Islamophobia | WarSclerotic | Page 10

Archive for the ‘Islamophobia’ category

Canadian Red Cross Outsources Guide for Refugees to CAIR

September 28, 2016

Canadian Red Cross Outsources Guide for Refugees to CAIR, Clarion Project, John Goddard, September 28, 2016

canada-red-cross-booklet-hp

Photo: images from the teacher’s guide

The Canadian Red Cross has funded a teachers’ guide depicting Canadian society as practicing a “terrorist ideology of hate” against Muslims.

The guide, written ostensibly to coach teachers on how to help Syrian refugee children adapt, suggests that “hate,” “discrimination” and “Islamophobia” amount to a terrorist ideology, and that non-Muslim Canadians are its perpetrators. The solution is Islam, the guide says.

“The core values and central tenants of Islam are immutable,” it says, “and are the best counter-narrative to the terrorist ideology of hate.”

The Red Cross is expressing vague misgivings about the publication.

“The original intention… was to provide educators with a resource to help children deal with cultural transition and possible trauma due to war and significant cultural change,” the charity’s spokesperson said in an interview. “In our view, the majority of the publication achieves its intended purpose, but there are specific areas that we don’t feel fit with its original intention.”

To produce the booklet, the Red Cross gave $3,000 from its “Syrian refugee resettlement fund” to the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), formerly CAIR-Canada. The group changed its name three years ago after its parent organization, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), was repeatedly shown to have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

Canada has accepted 31,000 Syrian refugees in the past year, but the guide shows less concern for refugee children than for “Canadian Muslim youth.” The word “refugees” does not even appear in the title, “A Guide for Educators: Helping Students Deal with Trauma Related to Geopolitical Violence & Islamophobia.”

The 16-page booklet portrays Muslim youth as under attack not from Islamic State terrorists or President Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian forces, but from non-Muslim Canadians.

“To constantly feel under attack, to have to defend one’s faith, and to be continuously called upon to condemn the actions of criminals and terrorists is emotionally traumatic,” the booklet says.

The word “trauma” appears often, mostly referring to Muslim life in Canada. “Trauma can be related to historical events such as the history of colonization,” the guide says. And: “Being marginalized and categorized as ‘the other’… can be traumatic.”

The guide includes specific tips for teachers. One is to examine oneself for anti-Muslim bias — “recognize your own judgments and biases.” Another is to let Muslims proselytize in schools — “provide space for Muslim students to speak to their peers about their faith.”

In italics, the tip sheet says: “Care should be taken by teachers on the language and tone they take when discussing world events and the Islamic faith.”

TV commentator Ezra Levant put the last point in plainer language. “This is an instruction to anybody working in the school system to shut-up about Islam — it is a favored religion,” he said last week on his online news channel, The Rebel.

The self-described conservative channel sent the Red Cross more than $25,000 this summer to help with forest-fire relief in Fort McMurray, Alberta, but will never donate to the Red Cross again, Levant told viewers of The Ezra Levant Show.

“I think the Red Cross should withdraw its support [for the booklet] and apologize to Canadians,” he said.

Two years ago, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police abruptly cut its collaboration with the NCCM on a “United Against Terrorism” guide. The police force “could not support the adversarial tone” of the booklet, they said.

The Red Cross said its specific objections to the teachers’ booklet include three reprinted op-ed pieces. One is by the head of the Winnipeg-based Islamic Social Services Association, a partner on the booklet, comparing the circumstances of Canadian Muslims to that of Japanese-Canadians interned during World War Two.

“We are in discussions with the organization that produced the publication,” the Red Cross spokesperson said. “I’m not sure what the end result will be.”

Another collaborator on the guidebook was the Canadian Human Rights Commission, an ostensibly neutral federal government body, which “translated the booklet into French to reach a broader audience,” a spokesperson said.

Two years ago, the NCCM sued then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his press secretary for libel when the press secretary referred to NCCM as “an organization with documented ties to a terrorist organization such as Hamas.” The case is still before the courts.

Categories: CAIR, Canada, Islam - submission, Islamic indoctrination of children, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamist organizations, Islamists in Canada, Islamophobia
Tags: CAIR, Canada, Islam - submission, Islamic indoctrination of children, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamist organizations, Islamists in Canada, Islamophobia

Comments: Be the first to comment

EMISCO and the Ongoing Push Against “Islamophobia” by the OSCE

September 27, 2016

EMISCO and the Ongoing Push Against “Islamophobia” by the OSCE, Gates of Vienna, Baron Bodissey, September 26, 2016

(EMISCO is the European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion. OSCE is the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe. — DM)

Because EMISCO and the Turkish complement were force[d] to acknowledge that the term “Islamophobia” lacks a definition, this question was presented again in this forum. The other question concerned the definition of “new form of racism not based on skin color” and “manifestations of racism” as well. The panel did not answer the question on racism. Quraishy answered that Islamophobia was not about reasonable disagreements. In his closing remarks, however, Bülent Şenay became visibly agitated, went off his prepared notes (he said) and forcefully declared that our asking the question was both Islamophobic and ridiculous because “we all know what it means” and hence “I won’t define it.” He went on to insist, however, that “we must define Islamophobia as a crime.” Of course, defining Islamophobia is an issue because criminalizing an activity that lacks a definition is a serious civil rights and verges on the criminalization of thought.

********************************

The following report was written by the Counterjihad Collective after several members attended an EMISCO side event today at the OSCE/HDIM conference in Warsaw.

emisco-isis

This morning’s side event “The Consequences of Islamophobic Discourse in the European Political Parties” was hosted by EMISCO and chaired by Bashy Quraishy, the General Secretary of EMISCO (European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion). the panel was top-heavy with speakers giving country reports on Islamophobia in Europe. The presentations seemed forced and overloaded in the sense that little time was able to be allotted for questions.

bulentsenay

The forum was structured so that the closing statements, given by Bülent Şenay, were delivered after the question-and-answer period to ensure a final word. The panel seemed defensive, with panel members making strident statements about various political parties, labeling them as “racist” and “Islamophobic”. Building on narratives emphasized in 2014, their efforts were aimed at escalating the Islamophobia rhetoric in the guise of racism and gender, with all of the women appearing in head coverings, amid a constant reference to the wearing of headscarves. Also of note was a peculiar omission: the materials associated with side event did not provide the names of the briefers.

