Advertisements
Home

Let’s talk Profiling

Leave a comment

I found this over at QUICKWIT’S blog.
I shamelessly stole it.

We need to start profiling like our life depends on it because it does.

I want to show you the three people that are number 1,2,3 supporting terrorist and support bringing hundreds of thousands if not millions of terrorist from the the Middle East.

Burn these images in to your mind and try to help others if possible see the people that want the perversion of  our freedom to be done to us by Sharia Law.

Here are the number 1,2,3 supporters and enablers of Muslim Terrorism. 

Number one the enablers.  The  Pedophile  Mohammed

Number one the enablers.
The Pedophile Mohammed

obama_Muslim-Garb

Bathhouse Barry Obama

The Bitch of Benghazi Hillary Clinton

The Bitch of Benghazi Hillary Clinton

 

A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality.

Absolutely No Profiling!
Pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test.

These events are actual events from history.. They really happened!
Do you remember?

HERE’S THE TEST

1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:
a.. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by :
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 44. During the 1980’s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:

a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c.. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davey Jones
c. The Little Mermaid

d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens , and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill’s women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by thepassengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr Bean d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
No, I really don’t see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intenton killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people.

They must conduct random searches of 80-year-oldwomen, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President’s security detail, 85-year old Congressmenwith metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling.

Let’s send this to as many people as we can

Foot note: Fort Hood Texas ……another Muslim 39 years old killed 13 people and wounded 30 some odd others…

Does this fit the profile!

NOW OUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF IS TELLING EVERYONE THAT THE YOUNG MUSLIM THAT ATTEMPTED TO BLOWUP A NORTHWEST/DELTA JET AS IT APPROACHED DETROIT ON CHRISTMAS DAY WAS (QUOTE) “AN ISOLATED INCIDENT”.

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE SHITTING ME OR WHAT!!!

MY FATHER USE TO SAY: “PLEASE DON’T PISS ON MY LEG AND TELLME IT’S RAINING.”

Advertisements

House advances bill forbidding Sharia law as defense in state court

2 Comments

This is from The Post Courier.

Bravo South Carolina.

 

COLUMBIA — Lawyers and defendants in South Carolina would not be able to cite Sharia law or other international defenses in court cases if a Charleston lawmaker’s proposal is enacted.

The bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Chip Limehouse, is one step closer to becoming law after the House on Thursday approved it on a second reading. The proposal prevents an attorney from arguing that the laws of a client’s home country allow for certain actions. It passed 68-42.

Sharia law is the legal framework where the public and some private aspects of life are regulated under legal systems based on Islam.

Limehouse said the law is needed “so an attorney can’t go into state court and say that the defendant that beat up his daughter for going on a date with a non-Muslim was within his rights according to (Sharia law).”

While Limehouse said there are no known cases of attorneys in South Carolina trying to use international laws as a defense, it has happened in other parts of the country.

The lack of cases in South Carolina was a main argument against the bill raised by Rep. James Smith, D-Columbia, who said it did more harm than good.

“You can identify no concern, no entity that this applies to,” he said. “This is to get people fearful so they vote for you.”

Smith said taking up bills like Limehouse’s helps him understand why constituents are frustrated with lawmakers.

“The first debate of this chamber in 2016 is about Sharia law,” he said. “It’s not going to pay for roads, it’s not going to educate a child, it’s not going to create a job. We’re not doing what it is our responsibility to do.”

Limehouse said the law was necessary to keep residents safe.

“Sharia law is completely inconsistent with our culture,” he said. “This bill clarifies that it will not be recognized in our courts.”

The bill will be up for a third reading next week before being sent to the Senate.

Obama Administration Modifies U.S. Oath of Allegiance to Accommodate Muslims

1 Comment

This is from the American Thinker.

I say if you cannot or will not defend America, then we do not want you here.

The Obama administration recently made changes to the Oath of Allegiance to the United States in a manner very conducive to Sharia, or Islamic law.

On July 21, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced some “modifications” to the Oath of Allegiance that immigrants must take before becoming naturalized.

The original oath required incoming citizens to declare that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law.

Now the USCIS says, “A candidate [to U.S. citizenship] may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection.”

The new changes further add that new candidates “May be eligible for [additional?] modifications based on religious training and belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.”

These changes serve incoming Islamic supremacists especially well.  For, while Islamic law allows Muslims to feign loyalty to non-Muslim “infidel” authorities, it bans Muslims from living up to the pretense by actually fighting or killing fellow Muslims on behalf of a non-Muslim entity, such as the United States.

The perfectly fitting story of Nidal Hassan — the U.S. army major and “observant Muslim who prayed daily” but then turned murderer — comes to mind and is illustrative.

A pious Muslim, Hasan seemed a “regular American,” even if he was leading a double life — American Army major and psychiatrist by day, financial supporter of jihadi groups and associate of terrorists by night.  However, when time came for this American soldier to “bear arms on behalf of the United States” — to quote the original Oath of Allegiance — against fellow Muslims, things got ugly: he went on a shooting spree in Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans, including one pregnant woman in 2009.

Much of Hasan’s behavior is grounded in the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity.  According to this essential teaching, Muslims must always be loyal to Islam and fellow Muslims while having enmity for all non-Islamic things and persons.

However, whenever Muslims find themselves under the authority of non-Islamic institutions and persons, they are permitted to feign loyalty — even to the point of cursing Islam and pretending to have abandoned it — with one caveat: Muslims must never take up arms on behalf of “infidels” against fellow Muslims.  In other words, their loyalty to non-Muslims must be skin deep.

Many are the verses in the Koran that support this divisive doctrine (3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 9:23, and 58:22; the last simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims — “even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin”).

Most germane is Koran 3:28:

Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers: and whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah — unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.

The words translated here as “guard” and “precaution” are derived from the Arabic word taqu, from the trilateral root w-q-y — the same root that gives us the word taqiyya, the Islamic doctrine that permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims whenever under their authority. 

Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), author of one of the most authoritative commentaries on the Koran, explains taqiyya in the context of verse 3:28 as follows: “Whoever at any time or place fears … evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show.”  As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who said, “Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.”[1]

Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of another standard commentary on the Koran, interprets verse 3:28 as follows:

If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers — except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.[2]

And therein lies the limit of taqiyya: when the deceit, the charade begins to endanger the lives of fellow Muslims — who, as we have seen, deserve first loyalty — it is forbidden. As al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri puts it in his treatise on Loyalty and Enmity, Muslims may pretend to be friendly and loyal to non-Muslims, so long as they do “not undertake any initiative to support them [non-Muslims], commit sin, or enable [them] through any deed or killing or fighting against Muslims” (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 75).

Thus the idea that Nidal Hasan might be deployed to a Muslim country (Iraq or Afghanistan) was his “worst nightmare.”   When he realized that he was about to be deployed, he became “very upset and angry.”  The thought that he might injure or kill Muslims “weighed heavily on him.” He also counseled a fellow Muslim not to join the U.S. Army, since “Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims.”

Hassan is not the only Muslim to expose his disloyalty when pushed into fighting fellow Muslims on behalf of the United States.

In 2010, Naser Abdo, another Muslim soldier who joined the U.S. Army, demanded to be discharged on the claim that he was a “conscientious objector whose devotion to Islam has suffered since he took an oath to defend the United States against all enemies.”  The Army agreed, but while processing him, officials found child pornography on his government-issued computer and recommended that he be court-martialed.  Abdo went AWOL and later tried to carry out a terrorist attack on a restaurant with the use of weapons of mass destruction.

And in April 2005, another Muslim serving in the U.S. Army, Hasan Akbar, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait: “He launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq.”

In short, the first loyalty of any “American Muslim” who follows the Koran is to fellow Muslims, regardless of their nationality — and not to American “infidels,” even if they be their longtime neighbors whom they daily smiled to (see here for examples).  Hence why American Muslim Tarik Shah, who was arrested for terrorist-related charges, once boasted: “I could be joking and smiling [with non-Muslims] and then cutting their throats in the next second” — reminiscent of the aforementioned quote by Muhammad’s companion.

Now, in direct compliance with Islamic law, the Obama administration has made it so that no Muslim living in America need ever worry about having to defend her — including against fellow Muslims or jihadis.

____

[1] ‘Imad ad-Din Isma’il Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Karim (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiya, 2001), vol. 1, p. 350, author’s translation.

[2] Abu Ja’far Muhammad at-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan ‘an ta’wil ayi’l-Qur’an al-Ma’ruf: Tafsir at-Tabari (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-Arabi, 2001), vol. 3, p. 267, author’s translation.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/_obama_administration_modifies_us_oath_of_allegiance_to_accommodate_muslims.html#ixzz3i5WlubZX
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

SOUTH CAROLINA Democrats Oppose Legislation That Would Ban Islamic Sharia Law from State Courts

2 Comments

This is from Freedom OutPost.

The DemocRats have a problem with enemy recognition and Sharia Law is the enemy of freedom and free people.

 

The Republican-sponsored anti-sharia legislation which would ensure that Islamic and other foreign laws are kept out of consideration by South Carolina courts is being stonewalled by Democrat panderers who seek to appease Muslim supremacists pushing hard to get sharia law recognized by American courts.

Post and Courier: A vote on the anti-Sharia law bill was postponed until Tuesday at the earliest after an hours-long debate over Charleston Republican Rep. Chip Limehouse’s proposal. Limehouse has said a law is needed to prevent radical Islamic beliefs from infiltrating state courts.

Democrats said the bill showed why the GOP was unfit to govern and why South Carolina is the butt of late-night television jokes. They accused Republicans of legislating off of Internet rumors.

Rep. James Smith, D-Columbia, called the bill “red meat” and “politics at its worst,” while Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg, chastised Limehouse and others for having the wrong priorities.

Defenders of the measure said that events in Iraq and the growth of radical Islam in America mean that South Carolina should ensure that laws adhered to by militant groups like ISIS don’t end up in U.S. courts.

Sharia law is also sometimes used in Muslim communities to settle contract disputes or family matters, although American courts are not bound by those rules. The terrorist group ISIS has used the 14th century laws to justify the beheading of prisoners in Syria and Iraq.

Limehouse has cited the Center for Security Policy, a conservative Washington, D.C.-based think tank, that has prompted states around the country to introduce laws banning the use of foreign or Sharia laws.

The center has cited 146 cases in 32 states where Sharia law was used as a legal argument. Those states are Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Washington, Alabama and Florida, according to the center.

A fear of Islamic law has grown particularly among conservative groups around the country as terrorist groups have carried out attacks and spread their message on social media.

Rep. Joe Neal, D-Hopkins, said Republicans were fear-mongering. “Laws in this state ought to be based on our Constitution not on fear, not on suspicion,” he said. “We’re better than this because we don’t need to give in to fear … and the kind of low-brow politics this seems to represent.”
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/05/south-carolina-democrats-oppose-legislation-that-would-ban-islamic-sharia-law-from-state-courts/#UtcMiHHjwbfotPLY.99

7 States Which Are Banning Sharia Law: Is Yours? The List…

3 Comments

This is from Joe For America.

If you want Sharia Law take your sorry goat humping ass to some Muslim third world shit hole.

I am glad to see my home state of Indiana is on the banning list.

So far seven states have banned Sharia law.

 

image: http://therightcurmudgeon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/screenshot-www.google.com-2015-04-26-09-25-18.jpeg

 

In the US, our laws are supposed to be based on the principles set forth in the United States Constitution.

Last we looked the Koran was not a part of the Constitution.

The states where “foreign law” is banned include Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee.

 Oklahoma, passed an amendment to their state constitution that was struck down by a federal judge because it specifically referred to “Sharia law.”  Missouri’s legislature passed a ban on international law that was vetoed by Democratic Governor Jay Nixon.

Bans are being considered in a number of states including Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

You may be saying, “Wait a minute. The First Amendment is supposed to keep church and state separate.”

Apparently that only applies to Christianity

Everywhere Muslims immigrate they begin to demand the imposition of sharia law. There have been numerous criminal trials in the US where a father has murdered his daughter and justified it using Sharia law.

 

image: https://givemeliberty01.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/c345d-6a00d8341c60bf53ef0120a6a1ce2c970c-500wi.jpg

An Iraqi immigrant was found guilty of second degree murder today for running over his daughter, a crime motivated, prosecutors said, by the Arizona Muslim man’s belief that the 20-year-old woman had become “too Westernized.”[…]

According to prosecutors, Almaleki and his daughter fought over her adoption of Western ways, including her decision to attend college, her rejection of an arranged marriage and her chosing [sic] a boyfriend her parents did not approve of.

The usual suspects are claiming that banning Sharia law is, well, racist.

In a disturbing trend, anti-Muslim bigotry has recently crept into state legislatures around the country. Several states have passed or attempted to pass laws designed to prevent courts from applying Islamic or “Sharia” law, as well as “foreign” or “international law.” Some, such as a constitutional amendment passed in Oklahoma, mention Sharia specifically,  in addition to international law.  Others only mention foreign or international law. Whatever the specific terminology, all of these attempts raise serious red flags.

Efforts to single out Muslims and to advance the ugly idea that anything Islamic is un-American are unjust and discriminatory and should be rejected.

That little gem is from our friends at the American Civil Liberties Union. Virtually every group on the political left is experiencing hysteria over the idea that Sharia law should not be used in US courts.

We have seen Supreme Court Justices refer to international law in their decisions. We wouldn’t be surprised to see imposition of Sharia law creeping into US courts. We think it’s pretty obvious that as long as Muslims have their Public Relations man sitting in the Oval Office, Sharia law will be given free reign, so it is important for the states to block imposition of “international law” at the state level.

 

Has your state taken a stand in favor of Constitutional law? Is your state considering banning “international law”? If not, why not.
Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2015/04/seven-states-banning-sharia-law-list/

FEMALE MAYOR OF IRVING: Tells Islam & Their Sharia Law To Kiss Texas’ Ass (So to speak)

2 Comments

This is from Clash Daily.

If Muslims want Sharia Law then they can put their goat humping asses on their camels and go back to any third world shit hole that has Sharia Law then stay there.

IRVING (CBSDFW.COM) – Dozens of Muslims in Irving are upset after the city council passed a resolution in support of a new state house bill some Muslims believe targets their faith.

Council members voted Thursday night on a resolution that support Texas HB 562, which forbids the use of foreign law and codifies the supremacy of U.S. and state law.

“I think it’s the most disgraceful day in the city of Irving,” said Omar Suleiman, an Irving resident who is Muslim. “The elephant in the room is that it’s the anti-Shariah bill.”

Some Muslims in Irving believe the resolution is in reaction to a new Islamic Tribunal that is operating in the city.

Judges had previously told community members their work is non-binding and they only deal with civil disputes like marriage. They also said U.S. and state laws supersede any decisions they make.

“This bill does not mention at all Muslims, Shariah Law, Islam, even religion,” said Mayor Beth Van Duyne.

Mayor Beth Van Duyne said it is important to recognize the constitution and unite behind U.S. and Texas laws.

“Respect them, obey them, embrace them,” said the mayor.
Many Muslims said all they can do is take use their feelings the next time they vote.

 

ISLAMIC TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED IN TEXAS; ATTORNEY CLAIMS ‘IT’S VOLUNTARY’

1 Comment

This is from Breitbart Texas.

