On 22 Nov. 2013 I made a prediction about The Telegraph 's treatment of "the worst case of modern slavery [that the human trafficking detectives] … had ever come across in Britain." I predicted that both the Telegraph's and Scotland Yard's treatment:

  • suicidally protected Islam from bad publicity as being the guiding ideology in this unprecedented case of slavery in Britain
  • turned a blind eye to future victims of Islamic slavery
  • was that of a bunch of sissies unwilling to defend Britain's women
  • was more loyal to Islam than to human rights and the victims of slavery
  • betrayed their own consciences and what the American Founders called "nature and nature's God" (all non-attributed quotes herein are from The Declaration of Independence)

At the time, and even at present, the religion of the alleged perpetrated has not yet been divulged. Neither The Telegraph nor the police named the suspect slave masters. I attributed sinister motives to both The Telegraph and the police.

I am eager to learn if my inferential work will be vindicated.

The Telegraph states that " modern day slavery that it is 'out of sight.'" Perhaps it is only "out of sight" for "multicultural" or leftist newspapers.

The Telegraph states that " modern day slavery that it is 'out of sight.'" Perhaps it is only "out of sight" for "multicultural" or leftist newspapers.

More important than my ego (which is of no importance), I am interested in using The Telegraph's conscience to highlight the "self-evidence" of natural law and the foundation of unalienable rights. With my original article—and this one too—I would like to expose The Telegraph's betrayal of conscience to make a broad statement about the treasonous nature of the political left.

More importantly still, I wish to create a teachable moment. Because it is unconscionable to respect an evil ideology which consumes a benighted nation's polity, good politics cannot faithfully rest on mutual respect [1]. Instead, as America's founders asserted, good politics should rest on a nation's common possession of natural law.

mosque_tdt

So for any nation, mutual possession of natural law is the basis for good domestic and foreign policy. It is this notion of natural law which produced the American crown jewel concept of "unalienable rights." Natural law is also described as self-evident in the New Testament:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (Romans 1:18-23)

So I contend that the fools at The Telegraph and Scotland Yard know that by protecting Islam, they are doing the Devil's work.

As public demand forces the hand of both corrupt institutions, the truth will come out. After my article was published, The Telegraph
noted "The two people arrested are understood to be of Asian origin." Being of "Asian origin" is an oft-used code speak for "Muslims" by nationally suicidal Western leftists.

2slavesThe Telegraph also noted, a remark from Detective Inspector Kevin Hyland:

"I am not prepared to disclose the nationalities of the two people arrested but they have been in this country for many years…."

One notes that at issue is not so much the nationality of the perpetrators, but the ideology of the perpetrators. More specifically, the religion.

Inspector Hyland's nationality remark strikes me a more subterfuge protecting Islam from moral evaluation.

The last two paragraphs of another
Telegraph article reads:

Earlier this year the Forced Marriage Unit (FMU) – a joint operation by the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office – revealed it helped in 1,485 cases of possible forced marriage in 2012, involving 60 countries across Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa and North America.

The statistics for last year show that of the 744 cases where the age was known, more than 600 involved people under the age of 26.

In keeping with their previous obfuscation, The Telegraph points to nationalities. It is as if The Telegraph wants to diffuse the blame from Islam into various nations.

How refreshing it would have been to instead provide their readership with a germane statistic. Instead of the last paragraph, wouldn't it have been informative to learn of the 744 cases of forced marriage how many of them were undergirded by the culture and doctrine of Islam?

Is it too much to ask that a newspaper be relevant and that a police force protect the innocent and apprehend and stigmatize the bad guys? Is the "multiculturalism" that produced this perversion worse than mob rule?

Stay tuned to FreedomOutpost.com to watch this bold prediction get tested by reality.

[1] One can see that Barry Soetorro, aka Barack Hussein Obama or Harrison J. Bonnell, often uses the term "mutual respect" in the context of relations with Islam. I speculate that Barry has probably only rarely used such language with Republicans and I venture to say "never" with the Tea Party or Patriot groups.

Pieder Beeli has a Ph.D. in Physics and is the founder of the Facebook group, "No 501(c)3 status for Islam." His inspiration from Andrew Hodges' forensic masterpiece, The Obama Confession, produced this article.

This is Part 2 in a series. Read Part 1 here. Read Part 3 here.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.