Muslim employees at Israeli construction company caused damage and sabotage

The CEO of one of Israel's biggest construction companies explains why they no longer employ Arabs/Muslims identifying as palestinians:

Yigal Dimri, controlling shareholder and CEO of YH Dimri Construction and Development (TASE: DIMRI), the largest listed construction company in Israel, continues to oppose the employment of Palestinians in Israel, which was halted by the state at the outbreak of the Swords of Iron war. At a recent real estate conference, Dimri said that in his opinion the Palestinians should not return to working on building sites in Israel. In a call with investors on the release of YH Dimri’s first quarter financials, he expressed himself even more strongly on the matter.

Dimri said that his company had for several years tried to reduce its Palestinian workforce. "We succeeded in doing so, and we hardly employ any Palestinians, they’re all workers from overseas. There was a problem with the sub-contractors, but they too are gradually overcoming it.

"We should try not to be dependent on the Palestinians," Dimri continued, and confided details probably heard for the first time from the owner of such a large construction company. "When we worked with the Palestinians, there were very many instances of sabotage in many projects. There’s no getting away from it, they don’t like us, and when a Palestinian works for you, he sabotages you.

But the drawback is that the guy fails to acknowledge the Religion of Peace's role in influencing the mindsets of the "employees" and whoever commands them from within their sharia-governed enclaves. Do they truly expect to solve a worldwide epidemic of barbarism and even stealth attacks if the business managers won't stress the deeper issues involved? I congratulate the CEO of the construction company for now avoiding employment of products of an Islamic-led community, but even so, if they really want to improve the situation, they have to get at the deeper issues, plain and simple. And they also have to acknowledge that "palestinians" is a modern fabrication for undermining Israel. When will these business managers learn?

Marvel's bizarre combination of Muslim Ms. Marvel with dogs

Recently, Marvel published a special titled "Marvel Mutts", starring the Muslim Ms. Marvel who was created as a propaganda vehicle. Here's the information Comic Book Club Live provides:

Join the Marvel Mutts in their very first comic book adventure! Collecting issues #1-12 of the Friday Funnies series, these heartwarming tales – and wagging tails – are sure to elicit a round of a-paws. Featuring Lockjaw, Lucky, Cosmo, Bats and Ms. Marvel’s dearest doggie, Mittens, this pack is packing the cute. So fetch yourself a copy and have a ball with Marvel’s Mightiest Mutts!

This has the effect of being unintentional comedy, or laughable for all the wrong reasons, because anybody who knows what Islam is like knows the Religion of Peace abhors dogs, and look what trouble it's led to in Britain. In the Arabic language, the synonym for dog "kalb", is even used as a slur. It's clear at this point Marvel's not even trying to draw in the followers of the ummah they supposedly coveted in their bizarre leftist attempts to "please everyone" in the past decade or so, because if they did, they wouldn't have made a character with a Muslim background the star of such a vehicle, nor would they have written her owning a dog for a pet.

In the end, the whole premise first concocted over a decade ago has certainly become very dated at this point, and one must wonder how much longer Marvel's going to keep repeatedly wasting money on a political vehicle that nobody's interested in. The same can be said for DC, if they're still depicting Geoff Johns' own Islamic propaganda concoction, Simon Baz, as such a practitioner. It could actually benefit badly developed characters if they put them in limbo for some time, then wrote out the part about their being Islamists and trying something like depicting them as Arab/Pakistani Christians and/or Buddhists instead. Unfortunately, chances they're willing to do that are very slim.

Humza Yousaf resigns as Scotland's first minister

Some thankful news coming from Scotland, as the first Muslim to serve as premier at the north end of the UK is resigning, following controversial leftist policies that only caused a lot of justified outrage:

Humza Yousaf, Scotland’s first minister, resigned on Monday after just 13 months in office following a series of muddled progressive policies that culminated in him torpedoing his own governing coalition.

Yousaf, who became the first Muslim leader of a Western democracy, stepped down on Monday after his decision to rip up an agreement between his Scottish National Party and the Green Party, known as the Bute House Agreement, cost him a working majority.

[...] In the aftermath of Yousaf’s decision, a vote of no confidence was called for this week. And although he gave no indications he would resign last Friday, he changed his mind over the weekend.

[...] He became leader of the SNP and first minister in March 2023 after longtime party leader Nicola Sturgeon stepped down. Her resignation came during a police investigation into alleged misuse of campaign funds. Her husband, former SNP treasurer Peter Murrell, was charged with embezzlement earlier this month, while Sturgeon herself was questioned and released without charge last year. Both deny any wrongdoing.

Yousaf’s short-lived tenure will be remembered, however, for controversial legislation that would make it easier for people to change their gender, which was at odds with the Conservative-led Westminster government.