Submitting to the laws set down during a halluitaion by a pedophile is not what the men died for at The Alamo.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Texas?

 

An Islamic Tribunal using Sharia law in Texas has been confirmed by Breitbart Texas. The tribunal is operating as a non-profit organization in Dallas. One of the attorneys for the tribunal said participation and acceptance of the tribunal’s decisions are “voluntary.”

Breitbart Texas spoke with one of the “judges,” Dr. Taher El-badawi. He said the tribunal operates under Sharia law as a form of “non-binding dispute resolution.” El-badawi said their organization is “a tribunal, not arbitration.” A tribunal is defined by Meriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “a court or forum of justice.” The four Islamic attorneys call themselves “judges” not “arbitrators.”

El-badawi said the tribunal follows Sharia law to resolve civil disputes in family and business matters. He said they also resolve workplace disputes.

In matters of divorce, El-badawi said that “while participation in the tribunal is voluntary, a married couple cannot be considered divorced by the Islamic community unless it is granted by the tribunal.” He compared their divorce, known as “Talaq,” as something similar to the Catholic practice of annulment in that the church does not recognize civil divorce proceedings as ending a marriage.

He also said there is a difference between how a man and a woman can request a divorce under their system. “The husband can request the divorce directly from the tribunal,” El-badawi stated. “The wife must go to an Imam who will request the divorce for her.” He called it “two paths to the same result.” The practice of Khula is the process where a wife can initiate a divorce proceeding and where the husband can agree to the divorce in exchange for a financial compensation. It appears the wife must agree to give up any claim to the “dower” that was not already paid or to return it if it has already been paid. Once the financial issues are resolved the husband can then proclaim the Talaq (divorce).

El-badawi said they follow Texas family law when it comes to child support, visitation, and custody. He said that in most cases, custody of children is awarded to the mother.

Breitbart Texas asked what happens when there is a conflict between Sharia law and Texas law. El-badawi said most of the time, the laws are in agreement. When pushed further he admitted that, “we follow Sharia law.” However, he explained, “If the parties are not satisfied with the tribunal’s decision, they do not have to accept it and they can take the matter to Texas civil courts.” He did not say what the social ramifications of rejecting the “judge’s” decision would be.

The website for the Islamic Tribunal states, “The courts of the United States of America are costly and consist of ineffective lawyers.  Discontent with the legal system leads many Muslims in America to postpone justice in this world and opt for an audience on the Day of Judgment.”

It goes on to state, “It is with this issue that Muslims here in America are obligated to find a way to solve conflicts and disputes according to the principles of Islamic Law and its legal heritage of fairness and justice in a manner that is reasonable and cost effective.”

In explaining Sharia law, the website states, “Stoning adulterers, cutting of the hands, polyandry and the like (all can be traced in the relevant literature and can be explained in their Islamic legal mentality and rational context in fairness and justice), are mainly a part of Islamic Criminal Law.  In fact criminal law within Islam only makes up a fraction of the Shari’ah.  It is unscholarly and unfair to generalize that type of understanding, that is Criminal Law, to compromise the whole of Islamic law if we stick to speaking in technical terms.”

The website lists four “judges:” Imam Yusuf Z.Kavakci, Imam Moujahed Bakhach, Imam Zia ul Haque Sheikh and Dr. El-badawi. It states the Islamic Tribunal resolves business disputes, divorce (Talaq) cases, community problems, serious family problems, and Khula.

El-badawi restated several times that participation in the tribunal is voluntary. However, he would not discuss what happens to someone who did not follow their rulings.

FRANKLIN GRAHAM TO ISLAMIC IDIOTS: “Go Back To Where You Came From”

2 Comments

This is from Clash Daily.

If you want to live under Sharia Law go back to the third world sewer you crawled out of and live there again.

 

 

Yes, and ClashDaily.com would like to second that motion with a ‘rot-in-hell’ invective you ‘goathumpin’ bastards. ‘

“We should be afraid of Sharia Law in America, and Muslims here who want to practice Sharia should go back to where they came from, to those nations that recognize Sharia law; we have our own laws here.”

Islamic Barbarism Reaches New Peaks: Crucifying & Beheading While Alive!

Leave a comment

This is from Joe For America.

Be Advised this post contains extremely graphic pictures.

Islam is a cancer on the backside of the free world that needs to be removed to save the free world.

 

THERE are certain times when warning labels are required before proceeding to read this and that. Live beheading is one of those times.

BUT it is not as if the readers aren’t aware of the barbarism taking place under Islam’s banner, yet still…..

Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

{re-blogged at Islam Exposed}

IT is exceedingly difficult to shock this investigative journalist with reports on Islamic barbarism, try as some might. Sicken, yes. But shock, not so much.

SO it is important to note the following: each and every heinous act perpetrated within Shariah law controlled areas does not have a fixed time or address. In other words, for time immemorial, whatever happens in Islamic lands outside the west, sooner or later, will come to a theater near you, if Shariah becomes the law of the land. Don’t believe otherwise.

NOW it doesn’t matter that the aforementioned impaling was done to a fellow Islamic jihadist. For the issue is very stark: whichever forms of slaughter they inflict upon each other, rest assured, the ante will be upped in western captured areas.

BUT just to remind westerners what they have done in the name of Allah, let’s have a brief rundown:

Rundown One:

FOR years on end, Islamists have been slowly purging the Mid East of its Christian population. Nevertheless, their brazen swathe has reached a crescendo, ever since Barack HUSSEIN Obama upended the region to an unprecedented level of chaos.

Rundown Two:

AND what else can go wrong when “Pure Islam” mandates to all non-Muslims:convert or die!

EVEN as many Muslims in the Mid East look on in shock at the carnage unleashed via“Pure Islam” – caught in the crossfire themselves – the fact of the matter is many more stay silent and a preponderance of others actually agree with said barbarism. What’s going on?

IN reality, there is no stopping the carnage unless Islam is stopped. Plain and simple. And while it sounds like an impossible task, it may very well extinguish itself, if only in generations to come. Nonetheless, millions more will be sacrificed on its bloody altar, as in the past. Where is this assessment coming from, especially since this blogger is not one who dabbles in fantastical thinking, believing that this scourge on earth may finally die out, though hardly within our lifetime?

BEFORE the above is addressed, the reader must internalize the underpinnings of Islam to also understand its bloody basis; its roots. It is not enough to just look on, in horror, and throw up ones hands. Towards this end, a groundbreaking policy paper was written and this blogger was asked to participate in its review. It was showcased only 2 weeks after the inception of this site, July 13, 2012. “Islam & Blood” has been featured here on several occasions, and another repeat performance is efficacious.

While the above is intrinsic to the conversation and to the reader’s knowledge base, the following link is GROUNDBREAKING .Yes, the caps are there for a reason. They are placed for much needed emphasis. In brief, it is a recent policy paper by Professor Eidelberg; a paper which this American-Israeli had the privilege to review and add her thoughts to; duly honored and humbled to have been asked to participate in his myth shattering scholarship.

Make NO mistake – its contents are earth shaking; unbelievably thought provoking; cogently analyzed; and in particular, its historical analysis and theological basis are spot on. Having read – and participated in – many policy papers this praise is not offered lightly. Therefore, sit down… put your feet up… have a drink (not the inebriating kind)…. enjoy some sweets (you may need it to lighten the mood)… and start reading – http://adinakutnicki.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/islam_and_blood.pdf . Sharing its contents may well be your most important contribution to our common struggle….

IS there any room for equivocation or misunderstanding in their intent? If so, please refer to their latest atrocities…..

LiveLeak-dot-com-0eb_1416011476-manbeheadedspy_1416011602

LiveLeak-dot-com-0eb_1416011476-manbeheaded_1416011590

LiveLeak-dot-com-b2c_1415992397-sshot-7_1415992591.png.resized.jpgNOW that you have lost your last meal….sorry for that, but it is certainly not reassuring to realize that the most recognized Cathedral in America has essentially bowed down to Islam, regardless of their inter-faith jibber jabber.

 

BESIDES, it matters not a whit that so-called progressive Christians (and Jews) believe in fairy tale and kumbaya outcomes. But what does matter is that their dangerous delusions yield poisonous fruits via inter-faith dialogue and others are reaping unimaginable blow back. Basically, their one-sided conversation is akin to one party speaking to the other, but those on the receiving end already made up their mind, yet feign to nod in agreement, up until they complete their inroads. In reality, the only thing which matters is how Islamists view said submissive dialogue. That’s where it is at.

MOST significantly, how many know that the inaugural date of the defilement of the National Cathedral occurred on a most significant war-call date in the Caliphate’s history: 100 YEARS AGO: Last Caliph Publicly Calls for War Against Infidels!

 

H E L L O….

IN concert, the fact that ISIS are definitely already inside America, yet DHS refuses to do their due diligence, well, that is about the biggest gift Shariah law jihadists could receive. Therefore, rationally speaking, if you were in their stead, wouldn’t you believe that triumph is nearer, rather than farther away?

TO wit, westerners should expect more of the same AND worse!
Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/11/islamic-barbarism-reaches-new-peaks-crucifying-beheading-alive/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ELIBIARY: AMERICA IS AN ISLAMIC COUNTRY

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Peace.

Mohamed Elibiary is  very mistaken America is not an Islamic country.

I promise you Conservatives will never embrace Islam or Sharia Law.

 

 

Last fall, a top Obama Homeland Security adviser generated controversy when he wrote that the U.S. Constitution was“Islamically compliant.”

Mohamed Elibiary returned to the topic in a Saturday morning Twitter post: “… I said America was an Islamic country not a Muslim country. Pls study up on the difference b4 attacking me.” The post appears to have been deleted from Elibiary’s Twitter feed.

Elibiary declined to explain what he meant when the Investigative Project wrote to him asking for clarification. The tweets are puzzling considering that there were 2.6 million Muslims in the United States as of the 2010 census – roughly less than .2 percent of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.

A source close to Elibiary told the IPT, however, that the Homeland Security adviser meant to say that he feels there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution and the American system that runs contrary to Islam.

Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, rejected the theory.

“His entire attempt to repeatedly say that ‘American is Islamic’ is pure deception in the context of an Islamist ideologue like him who has not only never critiqued Islamism but rather continuously advocates for it,” Jasser said. “In fact it is not. American Islamists like Elibiary have consistently rejected debate with other anti-Islamist Muslims about the threat of Islamism and the way to separate Islam from Islamism.

“Why? If they lose that debate, his entire raison d’être inside the U.S. government ceases to exist.”

Elibiary also compared criticism of Islamism, or political Islam, withsegregation era standards,” and invoked the memory of the “separate & unequal doctrine” that marked that era.

Elibiary’s defense of Islamism ignores how Islamist luminaries such as Sayyid Qutb – whom he previously praised – advocated forcing non-Muslims to enjoy an inferior legal status under the “protection” of the Islamic state.

Wherever Islamists have exercised power through violent or non-violent means, religious minorities such as Christians and Jews have found themselves facing violence or discrimination. This has certainly been the case in Egypt, Iraq and Syria.

A week earlier, Elibiary tweeted that the restoration of the long-defunct Muslim Caliphate was “inevitable.”

Elibiary also predicted that conservatives would evolve on the foreign policy front to accept a “Muslim majority world.”

“Islamism is incompatible with liberty and is a supremacist doctrine for which he deceptively argues is Islam the faith,” Jasser said. “In all of his work, you will not find any critique of Islamism, the Islamic state, or government imposed shariah in his opinions or any admission of the deep reforms necessary for American ideals to be compatible with Islam.”

This article originally appeared at The Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: