this to be the case….

There is one last, missing factor in this “hate” equation which Mr. Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada have accused me of which needs to be mentioned. I feel it poignantly illustrates the absurdity of what is going on with respect to the danger of abuse inherent in such laws as Sec. 13(1) when exploited for partisan purposes by people and organizations such as Mr. Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith. It also epitomizes the spuriousness of all the allegations and contentions which they have used in their attempt to harass and intimidate me by falsely and publicly accusing me of the crime of promoting “ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.” I now present this final factor to you Ms. Kozak and to the CHRC Tribunal as the culmination of my testimony to the frivolous and vexatious nature of these charges. For me to either admit to or accept that I am promoting hatred toward Jews would be tantamount to saying that I hate, rather than love and cherish beyond description, the one person in my life who has been wife and friend and companion to me over the last thirty years. For she too is Jewish.”

Final observations on Crown’s handling of evidence

Given that the total cost to Canadian taxpayers to proceed with this trial is likely over one million dollars throughout the duration of this two week trial the court has been witness to endless problems dealing with Crown’s disclosure materials. Given the fact that Crown has now had over three and half years to put together the evidence in a format that would easily facilitate the normal reading habits of the jurors and Defence counsel what we have witnessed throughout the trial is a disgrace to the supreme court system in British Columbia.

From the onset of the case (beginning in May of 20120), defence had to fight tooth and nail to get disclosure from Crown and to try and have Crown particularize the evidence so it was clearly evident what would be used in the actual trial. Instead Crown insisted that the case was an “ongoing investigation” and therefore they couldn’t provide the full disclosure until final weeks preceding trial. When they did send Defence counsel their Disclosure much of it was unreadable. Defence had to redo pages and pages of Crown evidence in order that it could be read in court, not only by defence but also by the jurors who would be expected to follow along in their own Binders. This aspect of the trial consumed hours of time and even after the trial was well underway it became blatantly obvious that the last two binders would have to be republished so the jury might have a readable copy to refer to. Those final two binders didn’t enter into the court until the morning of Friday, November 6, 2015!

Typical of the quality of the documents is the image below taken from one page of KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by B’nai Brith Canada It would not be a stretch of the imagination to conceive of the jurors being each given a magnifying glass in order to try and read the evidence. Given that it cost the taxpayers an additional $2000.00 to have them reprinted twelve magnifying glasses might have been a more cost effective measure.

Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 12.13.33 PM

Still to come

Monday, November 9, 2015 will see Crown present its summation to the jury. On Friday Justice Butler asked the jury if they would be ready to have him charge them on Tuesday morning the 10th of November. He told them that if he charged them on Tuesday that in the event they couldn’t come to a decision by the end of the day that they would have to remain sequestered through to November 11th which is Canada’s Remembrance Day federal holiday. The jury went out and discussed this and returned to tell Justice Butler that they would prefer to be charged on the 10th. That meant they didn’t think it would take more than one day to make their minds up.

As it now stands Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 will conclude the trial and a verdict will be handed down on that day. Stay tuned folks!

•••0•••
 
Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address. Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:
 
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8

Sunday Sermon from the Radical Press Pulpit: The Time Has Come! The Naked Truth About Jews

Rothstein’s World: Where Intent & Truth No Longer Exist by Bill Whatcott

 

Rothstein's WorldHdr

ATEditorPic185

[Editor’s Note: The following article is an excerpt from a longer posting of Bill Whatcott’s on March 10th, 2015 which is titled, “Whatcott ministry to Canada comes to an end“. Bill has been one Canadian who has displayed the intestinal fortitude that so many Canadians today lack when it comes to standing up for Canada rather than tossing their principles and their integrity into the Zionist ring and only standing up for Israel instead.

Bill’s efforts,  when it comes to defending the right to freedom of speech for ALL Canadians have proven effective in other ways. What he has accomplished through his actions is that he exposed the hidden agenda of satanic forces that now control the hidden agenda of Canada’s Supreme Court and he did so by refusing to back down to the endless attacks by the homosexual lobbyists and their willing accomplices the courts themselves. This process of unveiling the agenda of the dark side might not  have occurred had Bill Whatcott simply idly stood by like most Canadian “Christians” and kept silent in the face of the obvious injustice and degradation that’s occurring within our legal system and society at large.

Bill’s ministry may have come to an end here in Canada but his legacy of love for Canada and his efforts to save as many children as possible from the hidden scalpel of the abortionists will continue to inspire others just as his Lord and Master Jesus Christ’s example has lived on for over two thousand years.

May God bless  him and his family with peace and happiness. He’s sacrificed enough for any man.]

 

Bill Whatcott Image

Dear Friends,

My ministry to Canada has come to an end, at least for the foreseeable future. My ministry wrapped up about the way I would have wanted it to. Two days before leaving for Philippines my friend Rev. Gerhard Wilch and I had coffee with a reporter for a large homosexual publication. The reporter prefers to remain unidentified. I shared the Gospel and some apologetics with the reporter, but he was not particularly open to mine and Gerhard’s worldview. Anyways, I gave the reporter my book “Born in a Graveyard” and requested that he share it with other folks who work at his media outlet.

My Dad and I spent some quality time together and I visited a few family members. My Dad and I also had coffee with one of my faithful ex-gay friends, who is also a loyal supporter of my ministry. Me and my ex-gay friend who was redeemed from the transgender and lesbian lifestyle many years ago certainly had an interesting conversation. My dad who is a little more mainstream Canadian than us just sat quietly and listened as we covered our favourite topics about Jesus and the destructive aspects of the homosexual agenda. It is possible as my Dad sat there and listened to us that he just figured me and my choice of friends is nuts.

I spent my final day in Canada putting out the last of my flyers “Imagine Defunding the CBC” around the east end of Vancouver. I was not particularly surprised that most of the responses were negative, however Vancouver’s recipients of my truthful message have been far less vitriolic than the recipients in Kamloops a few days earlier.

After my final truth assault my Dad and I went to Gerhard’s church for a Lenten supper and service. From there my Dad drove me to the airport. Now, I am in the Philippines with my wife.

I have pretty much given the last quarter century of my life to fighting for a Judeo Christian vision for Canada, especially in the areas of life, sexuality and family. I also fought very hard for free speech and religious freedom for social conservative Christians.

While the path I chose was somewhat controversial , devastating to my secular career prospects in Canada, and indeed a path that rendered me a pariah in the eyes of many, I am quite happy with some of what I accomplished. On the abortion front I am very happy there are a number of children alive as a direct result of my graphic abortion sign and sidewalk counseling ministries.

….My efforts in defending Canada against the homosexual onslaught has been less successful in my view, perhaps more costly on a personal level, though these efforts have not been completely in vain.

My fights with the various university campuses that have tried to have me arrested and banned for preaching against homosexuality and abortion have been very successful. I won multiple court cases against the University of Regina and University of Calgary and made my presence known on many other campuses across the country, challenging attempts at censorship on the University of Alberta, University of Saskatchewan, Carlton University and University of British Columbia campuses. As far as I can tell, the courts have affirmed the right to preach, protest and hand out literature on politically incorrect topics such as abortion and homosexuality on university campuses, even if the university administrations are hostile to the message.

On a nationwide level I have certainly had an impact on the course of free speech in Canada, though I can’t really trumpet my contribution as the success I wanted it to be. In October 2011 I appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada on charges that I was guilty of “hate speech” for distributing four pamphlets criticizing the promotion of sodomy in our public schools and for criticizing an ad advertising “man seeking boys… for friendship, exchanging video and pics and more….age, race, nationality not so relevant.”

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal imposed a $17,500 fine and lifetime speech ban on me for distributing flyers criticizing the homosexual agenda and the potential pedophile ad. I broke the ruling right away with a new flyer entitled “Sodomites and the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission” and appealed to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench for relief.

My lawyer Tom Schuck and I were hoping to have the hate speech provisions of the human rights tribunals ruled unconstitutional. The Court of Queen’s Bench ruled against us, and the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled in our favour. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and a record number of intervenors, 22 in total, applied to make submissions before the Court. One of the intervenors, my favourite one, Association for Reformed Political Action was rejected.

My lawyer Tom was quite confident we were going to win but in the end the loss was appalling. The ruling from Canada’s Supreme Court was 6-0 in favour of upholding Canada’s hate speech code, and also my conviction for so-called hate speech on two of the four counts. What was most distressing to me was the logic used to uphold my conviction for so-called hate speech. Justice Rothstein wrote for the unanimous court that defendants in hate speech cases could not use intent or truth as a defense. While accurate medical and social statistics on homosexuality were not enough to get me the defendant acquitted, Rothstein and the court decided they didn’t even need truth on their side to render a guilty verdict. Rothstein wrote a “reasonable person” should be able to conclude my speech would prevent sodomites from expressing themselves, prevent them from participating in society, and my speech if not censored would ultimately lead to discrimination and even genocide. Rothstein also falsely asserted that I called all homosexuals pedophiles.

Of course in Rothstein’s world I would not be a reasonable person, but from my vantage point it seemed in the more than 10 years that I delivered my flyers, sodomites did nothing else but express themselves, whether it was marching naked on parade routes, demonizing and destroying the careers and businesses of Christians who disagreed with them, advocating for a lower age of consent, successfully advocating for same sex marriage, or through mostly unchallenged homosexual propaganda in our children’s classrooms and on our televisions.

From 2002 to 2013, I put out more than 500,000 flyers and as far as I could tell I failed spectacularly in preventing sodomites from expressing themselves. As for Rothstein’s worries about my flyers leading to genocide? Aside from the fact I never called for genocide in any of my flyers, the reality is most of secular Canada never heeded my warnings on homosexuality. The reactions to my flyers were (with a few exceptions were I found supporters) mostly indifference or hostility towards me. In my view Rothstein’s fantasies of anti-gay pogroms and genocides starting as a result of my flyers were delusional and it appalls me this reasoning formed the basis of Canada’s law on what Canadians are allowed and not allowed to say.

The Supreme Court attached my flyers to the bottom of their judgment. You can read my flyers (and the entire ruling if you wish) to see that I never called all homosexuals pedophiles, you can see I never called for the genocide of anyone, and you can see for yourself Rothstein’s reasoning that my (and your) speech could be silenced even if there is no evidence of harm, simply because he and his cronies believe they are “reasonable” and they can discern (even without evidence) my speech might lead to harm: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c … 6/index.do

My lawyer Tom pointed out the errors of fact to the Supreme Court (that I called homosexuals pedophiles) after they released their judgment. However, while truth is no defense for defendants like me in hate speech cases, making statements that are demonstrably untrue is no hindrance for Supreme Court judges.

In my view rulings like this one should be grounds for removal from the bench.

In any event, given the Whatcott ruling was based on blatant falsehoods and politically correct fantasies, I did what a “reasonable” Canadian should do. For two years I ignored the ruling, refused to pay the malicious penalties imposed on me and continued to put out truthful flyers on homosexuality just as I did before the ruling.

The Supreme Court made me liable for all the costs incurred by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission even though I had a partial victory. This was a departure from the judicial norm in partial victories where both parties are generally liable for their own costs. A lawyer writing for the National Post commented that the imposition of costs on me was malicious and said had I not appealed the human rights ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada would not have had the opportunity to review the “man seeking boys ads” flyer and find me innocent of so-called hate speech for my flyer exposing those ads.

Having two years of hindsight, I don’t think I would have done anything different in picking my fight with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. I do believe the truth was on my side and way back in 2001 I was correctly concerned the church was losing its ability to express its moral teachings on the homosexual lifestyle in the public square. My flyers were deliberately provocative and in some cases graphic and disturbing. This approach while not overly pastoral was a legitimate approach in my view to challenge increasing censorship and apathy that I perceived was gripping my beloved Canada.

My flyers did succeed in starting debate. Over the years I have even been blessed with developing a few relationships with homosexual activists and their allies. While the flyers were not pastoral and were not intended to be pastoral, I was able to have a number of pastoral conversations with lost souls over the years as a result of my flyers and was even blessed to play a role in leading a few folks to the risen Christ. None of the above was in vain. However, I have to concede defeat in my primary objectives of securing a robust level of free speech for my social conservative brethren and in activating large numbers of Christians to take a public stand against the homosexual agenda.

Anyways, I did the best I could with what I had. As a legacy I have a book published, “Born in a Graveyard” though I am not making any money off it in Canada, it might take off in Poland thanks to the efforts of my friend Pastor Art Pawlowski. The book is a good history of my life and activism, and in my view is a good educational resource on the effects of the culture of death and homosexual activism on true freedom in the west.

It is nice to be in the Philippines with my wife. I really have no idea what I will be doing here. I am heading to a trade school right now to see if I can learn some mechanics. My wife and I are poor as I left Canada with very little. However we have family and God.

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcott

My new contact info is:

Phone: 63-927-769-6769
e-mail: billwhatcott@gmail.com

Address: Block 12, Lot 5
St. Margaret St, Adelina Homes,
Lipa City, Batangas, Philippines
4217

“In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”
1 Peter 3:15

 

 

WHAT DOES JOHN HAGEE REALLY WANT?   By Chuck Baldwin?

Screen Shot 2013-07-01 at 12.15.57 PM

Screen Shot 2013-07-01 at 12.12.30 PM

Screen Shot 2013-07-01 at 12.34.19 PM

John Hagee, and many other evangelical preachers, constantly beat the war drums. Without ceasing, they encourage America’s political leaders to wage non-stop wars of aggression–especially in the Middle East. They constantly trumpet America’s unconstitutional interventions in the Middle East with terms not unlike those used by militant Muslims. Hagee’s pro-war fanaticism is so extreme one must wonder how much he is being paid by the Israeli lobby. My guess is it’s a bunch.

622x350

John Hagee – Selling the Talmudic Zionist Jew war & destruction agenda

to America’s gullible goyim Christians

Much of this Christian war fever is due to a convoluted interpretation of Scripture–especially prophetic Scripture. While I will leave most of this discussion for another day, let me simply say that whatever God plans to do in regard to the reestablishment of the Davidic Kingdom, it has precious little to do with the atheistic, apostate government currently headquartered in Tel Aviv. And Hagee, himself, teaches apostasy when he declares that Jewish people today have a special covenant with God and do not need to come to faith in Jesus Christ in order to be saved, and when he says that Jesus never even claimed to be Christ (Messiah).

Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” (John 14:6 KJV) Now, either Jesus or John Hagee told the truth. I’ll take the word of Jesus. Plus, Mr. Hagee apparently forgot Simon Peter’s confession, which Jesus said was due to a revelation from God the Father, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16 KJV)

So, what is it that Hagee and the rest really want? Perpetual war? Total genocide? A global New World Order with the likes of G.W. Bush or Barack Obama at the helm? What do they really want? Do they really have such an inflated view of themselves that they truly believe that they are going to manipulate what God does or doesn’t do regarding the fulfillment of end time events? Is God their servant? Is God Israel’s servant? Is God America’s servant? Balderdash! God is no man’s (or country’s) servant.

I wonder what these warmonger-preachers think about all the “blowback” from these illegal and immoral wars of aggression that G.W. Bush (and now Barack Obama) has led us into. Not only are these wars provoking people all over the world against us and doing more to recruit volunteers for militant extremists in the Middle East than anything Al Qaeda could do on their own, they are having catastrophic results on missionary work.

Now think this through: these warmongering evangelicals beat the war drums; they encourage the young men from their churches to go off and fight these “holy” wars; they work tirelessly to elect pro-war politicians; and they twist Old Testament Scripture to fit these modern crusades. Then, the politicians whom the warmongers helped elect send the US military to invade, bomb, and kill hundreds of thousands of people, the vast majority of whom are innocent people. After which, these same warmonger-preachers get up in their pulpits and cry and weep about how we need to send missionaries to preach the Gospel to the same people they just got done trying to annihilate.

Exactly who is it that the missionaries are supposed to reach? The ones lucky enough to escape death and destruction from US bombers and drone attacks, I guess. And exactly what is the message our missionaries are supposed to deliver? “I’m from America, and I’m here to tell you about the love of God.” Oh, that is going to play really well with the loved ones of those family members we just destroyed.

I’ve had so many missionaries tell me how difficult it is for them to try to minister to people around the world today; and the chief reason is the bully reputation that America has built over the past several decades.

Furthermore, do these warmongering evangelicals really want to deal with the fact that we now have over 23 veterans and active-duty military personnel committing suicide EVERY DAY? That equates to more fighting men dying from self-inflicted wounds than from wounds received in the wars they are asked to fight. This is a first in US history. Is John Hagee interested in why so many of our fighting men are killing themselves?

Just recently, an Iraq War veteran killed himself and left a sad and compelling suicide-letter explaining why he ended his life. The letter was posted with the family’s permission. This young soldier was engaged in over 400 combat missions as a machine-gunner in the turret of a Humvee. He was also involved in the interrogation of countless Iraqis. In the letter, the soldier said, “The simple truth is this: During my first deployment, I was made to participate in things, the enormity of which is hard to describe. War crimes, crimes against humanity. Though I did not participate willingly, and made what I thought was my best effort to stop these events, there are some things that a person simply can not come back from. I take some pride in that, actually, as to move on in life after being part of such a thing would be the mark of a sociopath in my mind. These things go far beyond what most are even aware of.

“To force me to do these things and then participate in the ensuing coverup is more than any government has the right to demand. Then, the same government has turned around and abandoned me. They offer no help, and actively block the pursuit of gaining outside help via their corrupt agents at the DEA. Any blame rests with them.”

The distraught soldier went on to say, “Is it any wonder then that the latest figures show 22 veterans killing themselves each day? That is more veterans than children killed at Sandy Hook, every single day. Where are the huge policy initiatives? Why isn’t the president standing with those families at the state of the union? Perhaps because we were not killed by a single lunatic, but rather by his own system of dehumanization, neglect, and indifference.

“It leaves us to where all we have to look forward to is constant pain, misery, poverty, and dishonor. I assure you that, when the numbers do finally drop, it will merely be because those who were pushed the farthest are all already dead.

“And for what? Bush’s religious lunacy? Cheney’s ever growing fortune and that of his corporate friends? Is this what we destroy lives for?”

See the report and the soldier’s complete suicide-letter: Iraq Vet Kills Himself After Being Ordereed To Commit War Crimes

What was the soldier’s lament? He was forced to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. He was forced by the government to cover up these crimes. His government abandoned him in his hour of need. His pain and guilt was more than he could bear. The soldier’s own words were that his was “Not suicide, but a mercy killing.”

Mr. Hagee and the rest of you warmongering evangelicals out there, is this soldier’s suicide (and the suicides of over 23 active-duty and military veterans every day) what you had in mind when you beat the drums for America’s undeclared, unconstitutional wars of aggression? This young soldier saw the reality of these wars up close and personal–and he didn’t like what he saw. And don’t try to brush this off by saying it’s always been this way. No it hasn’t! We didn’t have suicides like this during World War I or World War II. Whatever the politics back then was or wasn’t, those were lawfully declared wars in which our men knew what they were fighting for. They went in; they fought; they came home.

The war we are fighting in the Middle East is now America’s longest war, and there is no end in sight. Bush and Obama have made perpetual war an official US policy. In addition, this “War on Terror” has transformed the American people from citizens into suspects–every last one of us. Military drones by the tens of thousands are, or soon will be, flying over the skies of America. The American citizenry is being spied on relentlessly. Two super spy centers are currently being built: one in southern Utah and one near San Antonio, Texas.

These super spy centers are designed primarily to spy on the American people. Liberties once protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are now publicly and blatantly abused. And evangelicals such as John Hagee say nary a word of protest. Instead, they continue to support and promote this so-called “War on Terror.” At what cost, Mr. Hagee? At what cost?

Hundreds of thousands of innocents are being killed; animosity against the United States is growing exponentially; in an effort to keep our country at war, our economy is being overburdened and overtaxed to the point of no return; in the name of the “War on Terror,” America is on the verge of becoming a giant police state; we are inciting China and Russia into nuclear war; and America’s military veterans are killing themselves more frequently than are enemy bullets. Is this what you want, Mr. Hagee? Is this really what you want?

Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.

——-

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. Chuck and his family reside in the Flathead Valley of Montana. See Chuck’s complete bio here.

E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Website: ChuckBaldwinLive.com

Jesus was Palestinian and why it matters by Jehanzeb Dar

http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/jesus-was-palestinian-and-why-it-matters/

Screen Shot 2013-06-10 at 8.23.21 AM

By Jehanzeb Dar

Because of modern alarmist reactions to the word “Palestine,” many non-Arabs and non-Muslims take offense when it is argued that Jesus was a Palestinian (peace be upon him).

Jesus’ ethnicity, skin color, and culture often accompany this conversation, but few people are willing to acknowledge the fact he was non-European. A simple stroll down the Christmas aisle will show you the dominant depiction of Jesus: a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, white man.

muslims-islam-muslim-terrorist-jihad-arab-politics-1329310952

Islamophobia and anti-Arab propaganda have conditioned us to view Palestinians as nothing but heartless suicide bombers, “terrorists,” and “enemies of freedom and democracy.” Perpetual media vilification and demonization of Palestinians, in contrast to the glorification of Israel, obstructs us from seeing serious issues such as the Palestinian refugee crisis, the victims of Israel’s atrocious three-week assault on Gaza during the winter of 2008-2009, the tens of thousands of homeless Palestinians, and many other struggles that are constantly addressed by human rights activists around the world.

To speak from the perspective of the Palestinians, especially in casual non-Arab and non-Muslim settings, generates controversy because of the alignment between Palestinians and violent stereotypes. So, how could Jesus belong to a group of people that we’re taught to dehumanize?

When I’ve spoken to people about this, I’ve noticed the following responses: “No, Jesus was a Jew,” or “Jesus is not Muslim.” The mistake isn’t a surprise to me, but it certainly is revealing. Being a Palestinian does not mean one is Muslim or vice versa. Prior to the brutal and unjust dispossession of indigenous Palestinians during the creation of the state of Israel, the word “Palestine” was a geographic term applied to Palestinian Muslims, Palestinian Christians, and Palestinian Jews. Although most Palestinians are Muslim today, there is a significant Palestinian Christian minority who are often overlooked, especially by the mainstream Western media.

That dominant narrative not only distorts and misrepresents the Palestinian struggle as a religious conflict between “Muslims and Jews,” but consequentially pushes the lives of Palestinian Christians into “non-existence.” That is, due to the media’s reluctance to report the experiences and stories of Palestinian Christians, it isn’t a surprise when white Americans are astonished by the fact that Palestinian and Arab Christians do, in fact, exist. One could argue that the very existence of Palestinian Christians is threatening, as it disrupts the sweeping and overly-simplistic “Muslim vs. Jew” Zionist narrative. To learn about many Palestinian Christians opposing Israeli military occupation, as well as Jews who oppose the occupation, is to reveal more voices, perspectives, and complexities to a conflict that has been immensely portrayed as one-sided, anti-Palestinian, and anti-Muslim.

Ch.ofNativity600

                                                 Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem

Yeshua (Jesus’ real Aramaic name) was born in Bethlehem, a Palestinian city in the West Bank and home to one of the largest Palestinian Christian communities. The Church of the Nativity, one of the oldest churches in the world, marks the birthplace of Jesus and is sacred to both Christians and Muslims. While tourists from the around the world visit the site, they are subject to Israeli checkpoints and roadblocks. The Israeli construction of the West Bank barrier also severely restricts travel for local Palestinians. In April of 2010, Israeli authorities barred Palestinian Christians from entering Jerusalem and visiting the Church of Holy Sepulchre during Easter. Yosef Zabaneh, a Palestinian Christian merchant in Ramallah, said: “The Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank doesn’t distinguish between us, but treats all Palestinians with contempt.”

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

                                              Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem

Zabaneh’s comments allude to the persistent dehumanization of Palestinians, as well as the erasure of Palestinians, both Christians and Muslims. By constantly casting Palestinians as the villains, even the term “Palestine” becomes “evil.” There is refusal to recognize, for example, that the word “Palestine” was used as early as the 5th century BCE by the ancient Greek historian Herodotus. John Bimson, author of “The Compact Handbook of Old Testament Life,” acknowledges the objection to the use of “Palestine”:

The term ‘Palestine’ is derived from the Philistines. In the fifth century BC the Greek historian Herodotus seems to have used the term Palaistine Syria (= Philistine Syria) to refer to the whole region between Phoenicia and the Lebanon mountains in the north and Egypt in the south… Today the name “Palestine” has political overtones which many find objectionable, and for that reason some writers deliberately avoid using it. However, the alternatives are either too clumsy to be used repeatedly or else they are inaccurate when applied to certain periods, so “Palestine” remains a useful term…

Deliberately avoiding the use of the name “Palestine” not only misrepresents history, but also reinforces anti-Palestinian racism as acceptable. When one examines the argument against Jesus being a Palestinian, one detects a remarkable amount of hostility aimed at both Palestinians and Muslims. One cannot help but wonder, is there something threatening about identifying Jesus as a Palestinian? Professor Jack D. Forbes writes about Jesus’ multi-cultural and multi-ethnic environment:

When the Romans came to dominate the area, they used the name Palestine. Thus, when Yehoshu’a [Jesus] was born, he was born a Palestinian as were all of the inhabitants of the region, Jews and non-Jews. He was also a Nazarene (being born in Nazareth) and a Galilean (born in the region of Galilee)… At the time of Yehoshu’a’s birth, Palestine was inhabited by Jews-descendants of Hebrews, Canaanites, and many other Semitic peoples-and also by Phoenicians, Syrians, Greeks, and even Arabs.

Despite these facts, there are those who use the color-blind argument: “It does not matter what Jesus’ ethnicity or skin color was. It does not matter what language he spoke. Jesus is for all people, whether you’re black, white, brown, yellow, etc.” While this is a well-intentioned expression of inclusiveness and universalism, it misses the point.

jesus-as-the-good-shepherd-1-GoodSalt-dmtas0055

When we see so many depictions of Jesus as a Euro-American white man, the ethnocentrism and race-bending needs to be called out. In respect to language, for instance, Neil Douglas-Klotz, author of “The Hidden Gospel: Decoding the Spiritual Message of the Aramaic Jesus,” emphasizes the importance of understanding that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not English, and that his words, as well as his worldview, must be understood in light of Middle Eastern language and spirituality. Douglas-Klotz provides an interesting example which reminds me of the rich depth and meaning of Arabic, Urdu, and Farsi words, especially the word for “spirit”:

Whenever a saying of Jesus refers to spirit, we must remember that he would have used an Aramaic or Hebrew word. In both of these languages, the same word stands for spirit, breath, air, and wind. So ‘Holy Spirit’ must also be ‘Holy Breath.’ The duality between spirit and body, which we often take for granted in our Western languages falls away. If Jesus made the famous statement about speaking or sinning against the Holy Spirit (for instance, in Luke 12:10), then somehow the Middle Eastern concept of breath is also involved.

Certainly, no person is superior to another based on culture, language, or skin color, but to ignore the way Jesus’ whiteness has been used to subjugate and discriminate against racial minorities in the West and many other countries is to overlook another important aspect of Jesus’ teachings: Love thy neighbor as thyself. Malcolm X wrote about white supremacists and slave-owners using Christianity to justify their “moral” and “racial superiority” over blacks. In Malcolm’s own words, “The Holy Bible in the White man’s hands and its interpretations of it have been the greatest single ideological weapon for enslaving millions of non-white human beings.” Throughout history, whether it was in Jerusalem, Spain, India, Africa, or in the Americas, white so-called “Christians” cultivated a distorted interpretation of religion that was compatible with their racist, colonialist agenda.

And here we are in the 21st century where Islamophobia (also stemming from racism because the religion of Islam gets racialized) is on the rise; where people calling themselves “Christian” fear to have a black president; where members of the KKK and anti-immigration movements behave as if Jesus were an intolerant white American racist who only spoke English despite being born in the Middle East. It is astonishing how so-called “Christians” like Ann Coulter call Muslims “rag-heads” when in actuality, Jesus himself would fit the profile of a “rag-head,” too. As would Moses, Joseph, Abraham, and the rest of the Prophets (peace be upon them all). As William Rivers Pitt writes:

The ugly truth which never even occurs to most Americans is that Jesus looked a lot more like an Iraqi, like an Afghani, like a Palestinian, like an Arab, than any of the paintings which grace the walls of American churches from sea to shining sea. This was an uncomfortable fact before September 11. After the attack, it became almost a moral imperative to put as much distance between Americans and people from the Middle East as possible. Now, to suggest that Jesus shared a genealogical heritage and physical similarity to the people sitting in dog cages down in Guantanamo is to dance along the edge of treason.

Without acknowledging Jesus as a native Middle Eastern person — a Palestinian — who spoke Aramaic — a Semitic language that is ancestral to Arabic and Hebrew — the West will continue to view Islam as a “foreign religion.” Hate crimes and discriminatory acts against Muslims, Arabs, and others who are perceived to be Muslim will persist. They will still be treated as “cultural outsiders.” Interesting enough, Christianity and Judaism are never considered “foreign religions,” despite having Middle Eastern origins, like Islam. As Douglas-Klotz insists, affirming Jesus as a native Middle Eastern person “enables Christians to understand that the mind and message” of Jesus arises from “the same earth as have the traditions of their Jewish and Muslim sisters and brothers.”

Jesus would not prefer one race or group of people over another. I believe he would condemn today’s demonization and dehumanization of the Palestinian people, as well as the misrepresentations of him that only fuel ignorance and ethnocentrism. As a Muslim, I believe Jesus was a prophet of God, and if I were to have any say about the Christmas spirit, it would be based on Jesus’ character: humility, compassion, and Love. A love in which all people, regardless of ethnicity, race, culture, religion, gender, and sexual orientation are respected and appreciated.

And in that spirit, I wish you a merry Christmas. Alaha Natarak (Aramaic: God be with you).
—–
The author blogs at Muslim Reverie. He recently wrote a chapter in “Teaching Against Islamophobia” on the demonization of Muslims and Arabs in mainstream American comics.

Paul Fromm on the Demise of Free Speech in Canada by Prof. Kevin MacDonald

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/04/paul-fromm-on-the-demise-of-free-speech-in-canada/
Paul Fromm on the Demise of Free Speech in Canada

Paul Fromm CAFE copy

By Kevin MacDonald
April 13, 2013

Paul Fromm, a pro-White activist who writes for his CAFE (Canadian Association for Free Expression) website, has an article on a recent ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court that once again indicates the power of the cultural left at the highest reaches of Western societies “The Whatcott Decision – A Grim Day for Christians and Freedom of Speech“). The case involves a $15000 fine (plus court costs likely to be north of $150,000) imposed on an evangelical Christian who distributed leaflets containing criticism of homosexuality based on Biblical teachings.

WhatcottImage1

Some excerpts and comments:

The decision is pure cultural Marxism. It reflects the triumph of *Frankfurt School* social science which has captured most Western universities. While economic communism collapsed and was defeated, cultural communism was spread by the *Frankfurt School*. Basically, it sees the world divided up into two classes: oppressors – those would be White Christians, and especially sexually healthy White males – and the oppressed – those would be women, homosexuals, Jews, and certain other racial minorities. To overthrow the “oppressors” and to establish universal equality – not of opportunity but results – the *Frankfurt School* targeted loyalty to family, country and religion. There began a concerted campaign of “deconstruction” whereby political heroes, cultural heroes – the dismissal of traditional English literature as the writing of dead, White males – and traditional Christianity were mocked and attacked. These ideas have captured the upper echelons of Canada’s judiciary and bode poorly for freedom of speech.

The Whatcott decision holds that in human rights cases:

· Truth is no defence;?

· Intent is no defence;?

· No harm needs to be proven to have been caused to a “vulnerable” minority;

· A minority is designated as “vulnerable” not because of any evidence – the court admits concrete evidence is often lacking, but on the mere say-so of a human rights commission or court;

· Christians are not protected from hatred as they are not a “vulnerable minority.”

The Court depicts Mr. Whatcott as having the power to intimidate homosexuals. The reality is far different:

Well, where’s the evidence that in the decade since Mr. Whatcott handed out his flyers critical of homosexuals, that “dialogue” was shut down and homosexuals were unable to respond? For nearly 20 years, the powerful homosexual lobby has been pushing for same sex marriage – a revolutionary anti-family retreat from tradition. In 2001, Parliament overwhelmingly voted to endorse the traditional definition of marriage – one man and one woman. The lobby continued its pressure, apparently not intimidated or silenced by the lonely Mr. Whatcott’s leafleting. A cowardly Jean Chretien referred the “question” as to whether the traditional definition of marriage, accepted by almost all but the fringiest elements of Christianity, and by Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, was “discriminatory” to the judicial revolutionaries on the Supreme Court. They collapsed and gave the homosexual lobby what it wanted. Canada has same-sex marriage.

Despite being a Catholic, Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty of Ontario forced even Catholic schools to promote the homosexual agenda in the schools and have Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs, even though the practice of homosexuality violates Catholic teaching. (So much for religious freedom!) The homosexual agenda has triumphed in almost every battle. It successfully pressured to have “sexual orientation” added to the privileged groups protected by Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada’s notorious “hate law.” In fact, there’s no evidence  that Mr. Whatcott’s pathetic little leafleting operation ever intimidated any homosexual from promoting his cause. The only one excluded from the debate is Mr. Whatcott! Mr. Whatcott and strong critics of the homosexual agenda are all but excluded from the mainstream media. Pro-homosexual commentators bray their views from the CBC and the Globe and Mail is virtually a mouthpiece for the homosexual lobby. The only voices marginalized are critics of the homosexual agenda.

Fromm targets the Frankfurt School, a Jewish intellectual movement discussed in Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique:

Despite calling themselves a “School of Social research,” the Frankfurt School feared any objective research that might challenge their ideology. Like the Supreme Court, they defined the world ideologically, and facts would not be allowed to get in the way:

The Frankfurt School never set out to find out the truth about human behavior and institutions. Instead, its members viewed empirically oriented social science as an aspect of domination and oppression. Horkheimer wrote in 1937 that “if science as a whole follows the lead of empiricism and the intellect renounces its insistent and confident probing of the tangled brush of observations in order to unearth more about the world than even our well-meaning daily press, it will be participating passively in the maintenance of  universal injustice.” Rather than find out how society works, the social scientist must be a critic of culture and adopt an attitude of resistance toward contemporary societies.

The unscientific nature of the enterprise can also be seen in its handling of dissent within the ranks of the Institute—a trend that is a common feature of Jewish intellectual and political movements Erich Fromm was excised from the movement in the 1930s because his leftist humanism opposed the authoritarian nature of the psychoanalyst-patient relationship. This was not compatible with the pro-Bolshevik stance championed at the time by the Horkheimer-Adorno line: Fromm “takes the easy way out with the concept of authority,without which, after all, neither Lenin’s avant-garde nor dictatorship can be conceived of. I would strongly advise him to read Lenin…I must tell you that I see a real threat in this article to the line which the journal takes. (See Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique.)

One of the most shocking revolutionary conclusions of the Court is that truth should not be a defence, at least in human rights cases: “The lack of defences is not fatal to the constitutionality of the provision. Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction. …

Fromm emphasizes the Jewish role in this decision:

Finally, and this is a delicate topic in oppressive, minority-ruled Canada, let’s look at the makeup of the six judge panel who heard this crucial case about the rights of Christians. Three, yes three, or fully one half of the panel were Jews. Under the regime of employment equity, a Canadian version of anti-White “affirmative action”, invented by, guess who? Madame Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, who was on the panel, “systemic discrimination” is evidenced by an over-representation or under-representation of a group. It must be remembered that Jews, at about 310,000, constitute less than one per cent of Canada’s population, but made up half of panel in Whatcott! Did their personal views interfere? Ironically, had Justice Abella applied her own “employment equity” she’d have removed herself from the panel in Whatcott as her minority was already heftily over-represented.

abellaFlag_zpsbf55ffb4

The author of this freedom trashing opinion was Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein of Manitoba. His biography on the Supreme Court website notes: “He served as an adjudicator under the Manitoba Human Rights Act from 1978 to 1983 and as a member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal from 1986 to 1992.” In other words, he was, for more than a decade, part of the whole repressive “human rights” industry he was now being invited to critique. In his case, there was more than a “reasonable apprehension of bias.” Perhaps, no surprise he found state censorship and strong criticism of privileged minorities perfectly justified in a “free” [do words mean nothing!] and “democratic society.”

RothsteinHater
At least two Liberal senators, Robina Jaffer and Jim Munson (a former journalist happily at ease with state censorship), in speaking against Bill C-304, which would repeal Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act quoted Justice Abella and her emphasis on“vulnerable minorities”: to wit: “In a 2009 speech entitled Human Rights and History’s Judgment, Justice Rosalie Abella said: We were supposed to have learned three indelible lessons from the concentration camps of Europe. First, indifference is injustice’s incubator. Second, it’s not just what you stand for, it’s is what you stand up for. And third, we must never forget how the world looks to those who are vulnerable.’” Justice Abella was also part of the human rights industry having served on the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Her biography on the Supreme Court website notes: “She married Canadian historian Irving M. Abella on December 8, 1968.” Irving Abella is a past president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, a pro-censorship intervener in Whatcott. The CJC has been a long-time and strident supporter of anti-free speech “hate laws”. Again, one might wonder why Justice Abella did not recuse herself from this case is there is more than a “reasonable apprehension of bias.”

It is certainly true that the organized Jewish community has been a strong  voice supporting laws curtailing free speech, not just in Canada, but throughout the Western world (see “The Hate Crimes Prevention Bill: Why Do Jewish Organizations Support It?“). Irving Abella’s book was cited in my chapter on the Jewish role in promoting immigration. Although the chapter emphasizes the Jewish role in altering U.S. immigration policy in favor of non-Whites, the Jewish community played a similar role throughout the West, including Canada:

In the case of Canada, Abella (A Coat of Many Colors: Two Centuries of Jewish Life in Canada; 1990, 234–235) notes the important contribution of Jews in bringing about a multicultural Canada and, in particular, in lobbying for more liberal immigration policies. Reflecting this attitude, Arthur Roebuck, attorney general of Ontario, was greeted “with thunderous applause” at a 1935 convention for the Zionist Organization of Canada [dedicated to a  Jewish ethnostate] when he stated that he looked “forward to the time when our economic conditions will be less severe than they are today and when we may open wide the gates, throw down the restrictions and make of Canada a Mecca for all the oppressed peoples of the world” (in M. Brown 1987, 256).

Abella also co-authored a book, None Is Too Many that was critical of Canada for not admitting Jewish refugees in the World War II era. The title comes from a statement of a senior Canadian immigration official that summed up Canadian policy.

Thus we have Jewish activists involved in academic research on Jewish issues. And perhaps more importantly, Jewish activists are involved in court decisions that reflect consensus views within the Jewish community on issues related to free speech, multiculturalism, and immigration. The hostile elite in action.

—–