His party also introduced a hate crime law that made transgender identity a protected characteristic. The law generated criticism from the likes of Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, who lives in Edinburgh, and even X owner Elon Musk.

In the end, Yousaf’s tenure was made untenable after he scrapped the Bute deal with the Greens over climate change policy disagreements.

Douglas Ross, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives who tabled the motion of no confidence, told STV that Yousaf was “forced … out of office for repeatedly failing Scotland.”

Not mentioned, and likely because these papers have regrettably succumbed to PC, is that Yousaf's policies would doubtless be employed in the future to enforce Islamic sharia, and not just LGBT ideology. Admittedly, it's interesting that an Islamist would approve of something like that, but surely because most Muslims couldn't give a damn if transsexuality ends up hurting "kuffar", so long as Muslims aren't affected.

Yousaf's departure from the role of First Minister in Scotland is most fortunate, and now, we must hope better yet, that the conservative party in Scotland will be able to win an election, if one is to be held soon.

In France, anybody who protests against Muslim violence and calls for self-defense can be arrested

We have another example of how, in a way, France is tragically under a totalitarian grip doing favors for the Religion of Peace, and authorities arrest opponents over an Orwellian Thoughtcrime (via Jihad Watch):

After a migrant allegedly raped a French woman so brutally with a broomstick that she was forced into a month-long coma, two dozen right-wing protestors marched outside his home in Cherbourg, France. However, at least half of them are now facing criminal prosecution and up to five years in prison for an “unauthorized gathering” and for “promoting self-defense” despite the French government’s glaring inability to protect its own citizens.

The demonstration, which took place on Sept. 9, 2023, in the Provinces district, was on behalf of 29-year-old Mégane, who awoke from her coma but remains between life and death. The French government may have special reason to pursue Argos, the right-wing group that organized the protest, as the group is the direct heir to the French group Génération identitaire, which was banned by the government in 2021. Génération identitaire became a thorn in the government’s side after it ran a series of civil disobedience protests against the state of demographic transformation in France and the government’s failures to control illegal immigration.

[...] The prosecutor in the case is apparently taking issue with the group’s calls for self-defense, despite the state being increasingly unable to defend its citizens.

“You are appearing for having, through speeches made at an undeclared demonstration, incited willful harm to a person’s integrity by calling for self-defense,” stated Pierre-Yves Marot, the public prosecutor. He announced that five members of Argos were first arrested by the police and another seven were taken into custody inside a vehicle shortly afterwards.

The prosecutor should be utterly ashamed of himself, as should all police officials who arrested these brave opposition activists. All authorities who went against the protestors, including Generation Identitaire, instead of the jihadists who've poisoned France, should resign from the jobs they don't deserve.

But I also think even Israeli delegates concerned about what goes on in foreign countries should consider speaking out in favor of the opposition to Islamofascism in said foreign lands, because there's Europeans who need all the help they can get, and if Israeli representatives were to speak in their defense, it could be very important.

Jerusalem Post editorial is right: left-wing must respect right-wing's right to govern

With Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud and much of the right-wing factions in the Knesset having won an impressive victory during the Israeli election, the Jerusalem Post's editorial division says the leftists should respect the success and let the right run a government:

Israel went to the polls on Tuesday and in rather uncharacteristic fashion rendered a clear decision: Benjamin Netanyahu.

No hung jury this time, no tie, no waffling: The country wants Netanyahu back as the head of a very right-wing and religious government. The nation has spoken, and now it is time to honor its decision.

What does that mean? It means letting Netanyahu form a right-wing, very religious coalition. That is what the people want, that is what they voted for.

Israel voted for Netanyahu. Let him govern

And this is not meant to say to the country, as a parent might to a misbehaving child: “You made your bed, now lie in it.” Rather, this is just acknowledging that in a democracy, the will of the people should be respected, and the election results have made this country’s wishes known unequivocally.

It should also be noted that left-wing parties who campaigned on an "just not Bibi" slogan only hurt their campaigns even more, proving how out-of-touch they were with the public's interest in meaty platforms. That's why Netanyahu ultimately proved successful with the Likud's campaign, and the right-wing found success.

In related news, Amnon Lord explains why Meretz, one of the most reprehensible left-wing movements in history, is now out of the Knesset, and why it's best their run came to an end:

The origins of Meretz, as the party has come to be known in recent years, hail back to some point in the first Intifada (Palestinian uprising) that began in late 1987. A newspaper report appearing in the Hadashot daily in May 1989 tells of the arrest of demonstrators from an elitist left-wing movement that arose during the Intifada, named the "21st Year" (an allusion to the results of the 1967 Six-Day War).