Because EMISCO and the Turkish complement were force to acknowledge that the term “Islamophobia” lacks a definition, this question was presented again in this forum. The other question concerned the definition of “new form of racism not based on skin color” and “manifestations of racism” as well. The panel did not answer the question on racism. Quraishy answered that Islamophobia was not about reasonable disagreements. In his closing remarks, however, Bülent Şenay became visibly agitated, went off his prepared notes (he said) and forcefully declared that our asking the question was both Islamophobic and ridiculous because “we all know what it means” and hence “I won’t define it.” He went on to insist, however, that “we must define Islamophobia as a crime.” Of course, defining Islamophobia is an issue because criminalizing an activity that lacks a definition is a serious civil rights and verges on the criminalization of thought.

Professor Bülent Şenay speaks under color of some authority, which makes his observations something more than just the comments of a professor. The professor sits on the OSCE Human Rights Advisory Council, is a founding member of the Governing Board of EMISCO, and was the Diplomatic Counsel¬or for Religious and Cultural Affairs at the Turkish Embassy in The Hague from 2008 to 2012. In September 2013, Professor Şenay oversaw the drafting of a declaration that defined Islamophobia as “a groundless fear and intolerance of Islam and Muslims” that is “detrimental to international peace” such that there “should be recogni¬tion of Islamophobia as a hate crime and Islamophobic attitudes as human rights violations.” The declaration was written for the “International Conference on Islamophobia: Law & Media” in Istanbul, which was co-sponsored by Turkey’s Directorate General of Press and Information and the OIC. At the conference, Turkish President Erdoğan stated that “Islamophobia” is a “kind of racism” that is “a crime against humanity.” In 2014, Şenay felt comfortable chiding the Western audience by saying, “if I were to present a particular favor, this would be the title, ‘A New Cultural ISIS — International Strong Ignorance Syndrome’” as he presented his briefing with the title, “Is¬lamophobia in the 21st Century: International Strong Ignorance Syndrome in Europe (ISIS).” In doing so, Şenay was suggesting that the extremism was in the reactions of the West, not in the acts of ISIS.

Categories: Europe, Hate crimes, Islamic invasion, Islamisation, Islamist terror attacks, Islamophobia
Tags: Europe, Hate crimes, Islamic invasion, Islamisation, Islamist terror attacks, Islamophobia

Comments: Be the first to comment

After meat cleaver jihad attack and jihad bomb, New York launches ad campaign against “Islamophobia”

September 27, 2016

After meat cleaver jihad attack and jihad bomb, New York launches ad campaign against “Islamophobia”, Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, September 27, 2016

A Muslim slashed a New York cop with a meat cleaver on September 15. Another Muslim planted bombs in New York and New Jersey; one went off, wounding 29 people in Chelsea on September 17. In response, the city of New York is launching a campaign against jihad terror, calling on Muslims to institute honest, transparent, and inspectable programs inside New York mosques, teaching Muslims why they must reject jihad violence and any attempt, violent or stealthy, to bring Sharia to the U.S. They’re starting a “Stop Jihad” ad campaign on buses and subway cars.

I’m kidding, of course. None of that is happening. In reality, New York City is starting a campaign against “Islamophobia.” Because as far as New York authorities (and many others) are concerned, whenever Muslims attack non-Muslims, the real victims are…Muslims. The one thing we must remember after every jihad attack is that Muslims are victims who deserve special accommodation.

Imagine if FDR after Pearl Harbor had launched a campaign: “I am Japanese. I am USA.” He would have been accused of defeatism at best, and treason at worst. Muslims attacked New York City twice in September because they consider themselves to be jihadis at war with the United States. The proper response would be to fight that war, not to focus on the putative victimhood of other people who share the belief system and ideology of the enemy combatants.

iammuslim_banner

“New York launches ad campaign to fight anti-Muslim rhetoric, violence,” by Ellen Wulfhorst, Reuters, September 26, 2016:

NEW YORK (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – New York City kicked off a social media advertising campaign on Monday to combat negative perceptions of Muslims and counteract increasing instances of threats and violence, officials said.

Showing an array of photographs of Muslim men and women, the campaign reads “I am Muslim. I am NYC”, according to the New York City Commission on Human Rights.

The campaign is aimed at addressing negative depictions and rhetoric, officials said.

Anti-Muslim sentiment has been playing a major role as the U.S. presidential race has heated up. Republican nominee Donald Trump claimed he saw thousands of people cheering after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and has called for shutting down mosques and banning Muslims from certain countries from entering the United States.

In New York, an Afghan-born man is accused of wounding 31 people in a bombing on Sept. 17 that authorities called a “terrorist act”. The suspect had embraced militant Islamic views, authorities say.

“Now more than ever, it is important for every New Yorker to stand united as one city and reject hate and violence,” Mayor Bill de Blasio said in a statement announcing the ad campaign.

“In New York, everyone deserves to be treated with respect. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, agnostic and atheist — it doesn’t matter,” he said. “We are all New Yorkers and we all deserve to live safely and free from hatred or discrimination.”

Some 3.3 million Muslims live in the United States, and thousands live in New York City, according to the commission.

The ads will be placed on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram with the hashtag #IamMuslimNYC….

Categories: Islam in America, Islamic terrorism, Islamophobia, New York City
Tags: Islam in America, Islamic terrorism, Islamophobia, New York City

Comments: Be the first to comment

Not Satire | Dallas Morning News: “Islamophobia” leads to high cholesterol, obesity, and cancer

September 23, 2016

Dallas Morning News: “Islamophobia” leads to high cholesterol, obesity, and cancer, Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, September 22, 2016

Now we know why Ahmad Khan Rahami had packed on a few pounds: it wasn’t the fried chicken he was peddling pre-jihad, it was “Islamophobia.”

Goleen Samari is a postdoctoral research fellow at The University of Texas at Austin, and one wonders if they accept this level of “scholarship” from her. Here the Dallas Morning News gives her space to claim, without a shred of evidence, that “Islamophobia” — which Samari represents as irrational hatred of and discrimination against Muslims — leads to “paranoia, psychological distress and reduced happiness as well as high cholesterol, obesity and other health problems,” including depression and even cancer.

Well, she is right about the paranoia.

“Americans,” she claims, “are exposed to political campaigns, news coverage and movies that portray Muslims as outsiders and villains. One study found that the coverage of Islam and Muslims in The New York Times was more negative than the coverage of cancer, alcohol and cocaine. Structural forms of discrimination, forms such as media coverage or political campaigns that call for a ban on Muslims, help normalize discriminatory attitudes and create the institutional system of discrimination.”

Goleen Samari, like all “Islamophobia” victimhood-mongers, presents this narrative of victimization of Muslims, as dubious as it is, as the result of bigotry and, of course, racism. She never entertains, even long enough to dismiss, the truth: any suspicion that Americans may have of Islam or Muslims stems not from “political campaigns, news coverage and movies,” but from acts of jihad terror. Ahmad Khan Rahami, with his bombs in New York and New Jersey, is a much more effective purveyor of “Islamophobia” than I could ever be, even if I were the hate-filled gargoyle of the “Islamophobia” victimhood industry’s fantasy.

“Another study finds that a lack of social support leads to depression for Arab Muslim immigrant women. Islamophobia also prevents Muslim Americans from seeking health care, resulting in more late-stage cancer diagnoses.” Are they denied care by cackling, “Islamophobic” physicians with Trump bumper stickers? It’s much more likely that if they’re depressed or afraid to go to the doctor, it’s because they’re brutalized at home and their husband doesn’t want them seen undressed by some Infidel male.

But no, it’s all about “Islamophobia.” “Islamophobia” — which in reality is wildly exaggerated, as anti-Semitic hate crimes are far more common, according to FBI statistics, than “Islamophobic” crimes, and which in fact is a term designed to intimidate people into thinking it wrong to oppose jihad terror — is making people sick, folks, and you know what that means: it has to be forcibly suppressed. Those “political campaigns, news coverage and movies” that dare to criticize Islam and Muslims, or that are claimed by Muslims to do so, but be silenced. Free speech? Pah! It’s a public health issue!

rep-keith-ellison-crying

“Why we should treat Islamophobia as a public health issue,” by Goleen Samari, Dallas Morning News, September 21, 2016:

When I was 16, a Texas police officer pulled me over and said “it’s people like you that are ruining this country. Go back to your country.” People who speed, I thought? Girls who are late for figure skating practice? I wasn’t sure what he meant. What country was I supposed to go to? I was born and raised in Austin. Then, it dawned on me. It was a month after 9/11, and he meant Muslims.

Islamophobia is widespread. In the 15 years that have followed the Sept. 11 attacks, many Muslim or Middle Eastern Americans have been repeatedly exposed to hate and discrimination in the United States.

The unfounded hatred of Islam or stigmatization, fear and dislike of Muslims rose to 67 percent in 2015, the highest it has ever been. Right after 9/11, unfavorable attitudes toward Muslims were at 60 percent. In fact, hate speech and crimes against Muslim Americans tripled after the San Bernardino and Paris attacks. Muslim Americans have been harassed on college campuses, they have lost jobs, mosques have been vandalized, Muslim charities have had their assets frozen, and racial profiling has occurred at airports and on the streets.

But there is an effect of all this that has not been widely reported: the impact on health.

Simply put, Islamophobia has grave physical and mental health consequences for Muslims in the U.S. It is a public health issue. Yet, research on the health implications of this is understudied and often ignored by the masses.

We, as Americans, can and must do better.

Muslims are often represented as coming from non-white groups, so their religious identity is linked with racial identity. In reality, Muslim Americans include many nationalities and racial categories, including black and white, and anyone who appears Muslim-like, Sikhs and many non-Muslim Arab, Iranian and Indian Americans.

Unfortunately, Islamophobia is deeply institutionalized. Americans are exposed to political campaigns, news coverage and movies that portray Muslims as outsiders and villains. One study found that the coverage of Islam and Muslims in The New York Times was more negative than the coverage of cancer, alcohol and cocaine. Structural forms of discrimination, forms such as media coverage or political campaigns that call for a ban on Muslims, help normalize discriminatory attitudes and create the institutional system of discrimination.

A system of discrimination can lead to differential access to fundamental determinants of health such as education and employment. Moreover, when people are targeted based on their identity, the persistent exposure to discrimination has a pervasive, negative effect on health. Being a victim of Islamophobia can be traumatizing, with severe and lasting health impacts.

Members of stigmatized groups have greater stress, strained social relationships and unequal access to resources or medical care. Social marginalization increases the physiological response to stress. Discrimination against Muslim Americans has been linked to paranoia, psychological distress and reduced happiness as well as high cholesterol, obesity and other health problems.

Another study finds that a lack of social support leads to depression for Arab Muslim immigrant women. Islamophobia also prevents Muslim Americans from seeking health care, resulting in more late-stage cancer diagnoses….

Categories: Health crisis, Islamophobia
Tags: Health crisis, Islamophobia

Comments: Be the first to comment

France: Human Rights vs. The People

September 22, 2016

France: Human Rights vs. The People, Gatestone Institute, Yves Mamou, September 22, 2016

♦ French politicians seem to believe they are elected NOT to defend French people and the French nation, but to impose a “human rights ideology” on society.

♦ The rule of law is there to protect citizens from the arbitrary actions of the State. When a group of French Muslims attacks the entire way society is constructed, the rule of law now protects only the perpetrators.

♦ For Western leaders, “human rights” have become a kind of new religion. Like a disease, the human rights ideology has proliferated in all areas of life. The UN website shows a list of all the human rights that are now institutionalized: they range from “adequate housing” to “youth.” At least 42 categories of human rights fields are determined, each of which are split into two or three subcategories.

♦ With what result? More than 140 countries (out of 193 UN members) engage in torture. The number of authoritarian countries has increased. Women remain a subordinate class in nearly all countries.

♦ “Saudi Arabia ratified the treaty banning discrimination against women in 2007, and yet by law subordinates women to men in all areas of life. Child labour exists in countries that have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Powerful western countries, including the US, do business with grave human rights abusers.” — Eric Posner, professor at the University of Chicago Law School.

♦ Human rights, originally conceived of as an anti-discrimination tool, became a Trojan horse, a tool manipulated by Islamists and others to dismantle secularism, freedom of speech and freedom of religion in European countries.

On August 13, the Administrative Court in Nice, France, validated the decision of the Mayor of Cannes to prohibit wearing religious clothing on the beaches of Cannes. By “religious clothing,” the judge clearly seemed to be pointing his finger at the burkini, a body-covering bathing suit worn by many Muslim women.

These “Muslim textile affairs” reveal two types of jihad attacking France: one hard, one soft. The hard jihad, internationally known, consists of assassinating journalists of Charlie Hebdo (January 2015), Jewish people at the Hypercacher supermarket (January 2015) and young people at the Bataclan Theater, restaurants and the Stade de France (November 2015). The hard jihad also included stabbing two policeman in Magnanville, a suburb of Paris, (June 2016); truck-ramming to death 84 people in Nice on Bastille Day (July 14), and murdering a priest in the church of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, among other incidents. The goal of hard jihad, led by ISIS, al-Qaeda, and others, is to impose sharia by terror.

The soft jihad is different. It does not involve murdering people, but its final goal is the same: to impose Islam on France by covering the country in Islamic symbols — veils, burqas, burkinis and so on — at all levels of the society: in schools, universities, hospitals, corporations, streets, beaches, swimming pools and public transportation. By imposing the veil everywhere, soft Islamists seem to want to kill secularism, which, since escaping the grip of the Catholic Church, has become the French way of “living together.”

1347-1

Scenes from the “hard jihad” against France; the November 2015 shootings in Paris, in which 130 people were murdered by Islamists.

No one can understand secularism in France without a bit of history.

“Secularism is essential if we want the ‘people’ be defined on a political basis” wrote the French historian, Jacques Sapir.

“Religious allegiance, when it turns into fundamentalism, is in conflict with the notion of sovereignty of the people. … the Nation and State in France were built historically by fighting feudalism and the supranational ambition of the Pope and Christian religion. … Secularism is the tool to return to the private sphere all matters that cannot be challenged comfortably …. Freedom for diversity among individuals implies a consensus in the common public sphere. The distinction between the public sphere and the private sphere is fundamental for democracy to exist.”

And this distinction is secularism.

The Problem Now is Political

French politicians seem to believe they are elected NOT to defend French people and the French nation, but to impose a “human rights ideology” on society. They also seem unable to understand the challenges that common people in the streets are currently facing. They are also unable or unwilling to defend the country against either hard or soft jihad.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, for instance, said in a July 29 interview for Le Monde:

“We must focus on everything that is effective [to fight Islamism], but there is a line that may not be crossed: the rule of law. … My government will not be the one to create a Guantanamo, French-style.”

Only Yves Michaud, a French philosopher, dared to point out that the rule of law is there to protect citizens from the arbitrary actions of the State. When a group of French Muslims attacks the entire way society is constructed, the rule of law now protects only the perpetrators.

The same is true for French President François Hollande. After the murder by two Islamists of the Father Jacques Hamel in Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray in July 2016, he said: “We must lead the war by all means in respect of the rule of law.”

Elisabeth Levy, publisher of the French magazine, Causeur, wrote in response:

“We need to know: by all means? … Or in respect of the rule of law? What is this rule of law that authorizes a judge to release an Islamist interested in waging jihad in Syria and, because he could not go to Syria, was free while wearing an electronic bracelet, to walk the streets to slit the throat of a priest?”

She concluded: “If we want to protect our liberties, it might be interesting to take some liberties with the rule of law.”

The ideology of human rights is common to all European countries. Because authorities in European countries act, speak and legislate on the basis of human rights, they put themselves in a position of weakness when they have to name, apprehend and fight an Islamist threat.

A 46-year-old Bosnian ISIS jihadi, considered extremely dangerous, was taken into custody by the Malmö police. The terrorist immediately applied for asylum, the Swedish Migration Agency stepped in, took over the case — and prevented him from being deported. Inspector Leif Fransson of the Border Police told the local daily newspaper, HD/Sydsvenskan: “As soon as these people throw out their trump card and say ‘Asylum’, the gates of heaven open. Sweden has gotten a reputation as a safe haven for terrorists.”

In Germany: Chancellor Angela Merkel said in a press conference, at the end of July 2016, that her mission was not to defend German people and German identity but “to fulfill humanitarian obligations [towards migrants].” She added it was “our historic task… a historic test in times of globalization.”

For Western Leaders, Human Rights Has Become a New Religion

The human rights movement was born in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, launched by Eleanor Roosevelt. For 70 years, nine major “core” human rights treaties were written and ratified by the vast majority of countries.

Like a disease, the “human rights ideology” has proliferated in all areas of life. The United Nations website shows a list of all the human rights that are now institutionalized: they range from “adequate housing” to “youth” and include “Food”, “Freedom of Religion and Belief”, “HIV/AIDS”, “Mercenaries”, “Migration”, “Poverty”, “Privacy”, “Sexual orientation and gender identity”, “Situations”, ” Sustainable Development”, “Water and sanitation.” At least 42 categories of human rights fields are determined, each of which are split into two or three subcategories.

With what result? More than 140 countries (out of 193 countries that belong to the UN) engage in torture. The number of authoritarian countries has increased: “105 countries have seen a net decline in terms of freedom, and only 61 have experienced a net improvement” reported the NGO, Freedom House, in 2016. Women remain a subordinate class in nearly all countries. Children continue to work in mines and factories in many countries.

Professor Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School, writes:

“Saudi Arabia ratified the treaty banning discrimination against women in 2007, and yet by law subordinates women to men in all areas of life. Child labour exists in countries that have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Uzbekistan, Tanzania and India, for example. Powerful western countries, including the US, do business with grave human rights abusers.”

What is disturbing is not that the “religion” of “anti-discrimination” has become a joke. What is disturbing is that human rights, originally conceived of as an anti-discrimination tool, became a Trojan horse, a tool manipulated by Islamists and others to dismantle secularism, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion in European countries. What is disturbing is that human rights and anti-discrimination policies are dismantling nations, and placing States in a position of incapacity — or perhaps just unwillingness — to name Islamism as a problem and take measures against it.

The Religion of Human Rights as a Tool of Europe’s Muslim Brotherhood

Jean-Louis Harouel, Professor of the History of Law at the Paris-Panthéon-Assas University, recently published a book entitled, Les Droits de l’homme contre le peuple (Humans Rights against the People). In an interview with Le Figaro, he said:

“Human rights, are what we call in France ‘fundamental rights’. They were introduced in the 70’s. The great beneficiaries of fundamental rights were foreigners. Islam took advantage of it to install in France, in the name of human rights and under its protection, Islamic civilization, mosques and minarets, the Islamic way of life, halal food prescriptions, clothing and cultural behavior — Islamic laws even in violation of French law: religious marriage without civil marriage, polygamy, unilateral divorce of wife by husband, etc.

“Through the assertion of identity, Islamists and mainly UOIF [Union of Islamic Organizations of France — the French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood] exploited human rights to install their progressive control on populations of Northern African descent, and coerce them to respect the Islamic order. In particular, they do all that they can to prevent young [Arab] people who are born in France from becoming French citizens.”

The human rights and anti-discrimination “religion” also gave Islam and Islamists a comfortable position from which to declare war on France and all other European countries. It seems whatever crime they are committing today and will commit in the future, Muslims and Islamists remain the victim. For example, just after the November 13 terrorist attacks in France, in which more than 130 people were murdered by Islamists at the Bataclan Theater, the Stade de France, cafés and restaurants, Tariq Ramadan, an Islamist professor at Oxford University, tweeted:

“I am not Charlie, nor Paris: I am a warrant search suspect”.

Ramadan meant that because of the emergency laws and because he was a Muslim, he was an automatic suspect, an automatic victim of racism and “Islamophobia.”

In another example, just after the terrorist attack in Nice on July 14, when an Islamist rammed a truck into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day, killing at least 84 people, Abdelkader Sadouni, an imam in Nice, told the Italian newspaper Il Giornale: “French secularism is the main and only thing responsible for terror attacks.”

Global Elites against the People

The question now is: have our leaders decided to cope with the real problems of the real people? In other words, are they motivated enough to throw the human rights ideology overboard, restore secularism in society and fight Islamists? The problem is that they do not even seem to understand the problem. What Peggy Noonan, of the Wall Street Journal, wrote about Angela Merkel can apply to all leaders of European countries:

“Ms. Merkel had put the entire burden of a huge cultural change not on herself and those like her but on regular people who live closer to the edge, who do not have the resources to meet the burden, who have no particular protection or money or connections. Ms. Merkel, her cabinet and government, the media and cultural apparatus that lauded her decision were not in the least affected by it and likely never would be.

Nothing in their lives will get worse. The challenge of integrating different cultures, negotiating daily tensions, dealing with crime and extremism and fearfulness on the street — that was put on those with comparatively little, whom I’ve called the unprotected. They were left to struggle, not gradually and over the years but suddenly and in an air of ongoing crisis that shows no signs of ending — because nobody cares about them enough to stop it.

The powerful show no particular sign of worrying about any of this. When the working and middle class pushed back in shocked indignation, the people on top called them “xenophobic,” “narrow-minded,” “racist.” The detached, who made the decisions and bore none of the costs, got to be called “humanist,” “compassionate,” and “hero of human rights.”

So the fight against Islamism might first consist of a fight against the caste that governs us.

Categories: France, Human rights, Islam - submission, Islam and Christianity, Islam and human rights, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamisation of France, Islamophobia
Tags: France, human rights, Islam - submission, Islam and Christianity, Islam and human rights, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamisation of France, Islamophobia

Comments: Be the first to comment

Robert Spencer: After Muslim stabs non-Muslims in Minnesota mall, Minnesota Muslims play the victim

September 22, 2016

Robert Spencer: After Muslim stabs non-Muslims in Minnesota mall, Minnesota Muslims play the victim, Jihad Watch, September 22, 2016

mall-st-cloud-minnesota

A Muslim stabbed ten non-Muslims in a Minnesota mall, and you know what that means as far as the mainstream media is concerned: Muslims are victims. Hamas-linked CAIR has been quick to claim victim status, whining about an anti-Muslim “backlash” that seldom, if ever, materializes after Islamic jihad attacks. And Minnesota’s governor is calling for “religious and racial tolerance,” which is always demanded of the victims and targets of jihad, never of its perpetrators.

And so we come to a particularly egregious example of this victimhood posturing from the Associated Press: “Minnesota Somalis recount racial tensions after mall attack.” We’re told that “the aftermath of Saturday’s attack at Crossroads Center Mall in St. Cloud also is testing longstanding efforts to improve strained relations between thousands of Somalis and other residents in the city. Several Somalis said they saw pickups driving through predominantly Somali neighborhoods the night after the attack, waving confederate flags and honking.”

Really? Did anyone report seeing these strange Confederate pickup trucks besides these “several” unnamed Somalis? Is Minnesota, the home of Keith Ellison and Al Franken, really full of racist, redneck, pickup-driving yahoos? Isn’t it a marvelous coincidence that these perfect central-casting racists just happen to confirm mainstream media myths about how opposition to jihad terror and the Muslim migrant inundation is nothing more or less than racism?

With all due respect to the venerable Associated Press, I don’t believe these Confederate-flag-waving neanderthals exist. After all, there are precedents for Muslims telling tall tales to advance the myth that they are facing widespread hatred and discrimination in the U.S. and the West. Hate crimes are currency in today’s politically correct, victim-oriented environment. The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, and other Muslims have on many occasions not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques. A New Jersey Muslim was found guilty of murder that he tried to portray as an “Islamophobic” attack, and in 2014 in California, a Muslim was found guilty of killing his wife, after first blaming her murder on “Islamophobia.”

This kind of thing happens quite frequently. The New York Daily News reported that “a woman who told cops she was called a terrorist and slashed on her cheek in lower Manhattan on Thursday later admitted she made up the story, police said early Friday. The woman, who wore a headscarf, told authorities a blade-wielding wacko sliced open her face as she left a Manhattan cosmetology school, police sources said.”

And recently in Britain, the murder of a popular imam was spread far and wide as another “Islamophobic hate crime” – until his killer also was found to be a Muslim. The Mirror reported that the imam “was targeted because he had made efforts to turn youngsters away from radical Islam.”

According to The Detroit News, a Muslim woman, Saida Chatti, was “charged with making a false police report after she allegedly fabricated a plot to blow up Dearborn Fordson High School to retaliate against the November terrorist attacks in Paris….Police say Chatti called Dearborn investigators Nov. 19, six days after Islamic extremists killed 130 people in Paris.”

And similarly in Britain, a Muslim woman was “fined for lying to police about being attacked for wearing a hijab. The 18-year-old student, known only as Miss Choudhury, said she was violently shoved from behind and punched in the face by a man in Birmingham city centre 10 days after the atrocities in the French capital on November 13.”

And so now Somali Muslims are living in fear of Minnesota Confederates? Pull my other leg. Meanwhile, AP isn’t finished with its tall tales. It says: “It’s still unclear what led 20-year-old Dahir Adan to stab several people with what appeared to be a kitchen knife before he was confronted and killed by an off-duty police officer.” No, it isn’t. According to an initial report, as he stabbed people, Adan was making “references to Allah,” and he asked at least one of his potential victims whether or not he was Muslim — which recalled jihad attacks in Kenya, Somalia, Mali, and Bangladesh where victims were quizzed about religion and Muslims were set free.

In any case, AP wants you to know that Muslims in Minnesota are afraid. It wants you to stop being a racist, bigoted Islamophobe who dares to get angry about jihad stabbings.

Meanwhile, what about the non-Muslims who are living in fear after Adan’s attack, and the New York and New Jersey jihad bombs, and Fort Hood and Boston and Garland and Chattanooga and Paris and Brussels and San Bernardino and Orlando and Nice and all the rest? They aren’t worthy of write-ups from the Associated Press.

Categories: CAIR, Islamisation, Islamist hoaxes, Islamist terror attacks, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Media and Islamist terror, Minnesota
Tags: CAIR, Islamisation, Islamist hoaxes, Islamist terror attacks, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Media and Islamist terror, Minnesota

Comments: Be the first to comment

London’s police ignore Muslim officers’ ‘extremist views’ for fear of being labeled ‘Islamophobic’

September 12, 2016

London’s police ignore Muslim officers’ ‘extremist views’ for fear of being labeled ‘Islamophobic’ Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, September 12, 2016

In a generation or two, when Britain is engulfed in chaos and civil war, and the island’s remaining non-Muslims are subjugated as dhimmis under the rule of Islamic law, some young British non-Muslim may ask his or her parents or grandparents: “What did you do to resist our subjugation and the Islamization of Britain?” And the answer will come: “Why, I didn’t do anything. I was afraid of being called ‘racist’ and ‘Islamophobic.’”

It took a Muslim police officer to blow the whistle on this. None of the non-Muslim police officers had the courage. “Javaria Saeed, who worked for the Metropolitan police’s counterterrorism department, took exception to comments made by a Muslim constable who said that female genital mutilation was a ‘clean an [sic] honorable practice’ that ‘shouldn’t be criminalized.’…She also alleged that the same officer said that Muslims who had been victims of domestic violence should not go to the police, but, instead, seek resolution through sharia courts.”

But no significant action was taken. And that means that in the future, it will be even more difficult for police in Britain to do anything about female genital mutilation or wife-beating among Muslims. To make any move would be “Islamophobic.” That will be the epitaph of Britain.

uk-police2

“London’s police ignore Muslim officers ‘extremist views’ for fear of being labeled ‘Islamophobic,’”RT, September 11, 2016 (thanks to Lookmann):

A former female Muslim police officer has accused London’s Metropolitan police of being more worried about “political correctness” than tackling the extremist views of some Muslim officers because they fear being branded “Islamophobic.”

Speaking to the Sunday Times, Javaria Saeed, who worked for the Metropolitan police’s counterterrorism department, took exception to comments made by a Muslim constable who said that female genital mutilation was a “clean an [sic] honorable practice” that “shouldn’t be criminalized.”

The 35-year-old resigned from the capital’s police force in March after she became disillusioned by “political correctness,” which resulted in a culture of “us and them” to emerge among some Muslim officers who believed themselves to be above the law.

“My experiences were that it was Muslim officers being racist towards my individual views; also in private, holding racist views against white officers, and sexist views against females,” she said, speaking to the Sunday Times. “If such views were held and expressed by white officers, they would be fired.”

Saeed was a constable in the SO15 counterterrorism division, which was set up to improve relations with the Muslim community. She also alleged that the same officer said that Muslims who had been victims of domestic violence should not go to the police, but, instead, seek resolution through sharia courts.

No action was taken against the police sergeant when she raised both cases with senior officers. The 35-year-old, who had been part of the Metropolitan police for a decade, told the Sunday Times that she had been called a “bad Muslim” by other Muslim officers for not wearing a hijab and that some colleagues told her she was “better off at home looking after your husband.”

“Racism in the Met is not from white officers, in my case, but from Muslim officers who the service refused to properly investigate because they were afraid of being called Islamophobic and racist,” she added.

“You give management action to minor offences, so it’s pretty outrageous that the Met did not take proper action against him,” Saeed said. “If he was a white officer, he would have been fired.”

The former police officer mentioned that she had been told by other senior members of the force that complaining about Muslim policeman would “hinder” her hopes for promotion in the future….

Categories: Britain, Islamisation, Islamists in Britain, Islamophobia, London, Political correctness, Racism
Tags: Britain, Islamisation, Islamists in Britain, Islamophobia, London, Political correctness, Racism

Comments: Be the first to comment

Salman Rushdie Reveals the Power of Today’s Islamism

September 9, 2016

Salman Rushdie Reveals the Power of Today’s Islamism, Counter Jihad, Bruce Cornibe, September 8, 2016

Author Salman Rushdie, of the controversial novel The Satanic Verses, has spent a large stint underground being protected by the British government. This is because he allegedly blasphemed Islam’s prophet Muhammad. Rushdie, whose life has been greatly affected by Sharia inspired laws, is speaking out against the politically correct climate of our time, The Washington Times reports:

“Today, I would be accused of Islamophobia and racism. People would say I had attacked a cultural minority,” the writer [said]. He cited as an example of the change the handling of Charlie Hebdo, where an often scabrous satirical newspaper was threatened for years by Islamists and eventually numerous employees there were killed in a terrorist attack.

“Instead of responding to attacks against freedom of expression, voices were raised to decry blasphemy and to propose compromise with terrorism. There is no blasphemy in a democracy,” Mr. Rushdie said.

In the interview, the writer decried the reluctance of Western governments to use the words “Muslim” or “Islam,” preferring instead to attribute terrorist attacks to “unbalanced” people or to a generic thing like “radicalism” or “extremism,” even when the attackers themselves say Islam is their motive.

The ‘Islamophobia’ narrative that seeks to silence any kind of criticism of Islam is in fact a type of anti-blasphemy tactic used by Islamists. Quran 33:57 states, “Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger – Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment.” The worst part is that prominent institutions and figures are pushing this narrative. The University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Race & Gender (CRG), has even released an “Islamophobia Reporting App” for one’s cell phone. The same CRG, whose definition of ‘Islamophobia’ includes, “a perceived or real Muslim threat[.]” Also, one can speculate that London’s new Islamic mayor, Sadiq Khan, is going to try and target critics of Islamic doctrine in his effort to police “online hate crimes[.]”

Rushdie also makes good points about the dangerous atmosphere caused by Islamists leading up to the Charlie Hebdo attack in January 2015, and the failure of many Western leaders to call out Islamic terrorism by name. The Obama Administration’s response, or lack thereof, after the attack is pretty telling of its hesitancy to confront Islamic terrorism – the U.S. President and top-ranking U.S. officials didn’t join the Hebdo rally in Paris. Whether President Obama approves of the provocative magazine or not, he needs to still stand in solidarity against terrorism and the shedding of innocent blood.

This hyper-sensitivity against offending Islam not only shows religious favoritism to a particular group in society but also enables the Islamists and jihadists to advance their Sharia agenda. If the Salman Rushdie case and others like Charlie Hebdo do not awaken the West to action, then we can continue to watch our Western civilization and its liberties slowly vanish.

Categories: Blasphemy, Charlie Hedbo, Islam - submission, Islamic slaughter, Islamophobia, Media and Islam, Obama and Islam, Salman Rushdie, Sharia law
Tags: Blasphemy, Charlie Hedbo, Islam - submission, Islamic slaughter, Islamophobia, Media and Islam, Obama and Islam, Salman Rushdie, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

Homeland Security Head Praises Islamic Supremacists

September 5, 2016

Homeland Security Head Praises Islamic Supremacists, Dan Miller’s Blog, September 5, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Obama’s Department of Homeland Security, addressed the ~~Islamist~~ Islamic Society of North America on September 3d. He told the assembled “American Patriots” — and reminded the rest of us — of the glories of Islam and how greatly it influences and therefore benefits Obama’s America. He did not suggest that only by the further recognition of Islamic supremacy and the further Islamisation of America will they achieve their goals. Today is Labor Day; the rest of us have much work to do to prevent it.

Here is the text of Secretary Johnson’s speech, with indented comments by ignorant Islamophobes Robert Spencer (RS) and your’s truly (DM).

[I]t’s a great privilege for me to be present in person here today, to speak to this full convention of the Islamic Society of North America. I’m told I am the highest ranking U.S. government official and the first sitting cabinet officer to ever speak in person before this convention. I welcome that, as you have welcomed me. I am proud to have broken that glass ceiling, and to have created the expectation, in the future, that government officials of my rank will attend your annual convention.

President Obama has made it a priority for his administration to build bridges to American Muslim communities.

DM: Obama has “built bridges” to “moderate” Islamist organizations such as the ~~Islamist~~ Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas-affiliated organizations. He has rejected organizations such as The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), which seek the reformation of Islam to respect and adhere to American values. AIFD and similar organizations are considered “Islamophobic” by CAIR, et al, who consider Islam perfect as it became when Mohammad left Mecca.

In 33 months as your Secretary of Homeland Security, I have personally visited American Muslim communities in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, rural Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Detroit, Dearborn, Chicago, Columbus, Houston, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles. I have come to know many of you, and I hope you know me.

DM: Indeed. They know him very well and like him. He and Obama have made great strides in furthering their notions of Islamic supremacy.

You have heard President Obama and me call out the discrimination and vilification you face in this current climate.

You have heard us say that the self-proclaimed Islamic State is neither Islam nor a state; that it is a group of terrorist[s] attempting to hijack your religion.

You have heard us, before multiple audiences of different political stripes, refuse to bend to the political pressure to call terrorism “Islamic” extremism. We know that ISIL, though it claims the banner of Islam, occupies no part of your religion, which is founded on peace.

DM: Do Secretary Johnson and Obama consider The Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s foremost sponsor of Islamic terrorism, not to be Islamic? They should spend a bit of time reading the post-Mecca parts of the Quran, the Hadith and other Islamist texts. Indeed, they should watch this video which explains them:

After I am gone as Secretary, I hope you will always regard us as your Department of Homeland Security, aligned in interest with you for peace, the safety of your family, and the protection of your homeland. I hope you will always regard our new Office of Community Partnerships as your partner. [Emphasis added.]

DM: for that to happen, Hillary Clinton must become our next President and Donald Trump must not. Mr. Johnson despises Trump’s views on Islamist terrorists and on keeping them out of the country. Johnson seeks to have our elections considered critical infrastructure for DHS to “monitor.”

Tonight, in this last and biggest opportunity I will have as your Secretary of Homeland Security to address an audience of some 10,000 Muslim Americans all at once, I want to take our conversation to a new level. [Emphasis added.]

DM: Under Obama, DHS — founded shortly after the September 11, 2001 Islamist attack on America — has indeed become the Islamists’ DHS. Hopefully, that will change after the November elections.

A leader of this organization reminded me that, we spend a lot of time telling young Muslims in this country what you should not become. A more effective message is to tell you what, in this great country, you can become. We must not simply curse the darkness, but offer a candle.

Tonight I will not look at the large group of Muslims before me in this room through a homeland security lens. Tonight I will not talk to you about counterterrorism. Tonight I will simply address you as who you are, “my fellow Americans.”

Tonight I speak especially to the young people in this audience, and to your parents worried about your future.

Many of the young people in this room worry that, because of the current climate, your religion, your skin color, and your attire, you will never win full acceptance in this country.

I come before you tonight to assure you this is not true. Your struggle for full acceptance in this country is one you will win.

DM: Wouldn’t they have a better chance of being accepted as Americans by Americans if they accepted America — her Constitution and her laws, for example — and rejected Sharia Law and all that comes with it? Mr. Johnson did not suggest that.

How do I know this? Because my African American ancestors and I have traveled a similar road.

I hear your stories of discrimination, vilification, and of the efforts to tar you with the broad brush of suspicion.

I hear about the bullying and physical attacks that Muslims (and those perceived as Muslim) are experiencing nationwide.

DM: Many of those stories are fabricated by Islamists to support their notions about the pervasive nature of “Islamophic” hate crimes.

They are familiar to me. I recognize them. I look out on this room of American Muslims and I see myself. I see a similar struggle that my African American ancestors have fought to win acceptance in this country.

Realize it or not, your story is the quintessential American story.

Your story is an American story, told over and over again, generation after generation, of waves of people who struggle for, seek, and will eventually win your share of the American dream. Know the history of this country and you will know that — whether it’s Catholic Americans, Jewish Americans, Mormon Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Japanese Americas, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, or Muslim Americans — this will be true.

RS: Yes, you remember when Catholic Americans, Jewish Americans, Mormon Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Japanese Americas, African Americans, Hispanic Americans flew those planes into the towers, and bombed the Boston Marathon, and murdered 13 Americans in cold blood at Fort Hood, and four in Chattanooga, 15 in San Bernardino, and 49 in Orlando, and tried to commit mass murder at Garland and so many other places. You remember those global terror organizations made up of Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Irish, etc. committing acts of violence around the world, and threatening the imminent conquest of the U.S. and the rest of the free world.

RS: The Obama administration’s solicitude is entirely one-way, toward Muslims as victims of discrimination, which is false and inaccurate in the U.S. anyway. Meanwhile, the jihad advances, as do Islamic supremacist attempts to assert Sharia norms over American norms. Johnson had nothing to say about such things, or about the unaccountable phenomenon of so many Muslims in the U.S. adhering to the version of Islam that he assures us is un-Islamic. [Emphasis added.]

DM: Please see also, The West Needs Sharia Law – Pakistani cleric.

The arc of the American story is long, it is bumpy and uncertain, but it always bends toward a more perfect union.

DM: The Obama administration has sought a “more perfect union” with Blacks by supporting Black Lives Matter. It has thereby helped to kill many Blacks.

Some of you are frustrated that you have been publicly denouncing violent extremism for years, sometimes at your own peril, and have not been recognized for it.

DM: But not Islamist terrorism.

Some of you are discouraged that you must continually point to the patriotism of American Muslims, by pointing to your military service, and to those American Muslims who have died in combat for our country….

DM: Only if Obama, as I suggested here in jest that He had just done, recognizes Sharia Law as supreme in His America, will ISNA, CAIR, as well as similar Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas-affiliated Islamist groups be proud, patriotic “Americans.” It will take ~~a village~~ the total Islamisation of America. The rest of us? We don’t want it.

Conclusions

The notion of Islamic supremacy permeates the post-Mecca Quran and other Islamist writings, as explained in Dr. Warner’s Hijrah video provided above. When non-Muslim westerners go to Muslim countries, we are expected and required to adhere to their “superior” Islamic conventions: no booze, no “immodest” garb for females, and the like. If we don’t comply, we are jailed and/or expelled. We claim no superiority for western civilization and make no effort to demand that its norms be accepted or even to require their recognition. Perhaps we should.

Categories: 2016 elections, American-Islamic Forum for Democracy, CAIR, Clash of civilizations, Contempt for America, Department of Homeland Security, Donald Trump, Hijra, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islam and terrorism, Islamic immigration, Islamic integration, Islamic myths, Islamic reformation, Islamic refugees, Islamic Society of North America, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamist organizations, Islamist vetting, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama's affinity for Islam, Obama's America 2016, Sharia law, Zuhdi Jasser
Tags: American-Islamic Forum for Democracy, CAIR, Clash of civilizations, Contempt for America, Department of Homeland Security, Donald Trump, Hijra, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islam and terrorism, Islamic immigration, Islamic integration, Islamic myths, Islamic reformation, Islamic refugees, Islamic Society of North America, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamist organizations, Islamist vetting, Islamists in America, Islamopohobia, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama's affinity for Islam, Obama's America 2016, Sharia law, Zuhdi Jasser

Comments: 1 Comment

Satire?| Obama Ratifies Treaty on Sharia Law

September 4, 2016

Satire?| Obama Ratifies Treaty on Sharia Law, Dan Miller’s Blog, September 4, 2016

(The views expressed in this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Having personally ratified the Iran Scam Treaty and the Climate Change Treaty with China, President Obama today met with Turkish, Saudi and Iranian heads of state to ratify a new treaty making Sharia Law binding in the United States. Please see also, The West Needs Sharia Law – Pakistani cleric. Obama, a renowned constitutional scholar, quickly rejected objections by Senate leaders that “He shouldn’t oughta do that because it’s our job” by reminding them that He is the President and is therefore empowered by the Constitution to do whatever pleases Him.

Here is the text of President Obama’s statement on ratification of the Sharia Law Treaty, provided by The Incomparably Honorable I. M. Totus, Teleprompter of the United States:

My beloved Islamist colleagues, men, women and whatever: today, with great pleasure and a heart-felt desire for a better future for all, I today ratified a treaty with The Republic of Turkey, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran making Sharia Law officially binding in America just as it is in those great progressive, humanitarian nations.

As United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon recently stated, the debate about the horrors of man-made climate change is over and the issue is settled. So be it with any debate over My success in preventng Iran from using nuclear weapons and, indeed, over My constitutional powers as your humble President. I have settled those matters as well, as all loyal Americans must agree.

Sharia Law will make America a far happier and better place for all including, most importantly, refugees coming to our shores in increasing numbers from other Islamist nations. I can think of no better way to welcome them than by guaranteeing them the dignity, honor and freedoms under Sharia Law they so richly and justly deserve.

For too long has America based its laws on flawed Judeo-Christian principles. But that’s not who we are; we have a long, honorable and mutually beneficial history with Islam and many if not most of our best citizens are Muslims. The treaty I ratified today will finally put us on the right side of history. It will also facilitate My brilliant countering violent extremism initiative by encouraging an honest discussion of Sharia law, long rejected by “America First” nationalists and other Islamophobes who despise Allah and His one true Religion of Peace.

I am confident that all loyal Americans will be happy to abide by our Sharia Laws; common sense steps will be taken to encourage all to do so. Observers from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran will soon come to America to assist us in implementing whatever encouragements may be needed.

We should all thank the three other splendid freedom loving nations which also ratified the new treaty and encourage all other nations of the world to join us as soon as possible.

Thank you and have a pleasant day.

Hated by many Americans until now, The Islamic Republic of Iran has shown that it is a truly glorious example of Islamist democracy in action, where Sharia Law is enforced, followed and enjoyed by all.

With Obama leading the way as always, we are joining them. Just look at the Iranians depicted in the following Iranian ~~propaganda~~ video! They are proud, happy, peaceful, patriotic and loving despite the shameful efforts of America in the past and, indeed, of some war-mongering Americans today, to humble and destroy them and their beloved nation.

No longer will that happen. The President has spoken! This will be the most beneficial and longest lasting of all of His many great leaps forward to make America a country of which He, His beautiful wife Michelle and all other good people can and will be truly proud.

It is anticipated that President Obama will soon issue an executive order changing the name of the country from The United States of America to The Islamist Republic of Obama. The flag of the new Islamist Republic of Obama will combine the best elements of the flags of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Republic of Turkey and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A photo of Obama as the bringer of true Islamic peace and understanding will be superimposed over the other flag elements.

Obama:

Iran:

Turkey:

Saudi Arabia:

Oh well.

Categories: Civilization jihad, Climate change, Hijrah, Iran scam, Islam and Christianity, Islam and honor, Islam and human rights, Islam in Saudi Arabia, Islamic immigration, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Obama and Islamists, Obama's America 2016, Political Islam, Right and wrong sides of history, Satire, Saudi Arabia, Sharia law, Turkey, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Senate, United Nations
Tags: Civilization jihad, Climate cange, Hijrah, Iran Scam, Islam and Christianity, Islam and honor, Islam and human rights, Islam in Saudi Arabia, Islamic immigration, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Obama and Islamists, Obama's America 2016, Political Islam, Right and wrong sides of history, Satire, Saudi Arabia, Sharia law, Turkey, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Senate, United Nations

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives