On Feb 6, 11:32 am, Loruhamah <
hurricane...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 8:06 pm, Daniel <
dano2...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 6:35 pm, Loruhamah <
hurricane...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > That is from Herbert W Armstrongs Church
>
> You are right. I ran across that in a series of lectures about hell
> during my reasearch on the subject. This link is to a broadcast by (a
> very young) John Ankerberg, and the subject concerns the everlasting
> torment of hell. His guest is Walter Martin (
http://www.waltermartin.com/radio.html), who takes the approach that there is
> no Hebrew or Greek word that translates for "annihillate". This idea
> is also in line with the first law of thermodynamics which states that
> energy can change from one form to another, but it cannot be
> destroyed.
>
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT4AqFaUDnY&feature=related
>
> John Ankerberg is currently running a series of shows about the
> Mormons. His guests include Sandra Tanner, the great-great
> granddaughter of Brigham Young, second prophet of the Mormon Church,
> who left the Mormon faith and became a follower of Christ. Talk about
> a warped cult religion there! All cults have one thing in common.
> They enslave their followers by enforcing burdens of servitude, and
> they never know for certain that they will go to heaven, even if they
> completely submerse themselves into its doctrines. I can't see why a
> JW would even follow a religion where "first prize" has already be
> awarded. Like Muslims, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses were founded
> by someone who supposedly met an angel who told them that Christianity
> was false, and was given insight to a "more-better" religion. The
> following scripture sums it up.
>
> (Galatians 1:8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any
> other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let
> him be accursed.
rpbc:
Personally I find all this 'stuff' a diversion from real events one
might consider among the dots that make up the matrix displaying the
picture of the world to come in the not too distant future. Here's
one that is in a sense very mainstream according to it's relevance but
is given no connective attention. Read it carefully and consider the
players involved... especially ones like Hillary, half the women and
many of the men in this country would have her as alternative to
Obama... and I'm not talking politics... I'm speaking of, as I was
describing the process Scott used, of hypnosis. Friends, Romans,
Countrymen.... we've been hypnotized.... how else this..... and more,
for where there was a stream of activity there is now a current. Any
of you have children... grandchildren... what kind of change do you
see for them in the land of their birth against this treachery,
sedition. If Jesus doesn't come, if these are not the end times...
expect for them war, real war, for this time within the short history
of America the enemy is stratified thoughtout within the gates.
Islam... and so called left ideology, secular religionists, calling
themselves progressives announcing enough is enough.... and those half
informed in the middle feeling comfortable with parts of each... are
enabling, abetting this horror that is sure to follow.
------------------------------------------
Brooke Goldstein Speaking at the Philadelphia Chapter of the Freedom
Center, Thursday, Feb. 2
Posted By Frontpagemag.com On February 1, 2012
Editor’s note: Brooke Goldstein is coming to speak at the Philadelphia
Chapter of the Freedom Center tomorrow, Thursday, Feb. 2. To mark this
occasion, Frontpage is rerunning below Jacob Laksin’s interview with
Ms. Goldstein that ran in our Jan 26th issue.
*
FrontPage Interview’s guest today is Brooke Goldstein, a New York City-
based human rights attorney, author and award-winning filmmaker. She
serves as director of The Lawfare Project, a nonprofit organization
dedicated to raising awareness about and facilitating a response to
the abuse of Western legal systems and human rights law. Her award-
winning documentary film, The Making of a Martyr, uncovers the
illegal, state-sponsored indoctrination and recruitment of Palestinian
children for suicide-homicide attacks. To view the trailer, click
here. Goldstein is the co-author, with Aaron Eitan Meyer, of the
recently published Lawfare: The War Against Free Speech: A First
Amendment Guide for Reporting in an Age of Islamist Lawfare.
FP: You run an organization that focuses on it and you’ve recently
written a book about it, but for the benefit of the uninitiated
reader, what is “lawfare” and what is it designed to accomplish?
BG: Lawfare is the use of the law as a weapon of war. More
specifically, it is the manipulation of international human-rights
law, the laws of armed conflict and legal terminology leading to their
misapplication. Lawfare has basically three strategic goals. First, to
frustrate and hinder the ability of democracies to fight terrorism.
Second, to undermine the rights of sovereign nations, including the
rights to defend their citizens against imminent threats and exert
sovereign control over their territory. And third, to punish and
silence free speech about real national-security threats such as
militant Islam, Islamist terrorism and terror financing.
FP: How does lawfare help to stifle free speech about the threats we
face? And how did you become engaged in this subject?
BG: I’m a Canadian by birth but I moved to this country because I
wanted to practice law and have a tremendous respect for the American
Constitution. In the United States people enjoy more rights then ever
recognized by a governing authority in the history of civilization.
Yet there are many Americans who do not know what their rights are
under the First Amendment and who don’t understand the implications of
its guarantor of free speech. For instance, I get calls and emails
from people who don’t know that blasphemy is not a crime in this
country, or that free speech encompasses the right to speak and write
truthfully about religion. I’ve gotten into discussions with bloggers
who thought that hate speech was a crime in this country, which it’s
not. American citizens have a right to speak freely and critically
about their government and about religion. That principle is the
cornerstone of liberal democracy and what the founding fathers based
the First Amendment on.
You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand these rights and people
who did not receive a legal education still want to be active
citizens. They want to write a blog or an article about, say, their
local Muslim Brotherhood-connected chapter or about the Council of
American Islamic Relations (CAIR) or about the National Iranian
American Council (NIAC). But they’re afraid they’re going to be
targeted with a lawsuit strategically designed to silence their
speech. And lawsuits, as we know, are expensive.
I co-wrote Lawfare to encourage journalists, bloggers, members of the
media and American citizens at large to exercise their rights and
speak freely about the most important issues of our time. The goal of
the book is to arm American citizens should they fall victim to such
“libel lawfare.” To counter the “chilling effect” on free speech about
militant Islam. The book serves as a very accessible primer on the
First Amendment and as an overview of U.S. libel law versus foreign
libel law. It provides case examples of the brave men and women who
have been targeted with malicious lawsuits for publishing works
exposing the financiers of terrorism and even for parodying religion
(like the Danish cartoons of Mohammad.) There is no place in a free
society for such stifling of public dialogue, especially when the
speech is related to national security issues. I was not prepared to
stand by while groups like the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation
(OIC) lobby the U.N. and the U.S. for the resurgence of blasphemy
laws. I recommend the book to anyone who may be remotely in lawfare’s
harms way or who wants to maintain our precious standards of freedom.
FP: Let’s say I am an independent writer who wants to publish
something about Islamic radicalism. What I should I do to protect
myself from these lawsuits?
BG: Number one, get yourself media liability insurance. Everyone who
publishes should have media liability insurance, regardless of the
fact that what you may write about is true. The whole point of lawfare
is to file a frivolous lawsuit, so that even if you win, in the end
you still lose time and money spent defending your rights. Media
insurance can cost you around $1,500 a year, depending on your risk-
liability, but it’s super-important and an expense well-spent. Number
two, always have a second pair of eyes, preferably an attorney, read
over your article with the goal of spotting any potentially libelous
statements. And always cache websites. Often people put up information
that can be used against them on the web and when they realize that
they take it down. If you rely on internet articles you need to cache
the articles in case those pages are taken down. If you have any
concerns, you should call us at The Lawfare Project. We operate as a
non-profit and one of our activities is to hook people up with legal
counsel if they need it. We also perform libel review, though we
always recommend that people get an attorney to represent them, as we
are not a law firm, nor do we take on clients. And finally, you should
read our book. It provides really simple examples of people who have
been sued in the past, how they won, and what you need to do to
protect your rights.
FP: What is the state of free speech in this country as it concerns
discussion of Islam and Islamism?
BG: I think this country affords the greatest free speech protections
that have ever been afforded in organized civilization. But there have
been a couple developments that are very troubling and that point to
the stifling of healthy dialogue and debate. The first thing is the
chilling effect created by the libel lawfare suits. We have witnessed
situations where Yale University Press publishes a book called
Cartoons That Shook the World about the Mohammed cartoons, and yet
doesn’t publish the cartoons at issue. I think it’s a problem when
Comedy Central allows the creators of South Park to defame every
religion except for Islam. It’s a problem when you have Random House
refusing to publish a fiction novel – The Jewell of Medina by author
Sherry Jones – because it is afraid that publishing any fiction about
Mohammed’s child bride Aisha will be denounced as “Islamophobic.”
The other major challenge to free speech comes from the Obama
administration. The administration has co-sponsored UN Resolution
16/18, which follows a series of resolutions spearheaded by the OIC,
the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, aiming to outlaw the
blasphemy of religion in international law. The OIC is 57-member
voting block at the UN that has hijacked the General Assembly and the
Human Rights Council. That resolution is now being implemented by
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They are wiping out all references
to Islam and Islamic terrorism in counterterrorism training manuals.
They’ve created a blacklist of seasoned FBI officials, some of whom
have been there for over ten years, who are no longer allowed to brief
on Islamist terrorism the very men and women tasked with protecting us
from Islamist terrorism. The Department of Defense’s report on the
Fort Hood shootings omitted the word Islam and made no mention of the
killer, Nidal Malik Hasan’s, well documented jihadist sympathies such
as his speech on suicide bombing and an essay arguing for the painful
punishment and liquidation of non-Muslims. So now we are not just
stifling public debate but we’re stifling the ability of people in our
national security apparatuses to protect us. It’s a serious problem.
That said, I’m much more worried about the status of free speech in
Europe and in Canada. In the Netherlands they put Geert Wilders, a
democratically elected official, on trial for hate speech against
Muslims because he spoke to his constituents about the threat of
Islamist terrorism. Just recently, an Austrian citizen, Elisabeth
Sabaditsch-Wolff, was fined for the crime of blasphemy against Islam,
in Austria! The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) has gone after
the author Mark Steyn and the television personality Ezra Levant for
writing a book on Muslim demographics and republishing cartoons of
Mohammad, respectively. Even though neither of the CHRC’s quasi-legal
proceedings have been successful, they send a message that there are
legal loopholes that can be taken advantage of by people who don’t
want us to talk about Islam. And if we can’t talk about and understand
Islamist terrorism, how can we defeat it?
FP: While the proponents of lawfare don’t want to talk about Islam and
Islamic terrorism, they do want to talk about Israel. For instance,
American college campuses now routinely host so-called BDS conferences
that target “boycotts, divestment and sanctions” against Israel and
that seek to demonize Israel as an “apartheid” state. You yourself
will be speaking out in opposition to these movements at the David
Horowitz Freedom Center in Philadelphia. What will you be talking
about?
BG: First I want to express my thanks to the David Horowitz Center for
inviting me and for giving people a platform to speak the truth on
campuses. I’ll be talking about the true gender and sexual apartheid
that is happening in the Islamist world and about the massive human
rights violations occurring against innocent Muslim women and children
that are being ignored by the hypocritical BDS movement and by the
human rights, political and legal community.
FP: What do you think these movements are trying to accomplish?
BG: What they’re trying to accomplish is to take legal terms like
apartheid, genocide, terrorism – each of which have very specific
meanings and applications (which can be looked up in a dictionary)–
and misinterpret and misapply them to sow confusion in the general
public. In that way, they want to make it harder for us to distinguish
between the real human-rights violators and those who, like Israel,
are working to protect the human rights of their citizens. They want
to blur the distinction between terrorists that target and hide behind
civilians, and those that fight to protect civilians. They want to
reinvent the laws of armed conflict so as to deny democracies the
rights to defend themselves and exert sovereign control over their
territory. In short, they want to compliment terrorism and asymetric
warfare with flawed, politicized and quasi-legal arguments under the
guise of “human rights” rhetoric.
If they were really interested in human rights, they would highlight
the real perpetrators of injustice in the Middle East. They would work
to expose the real obstacle to peace: the illegal, state-sponsored
indoctrination and recruitment of innocent Muslim children to hate and
violence.
The only way for there to be peace in the Middle East, and peace in
the world, is if the Islamists stop teaching their children to aspire
to violent jihad while killing themselves. No peace agreements or
handshakes or territory swaps or boycotts or books by former
presidents on Apartheid are going to bring tranquility when millions
of Muslim children are being taught through their schools, textbooks,
by their radio, television and print media, by their religious clerics
and political leaders to commit violent homicide-suicide in the name
of religion. By turning a blind eye to these crimes, the BDS and anti-
Israel “Apartheid” movements send the green light to terrorists that
they can continue killing Muslim children with impunity, because they
don’t care. That, they say, is not their focus. They are too
preoccupied with their own rewriting of human rights law and the laws
of armed conflict, and how they can apply it to Israel to give legal
patina to their claims.
FP: Many of these groups claim that schools should host their anti-
Israel conferences and “Israel apartheid” events in the interest of
academic freedom. What do you make of that argument?
BG: It doesn’t make any sense. That’s like saying, “Lets call the sky
purple in the interest of academic freedom.” Just because you say
academic freedom doesn’t mean you should say something that is
illogical and irrational. It puts a stain on academia when our
professors are propagating notions that make no sense. As I said
earlier, you can look up the term apartheid in the dictionary and its
simple and clear that no apartheid is going on in Israel.
Palestinians, Christians and Arabs enjoy equal rights, equal
protection, they serve in the government, one could go on and on.
Black Student organizations in this country recently ran a powerful ad
in campus newspapers demanding that these groups stop referring to
Israel as an apartheid state because it denigrates the actual history
of apartheid in South Africa. Even President Jimmy Carter, who
published a book referring to Israel as an “apartheid” state, has
recanted that accusation.
FP: What do you think of the self-styled pro-Palestinian groups who
stage these conferences?
BG: They call themselves pro-Palestinian but they’re really anti-
Palestinian groups. That’s because they’re not focusing on who the
real human-rights violators are against the Palestinian people.
They’re diverting attention away from the fact that the Palestinian
Authority airs cartoons and music videos that teach children to kill
themselves as suicide-homicide bombers. They’re diverting attention
from the fact that UNWRA, the United Nations Relief and Work Agency,
is aiding and abetting the murder of Palestinian children by teaching
from hate-filled textbooks and by hiring off the Hamas payroll.
They’re diverting attention away from the fact that Hamas is engaged
in the systematic murder of anyone they deem un-Islamic, that it
violates women’s and children’s rights, and that it targets civilians,
including Palestinians, for assassinations and executions. If you
describe your movement as pro-Palestinian yet you use it to
purposefully divert attention away from these obvious human-rights
abuses, and refuse to address them in context, then you are exposing
your movement for what it is, anti-human rights, and anti-Palestinian.
FP: You’ve noted that these assaults on Israel, whether they come from
Palestinian campus groups or from international organizations like the
UN or from terrorist groups like Hamas, have important implications
for American security as well. How so?
BG: Any attack on the legitimacy of Israel’s right to self defense,
whether it be violent or non-violent, has shared implications for all
other democracies. For example, when the International Court of
Justice declares Israel’s border fence a “crime against humanity”
while pointedly ignoring the fact that the fence contributed to a
sharp decline in the loss of human lives, and refusing to hear
testimony from the victims of terror, what kind of precedent is that
going to set for the United States when it wants to build a border
fence with Mexico? If Israeli officials are being charged with war
crimes for fighting terrorists – the same terrorists our soldiers are
fighting against in Iraq and Afghanistan and who use the same tactics
– what are the legal implications for coalition forces? People are
going after Israel because it’s the easy target. Its the legal testing
ground for lawfare actions aimed at rewriting the laws of armed
conflict to benefit terrorists. They are setting precedents in
national and international law so that they can be used against
American and against coalition forces. It would be a shame to dismiss
something like the Goldstone Report, which is a highly politicized and
flawed legal document that attempts to take away the right of a nation
to defend itself against its citizens, as only a threat to Israel.
Those same legal principles can be used against any other nation
fighting terrorism. That’s the point of lawfare and that’s how legal
precedents work.
FP: How can those who share your goals and your opposition to lawfare
get involved with your work?
BG: We have a wonderful internship and student fellowship program. It
gives students an opportunity to get out of the rubric of a law
school’s ruminations on what human-rights law is and should be, and to
work on real-life case examples. We’re currently accepting
applications for our summer internship program. We also have an
academic fellowship program and a professional fellowship program, in
which you can engage in research, writing and advocacy related to
human rights law and counter-lawfare. Those interested can contact me
at
Bro...@thelawfareproject.org.