They held a procession in Qalqilya, "threw stones at IDF vehicles... disturbed the soldiers from carrying out their activity and incited the local population in Qalqiliya to rebel. Among those detained was Zehava Gal-On, the director of the B'Tselem human rights organization, along with a group of theater actors and students", so the report claimed.

On occasions, Ratz was to turn into the parliamentary political front for anti-Israeli movements. Thanks to it, Israel became more and more tolerant of acts of cooperation with various forces operating against the state.

Only a week ago, an extremely important article was published in this newspaper by Hanan Greenwood, revealing the handbook of radical left-wing organizations that are essentially involved in acts of espionage against the IDF and the security forces in Judea and Samaria. Under the veneer of its public respectability, Meretz granted legitimacy for the overall activity of these organizations: B'Tselem (which was established at the beginning of the Intifada in 1988), Shovrim Shtika (Breaking the Silence), Yesh Din, Zochrot (Remembering) and other similar organizations that are routinely funded by various foreign organizations.

Their associations with enemies of Israel are definitely disturbing, and explain perfectly why they're no loss to the Israeli political scene in the Knesset proper. A most shameful movement indeed.

Anyway, with all that told, India's premier has congratulated Netanyahu on his electoral success:

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi congratulates “my friend” Benjamin Netanyahu for his election win.

“I look forward to continuing our joint efforts to deepen the India-Israel strategic partnership,” he says.

There's somebody who knows how to maintain political relations without applying PC to them. My thanks to Modi for his alliances with Israel. Let's hope that with the current right-wing victory in the election, there'll be more promising directions to come.

Westerners cannot continue to allow Iran or any other Muslim countries to use hijab for oppression

A writer named Ben Cohen makes a case regarding the wrongness of Iran's forcing women to wear hijabs, although he unfortunately also puts in some very questionable claims along the way. The topic stems from the latest protests in Iran, following the murder of a woman who wasn't wearing a hijab:

The immediate trigger for these latest demonstrations was the death in police custody of Mahsa Amini, 22. Amini was arrested in Tehran by the regime's so-called "Morality Police" – uniformed thugs whose job would correctly be understood as engaging in sexual harassment in a western context – for the crime of wearing her hijab, or headscarf, improperly.

Since the major wave of anti-regime protests in 2009, many Iranian women have consciously pushed the envelope on the Islamic Republic's austere, misogynistic dress code, adjusting their hijabs to show strands of hair or applying light makeup to their faces. Since Amini allegedly did something along these lines with her head covering, she was savagely beaten while in police custody, losing consciousness and dying of her injuries on Sept. 16, having spent three days in a coma.

The regime's official explanation is that Amini – by all accounts, a healthy young woman with no pre-existing respiratory or cardiac conditions – died of a heart attack after "suddenly" developing a problem. Few people are buying that, of course, least of all Amini's family. In a heartbreaking interview with the BBC's Persian language service, Amini's grieving father, Amjad, accused the regime of "telling lies," adding, "No matter how much I begged, they wouldn't let me see my daughter."

When Amjad Amini was finally allowed to see Mahsa's lifeless body, it had been covered entirely from neck to toe, although he noticed the bruising on her feet. "I have no idea what they did to her," he wept, with the unique agony of a bereaved parent.

Obviously, the poor woman's murder was concealed as much as possible by the vile mutawas. And then, we get to the part about what's wrong with how the west approaches all this:

So far, hundreds of protestors have been wounded and several killed during the demonstrations that erupted in the wake of Amini's death, but as in the past, the regime's methodical violence against its own citizens hasn't yet quelled their spirit. While the regime's President Ebrahim Raisi – known as the "Butcher of Tehran" for his service to the regime's terrifying post-revolutionary "Death Committees" – was attending the UN General Assembly meeting in New York, during which time he denied the Holocaust in an interview with "60 Minutes" and petulantly canceled an interview with CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour because of her refusal to wear a headscarf, back home protestors were chanting "Death to Raisi" and wishing the same fate on other regime figureheads, such as Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the ailing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his potential successor.

The willingness of the Iranian people to confront the regime has been on display time and again during the last 13 years. Sadly, Western publics, who should really be inspired by such scenes, have tended to look the other way, while our governments have been dutiful about expressing verbal solidarity without doing anything meaningful to help dislodge the ruling mullahs.

There are many reasons for this. On the Left, there is a strong sense of colonial guilt, emanating from the 1953 CIA-backed coup against the nationalist prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh, that leaves Western liberals nervous about criticizing domestic repression, even when the victim is a young woman. On both Left and Right, in recent years there has been a greater acceptance of cultural relativism, with both "woke" and conservative rationalizations readily available, alongside a broader disillusionment with the idea that liberal democracy should be a universal system.

Oh yes, it's offensive when allegedly good people do nothing, which enables bad things to happen. But now, here's that part where he undermines his arguments more, when he says:

The hijab, in particular, has proved perplexing. In America and Europe, where Muslim communities often face racism and discrimination, the hijab has virtually become a civil rights symbol, because many Muslim women freely and proudly wear one despite countless cases of physical assaults upon those who do. But in the hands of the Iranian regime, the hijab is a symbol of repression, something imposed on all women regardless of whether they are Muslims or whether they come from the Zoroastrian, Christian, Jewish, Baha'i or other religious minorities.

I'm afraid this dampens the impact of the op-ed. It obscures how there's women in the west who've experienced violence by Muslims, supposedly for not wearing hijabs, though even if they did, it's a forgone conclusion they'd still face horrific assaults. And to act as though it's perfectly normal for a woman to wear a head covering like that, which obscures much of her identity, is offensive. This is exactly why I cannot accept the Christian concept of a Catholic nun wearing a wimple outfit: it denies her an identity, and makes her out to be a sexual being in every way that has to suppress her God-given physique. I also cannot accept the Haredi/ultra-Orthodox way of dress, as that too is more or less the same problem.

This also ignores that even in the west, there's Muslim families who force their daughters to wear such a reprehensible outfit, and Muslim women who've paid a price for not wearing it. Not to mention that, in countries like Saudi Arabia, there have been terrible incidents where Muslim women were raped and the victims punished, while their rapists got off with nary a slap on the wrist. That Cohen would obscure such issues does a terrible disfavor to women everywhere. And for that, seriously, I think he owes an apology for acting as though nothing's wrong with dressing in such a way, religiously or otherwise, or pretending that in the west, this isn't an issue.

If we accept the principle that it is for Muslim women themselves, and not the state authorities, to decide whether or not they cover their heads, then we cannot fail to be moved by the protests in Iran – and particularly the spectacle of women of all ages tearing off their hijabs and waving them defiantly at armed security forces.

The US government has expressed its support for the protests, although President Joe Biden's address to the UN General Assembly was disappointingly thin on Iran, saluting the "brave women" who had taken to the streets, but saying no more. Last Thursday, the US announced sanctions on the Morality Police, citing the killing of Amini, as well as sanctions targeting specific officials who "oversee organizations that routinely employ violence to suppress peaceful protesters and members of Iranian civil society, political dissidents, women's rights activists, and members of the Iranian Baha'i community," according to a Treasury Department statement.

Well, what can one expect from such a leftist-influenced "administration"? Biden's already proven useless when he and his "administration" allowed the Taliban to overtake Afghanistan again, in the most catastrophic ways possible. And the UN's no improvement. But if Cohen really wants to prove he's a realist, then he won't obscure how even in the west, hijabs can be a very bad influence along with Islamofascism itself, and again, he should apologize for acting as though Muslims in the west can't possibly be sexist/racist/antisemitic themselves, and also for obscuring the danger of jihadism in the west to boot. All that does is water down the seriousness of the issue, and then, we get nowhere as a result.

Prophet Ray Bradbury

A few prophetic excerpts from Fahrenheit 451, written by Ray Bradbury in 1953:

“We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal. Each man the image of the other; then all are happy, for there are not mountains to make them cower, to judge themselves against.

[…]

“You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can’t have our minorities upset and stirred. Ask yourself, What do we want in this country above all? People want to be happy....

[…]

“Colored people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it. Someone’s written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book.  Serenity...Peace... (58-60).

The novel also contains this passage:

"It didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God. Today, thanks to them, you can stay happy all the time, you are allowed to read comics, the good old confessions, or trade journals."

[above citations from the edition published by Ballantine Books, New York, 1987]

We are already living in the dystopia portrayed in Bradbury's prophetic novel.

Who Knew?

November 2012 has been Islamophobia Awareness Month (hat tip to Will of MFS - The Other News):

More Devolving

Into what, I'm not exactly sure.

From this article (hat tip to Chuck Thinks Right):

Oregon Principal Claims That Peanut Butter And Jelly Sandwiches Might Be Racist

Portland, OR – Elementary school principal Verenice Gutierrez suggested that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches might be racist and culturally offensive during an interview with the Portland Tribune....We now live in a world that is so politically correct, that what we eat for lunch might offend others dining at the same table. The Harvey Scott K-8 administrator was discussing the district’s equity training program which was created to lessen the achievement gap, when comparing the popular lunchbox staple to potential racism.

The Oregon principal “picks up on the subtle language of racism” every day, and used the seemingly innocent looking peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to illustrate her point, according to Fox News.

Verenice Gutierrez had this to say about the allegedly offensive bread spread:

“Another way would be to say, Americans eat peanut butter and jelly, do you have anything like that. Let them tell you. Maybe they eat torta or pita. What about Somali or Hispanic students, who might not eat sandwiches?”

The district’s equity program is entitled, “Courageous Conversation” and it is designed to take educators on a journey through an intense course so they can understand their own white privilege...

The entire article is HERE.

Chuck's rant on the topic is HERE.

I know for a FACT that similar idiocy also goes on in the Fairfax County Public Schools here in Northern Virginia.

Every grading quarter, teachers are hauled in for in-service days that are loaded with crap such as Gutierrez spouts in the excerpt above, and principals are FORCED to make sure that they submit paperwork showing how culturally diverse and culturally sensitive every single activity is.

One of my best friends serves as principal at one of the elementary schools, and she and I had occasion to have a long conversation yesterday.  The 2012-2013 school term will be her last year, and she can't wait to get the hell out because she's been fighting an uphill battle for over seven years with the political correctness idiocy emanating from the top on down.

It's a wonder that any learning at all is taking place!

And my friend entered the public education profession with such high hopes.  Her hopes were completely dashed about three years ago.  That timing involving the past three years
–  just a coincidence, of course.  NOT!

The Civil Right Not To Be Offended

A follow-up to this post by Midnight Rider, from something I will be posting tomorrow at my site:

For a moment, forget the blasphemy issue.

Think about this:

[I]f you post an image intended to distress some...political...group, you too can be sent to jail...

Does that statement apply to political parties? Is it really possible that posting an image offensive to political parties could land someone in jail?

Whatever happened to the tradition of Thomas Nast? In addition to creating images satirizing politics, he created the image of Uncle Sam as well as the Republican Party elephant and the Democratic Party donkey.

Read more about Nast's notable works HERE and his accomplishments HERE, particularly Nast's contribution to the downfall of Boss Tweed, the leader of the corrupt Tammany Hall.

Furthermore, wouldn't Nast's John Chinaman be considered offensive in today's climate of political correctness? See that image below:


Should we now ban the online image of John Chinaman?

With regard to codifying the civil right not to be offended, what about printed words that offend a given group? Should those words, if offensive to a particular group, be forbidden and even prosecutable?

THIS is but one of many examples indicating that being offended is in the eye of the beholder. Obviously, the teacher's being offended was a personal and political choice.

If we codify a civil right not to be offended, we will reach the point that everything we say, write, or post has to be weighed against whether or not somebody else might be offended. At that point, communication will cease.

Reminder about Everybody Draw Mohammed Day: "Molly Norris, Artist Behind 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day' Cartoon, Goes Into Hiding"

The 9/11 Memorial At Ground Zero

From the Washington Times:

We can have a Ground Zero Mosque, but not a memorial that actually memorializes 9/11

...Instead of acting as a constant reminder of the attacks, a symbol for us and future generations of the evil that struck, the death and destruction it caused and the heroism and sacrifice in response, the [9/11] memorial will wipe out all evidence and memory of the attacks.

[...]

The cause of "these deaths," how these people came to be absent - that is, 9/11 - has been deemed irrelevant and even contrary to your memorial "experience."

[...]

Cities and towns across America have humbly requested a segment of the twisted steel of the WTC to feature in their own modest Sept. 11 memorials. The only memorial where one is not welcome is the "national" memorial at Ground Zero.

[...]

The photo of the three firefighters raising the flag at Ground Zero became as iconic of Sept. 11 as Joe Rosenthal's famous photo of the Marines' flag-raising at Iwo Jima was of World War II. So you know its fate.

This historic and symbolic act will not be depicted or recognized in any way. The design of the "national" Sept. 11 memorial will not, therefore, honor the values targeted and will deny them as deserving of our defense and sacrifice.

[...]

The National September 11 Memorial at the World Trade Center is not, nor is it intended to be, a genuine and lasting commemoration of Sept. 11. Rather, it is political correctness gone mad....

Michael Burke [author of the above essay] served on the family advisory committee for the memorial and the advisory committee on the museum center to the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. His brother, New York Fire Department Capt. William F. Burke Jr., Engine Company 21, gave his life on 9/11.

By the 20th anniversary of 9/11, will Americans even know what happened on that horrific day - when jihad came to America?

Idiotic Euphemisms

Hat tip to Conservative Perspective:


"Spring spheres"? How ludicrous!

That idiotic terminology "spring spheres" is along the same lines as "winter trees" (instead of Christmas trees). I actually know a school principal who insisted that the trees on the hall bulletin board during the month of December be called "winter trees."

Rifqa Bary: An FBI Agent's Assessment

[Note: John D. Guandolo is a 12 ½ year veteran of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. At the request of the Center for Security Policy, he prepared an assessment of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s (FDLE) investigation of the Ohio-based parents of former Muslim Rifqa Bary, the 17-year old apostate from Islam who has sought refuge in the state of Florida. The FDLE report is provided here, and is available as searchable text for the first time, below his analysis. The significant errors and omissions that Mr. Guandolo and other experts have found in this FDLE investigation show a failure in FDLE’s professional responsibility in handling the Rifqa Bary case. Governor Crist and FDLE management need to get new investigators on the job, start over, and this time do it right. A life may be at stake due to FDLE negligence-- and willful blindness-- in conducting this investigation.]

John D. Guandolo:
Response to FDLE Investigative Report on Rifqa Bary Matter

Upon my review of the report filed by the FDLE regarding the Rifqa Bary Matter in Florida, I offer my professional opinion.

1. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Investigative Summary OR-73-1741 encapsulates the investigation into allegations made by Fathima Rifqa Bary (hereafter referred to as “Rifqa Bary”) that she is or may be in physical danger from her father, Mohamed Bary, or others. Point 4 on page 2 of the report states Rifqa Bary believes her life to be in danger from an “honor killing” by her family or others, which she states is in accordance with Islamic Law. The report finds: “Ms. Bary’s concern that she may be killed because of her conversion from Islam to Christianity remains a subjective and speculative concern…” and concludes there is no conspiracy to commit violence against her. The investigators in this matter offer this opinion void of any knowable facts.

In fact, a due diligence review would reveal the existence of authoritative Islamic Law texts officially translated into English. This review would further reveal Islamic Law – which is real law – has requirements and rules as to how to deal with those who leave Islam [eg The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, "Umdat al-Salik" also known as "Reliance of the Traveller" - publicly available]. If it can be shown (1) there is a requirement in Islamic Law for killing Ms. Bary as a publicly declared apostate from Islam, (2) that her parents adhere to Islamic Law, and (3) that she did, in fact, leave Islam and convert to Christianity, then the FDLE has a professional responsibility to include these facts in this report, and investigate this matter fully. There is nothing subjective about this – these are all ascertainable facts. I would hope the Florida State’s Attorney’s Office has done their due diligence on this matter and is aware of this

2. Mr. Bary’s comments to the Investigators claiming there is “absolutely not” any concept of Honor Killings under Islamic Law can also be comparatively and factually reviewed against Islamic Law. There are, in fact, rules and requirements as to how apostates should be handled within the context of Islamic Law, and these facts must be reviewed by FDLE if a professional and factual report is to be completed.

3. It was noted that the Executive Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) -Columbus (Ohio) and the Staff Attorney for CAIR were present during the interview of Mr. Bary by FDLE Investigators. Absent from the FDLE report was any mention that CAIR is a known Muslim Brotherhood entity and an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial – the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history – revealing HLF as a Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood front in the United States. All defendants in this case were found guilty in November 2008 and are serving long prison terms. These facts about CAIR were testified to at trial, and accepted as legally true. They are irrefutable – the documents demonstrating these facts were stipulated to by the defense. The Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) creed is “Allah is our goal; the Messenger is our guide: the Koran is our constitution; Jihad is our means; and martyrdom in the way of Allah is our inspiration,” and their stated objective in America is a “Civilization-Jihad” to destroy the United States from within, and the MB exists to implement Islamic Law here in the United States.

All of these facts are relevant for two critical reasons. First, these material facts should be made known to the State Attorney’s Office and any Judges involved in this case as a matter of course. Secondly, when representatives from an organization that is objectively known to be hostile towards to the United States and unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history, are allowed to be present during a law enforcement interview of someone, it raises questions as to why they were allowed to be present at the interview at all.

These facts further demand an objective look to determine if the Muslim Brotherhood itself has a position on Islamic Law and Apostasy. One of the MB’s two stated objectives is to implement Islamic Law in North America (and across the globe), and it is known they call for adherence to Islamic Law wherever Muslim communities exist. The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law: Reliance of the Traveller is approved as valid Islamic Law by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a known Muslim Brotherhood entity, as proven in the HLF trial.
In Reliance of the Traveller, Investigators will find specific legal doctrine on how apostates are to be treated under Islamic Law. Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood has a history of officially addressing the issue of Apostasy. In 1984, Ismail R. Al-Faruki , the Founder of IIIT, stated: “That is why Islamic Law has treated people who have converted out of Islam as political traitors…[Islam] must deal with the traitors when convicted after due process of law either with banishment, life imprisonment, or capital punishment…but once their conversion is proclaimed, they must be dealt with as traitors to the state.”

Apostasy is also specifically addressed in Peace and the Limits of War, published by IIIT and written by Louay Safi, the former Executive Director of IIIT, Malaysia, the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (a proven Muslim Brotherhood entity), and the Executive Director of the Islamic Society of North America’s (ISNA) Leadership Development Council. ISNA was proven to be a Muslim Brotherhood entity and is also an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history – HLF. The book is also approved by the Secretary General of ISNA. In it, Mr. Safi notes that individual apostates cannot be killed for a “quiet desertion of personal Islamic duties,” but can be put to death as “just punishment” when the apostate deserts Islam publicly (p. 31).

4. This is a statement of facts regarding this matter:

* There are requirements in Islamic Law regarding someone who deserts Islam
* The Muslim Brotherhood’s objective is the implementation of Islamic Law in the United States
* Rifqa Bary has left Islam and become a Christian
* Rifqa Bary has made statements to FDLE officials and others that her parents have threatened to kill her because she has left Islam
* The Bary’s appear to be adherent to Islamic Law
* The Bary’s appear at an interview with two Muslim Brotherhood representatives doing business as CAIR, a group known to be hostile towards the United States which is also an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history
* The Muslim Brotherhood supports the killing of Muslims who publicly leave Islam

5. It is my professional opinion that sufficient Probable Cause exists to believe that Ms Bary’s concerns for her personal safety are based in a realistic and factual understanding of her situation, and, therefore, a further criminal investigation is warranted.

John D. Guandolo is a 12 ½ year veteran of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Source: RifqaBary.org

The Narrative History of Political Correctness

From PJTV and Vlad Tepes:

Link:

BLAMERICA

The 'lead writer' of BO's submission speech to 'The Muslim World' has a master's degree in fiction writing. Of course.


- Bosch Fawstin

The Red Cross Just Wanted Us To Know ...

The Red Cross stopped by Infidel Bloggers Alliance and left us a message this morning. They just wanted us to know that they are not eliminating the Red Cross logo because they are afraid of Muslims. 

Oh, no!

They only developed the "Red Crystal" logo for "certain circumstances". Other than these unspecified circumstances (read situations in which Muslims are involved), they will still use the Red Cross.

You know what? Fuck the Red Cross. 

But, here's their statement anyway, just so you can be an informed "World Citizen":

I noticed an uptick in online conversation about our emblem recently. Since many of the comments seemed to be a bit misinformed, I thought it might be wise to use this space to clear up any misconceptions. I reached out to one of our International Law Advisors to help clarify the issue:

The following is from Claire Clement, International Law Advisor at the British Red Cross:

You may have heard whisperings that an additional protective emblem to the red cross and red crescent has been introduced – the red crystal emblem. In fact, the red crystal was adopted by the international community back in 2005. In recent weeks, the UK Parliament has passed national legislation that recognises the red crystal emblem as having the same meaning and protected status as the red cross and red crescent in the UK. Below are answers to some frequently asked questions about the new additional emblem.

Q: Why do we need an additional emblem?

A: The introduction of an additional emblem was necessary for two reasons. First, there is a real concern that in certain contexts the red cross and red crescent emblems may not always be respected, despite their neutral meaning. The red crystal was introduced so that those who use the emblems, such as the medical services of the armed forces, can enhance their protection in these contexts.

Second, a small number of States and their National Societies felt unable to use the red cross or red crescent emblems, or alternatively wished to use both together, for example Israel and Eritrea. The red crystal emblem may be used by these States and, with the approval of their government, the National Society within the State. This will enable these National Societies to play their full part as members of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

Q: Why a “red crystal”?

A: After a thorough consultation process, the name “red crystal” and the shape itself (a square frame on its edge) were chosen because they are widely accepted as having no religious or political significance.

Q: Will the red crystal replace the red cross and red crescent emblems?

A: No. The red crystal is an additional emblem to the red cross and red crescent. All three emblems have the same neutral meaning and are protected under international and national laws.

Q: Who will use it?

A: In the UK, the red cross emblem will continue to be used. However the government may approve use of the red crystal in certain circumstances. For example, the medical services of the armed forces may be authorised to use the red crystal (or indeed, the red crescent) in situations where they feel it will provide better protection than the red cross, such as during certain international deployments.

Q: Will the British Red Cross continue to use the red cross emblem?

A: Yes. The red cross is one of the most recognisable symbols in the world, and has served the British Red Cross well since its establishment in 1876. The British Red Cross will not change its name, and will continue to use the red cross emblem to promote its own humanitarian activities. In rare cases, the British Red Cross may, with the approval of the government, choose to use the red crystal emblem for a limited time, in order to facilitate its humanitarian work.

By the way, I have no idea who the chick in the photo is. However, going purely by looks, I'd say she looks like the kind of One-Worlder Idiot who would construct such a message and believe it sufficed as an explanation.

And, you know, not to outdo her, but I'm gonna dig into the history of the Red Cross here a little bit.

Did you know that the Red Cross was founded as a Christian organization, to help people in need back in 1863. In 1919, they chose to take on the "Red Crescent" as a symbol because Muslims rejected the Cross as a symbol.

However, when Israel asked for a "Red Star" of David symbol to be recognized within their state, Red Cross leader Cornelio Sommaruga replied, "If we're going to have the Shield of David, why would we not have to accept the swastika?"

So, in other words, the Red Cross (a Christian organization) has no problem pandering to Islam, it has no problem pandering to political correctness (Red Crystal seems to be a particularly Pagan symbol), but there' is no way in hell they are going to pander to those Nazi Jews.

Like I said, Fuck the Red Cross. For all the good they have done, they owe the world an apology.

The Selective View of Who Makes a Victim

Not quite two years ago we reported the case of Ermyas Mulugeta, a "Germano-Ethiopian" (as the politically correct definition goes) who had come to grief in Potsdam, the capital of the state of Brandenburg, on Easter night. The two suspected "right wing extremists", who had been arrested as perpetrators on the strength of their appearance and because they had been there, were helicoptered manacled and blindfolded about 600km to the federal prosecutor at Karlsruhe, all self-righteous whining about "Guantanamo" momentarily forgotten.

All of Germany was in an orgiastic frenzy of "fight the right" Gutmenschentum, the sale of candles and flowers soared.

It then turned out that the suspected perpetrators were no "right-wing extremists" and that they weren't even the perpetrators. In fact, there hadn't been any perpetrators. It turned out, too, that Ermyas Mulugeta, pissed as a newt, had started a brawl and acquired his severe head injuries by falling and hitting the pavement.

An old German joke goes like this: "When I saw you coming, I thought it was you, then I thought it was your brother, and now you are close, I see it's neither you nor your brother."

Sadly, this is no joke.

Did the entire sordid affair teach anybody anything? Apparently not. Since then, a 15-year old boy has been expelled from his school on the strength of a hairdo that LOOKED "rightwing" and other coloured victims of violence did not become darlings of a depraved and rotten-to-the-core media, because in their cases the perpetrators had been youths "with a migration background".

No, the case of Ermyas Mulugeta did NOT teach a lesson indeed. Recently, the local court in Potsdam convicted him of defraud and imposed a fine of some hundred Euro on him. He had lied about his financial circumstances to get legal aid. To pay for the legal charges and to help Mulugeta to get over his traumatic experience, the organisation "Brandenburg Against The Right" (Brandenburg gegen Rechts) had collected about 50,000 Euro. And in an, otherwise amazingly subdued, media, the man from Ethiopia is still described as a "victim of violence".

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.

Moral Equivalence

The definition of "moral equivalence," according to Answers.com: It is a term used in political debate, usually to characterize (in a negative way) the claim that there can be no moral or ethical hierarchy decided between two sides in a conflict, nor in the actions or tactics of the two sides.

I just watched The Kingdom. It's not a true story, but it's about a terrorist attack that occurs in a non-Muslim compound in Saudi Arabia, killing lots of people. I liked the movie until the very end, and I'll tell you why in a minute, but I have to set it up for you a little.

Jamie Foxx plays an FBI agent. Foxx and his team go to Saudi Arabia to solve the crime. At the end they successfully hunt down the mastermind terrorist and shoot him. As he is dying, he whispers something into a child's ear.

Earlier in the movie, when Foxx breaks the news to his team that their good friend was killed in the original terrorist attack, a woman on his team starts crying. Foxx whispers something in her ear and she stops crying.

At the end of the movie, you find out what the mastermind terrorist whispered to the kid and what Foxx whispers to the woman. They said the same thing: Don't worry, we're going to kill them all.

This was supposed to be some kind of moral point. Something like: Hate is the real problem. Otherwise, we're all the same. Or maybe, "People, don't you see? This is like the Hatfields and McCoys. It just goes on and on, one side taking revenge on the other, and them taking revenge for the revenge."

What the moviegoers probably don't recognize is something that you probably recognized immediately: They don't mean the same by the word "all."

Foxx meant, "We're going to kill the men who perpetrated this heinous crime. We're going to kill all the men who were involved in killing our friend."

The mastermind terrorist meant, "We're going to kill every last one of the filthy infidels of the world." Or at the very least, "We will kill every infidel who lives in Saudi Arabia."

Of course, this isn't the moral equivalence they were trying to portray. It wouldn't surprise me to find out this movie was funded with Saudi money.

Without that last scene, it would have been a great movie. But with that last scene, the movie became more of the same confusing taqiyya and politically-correct multicultural spew we've come to expect from Hollywood.

They Say/We Say

And until we say Islam, we will continue respecting evil in the name of good. We will continue giving the benefit of the doubt to something that's never, ever earned an ounce of it. Listen to the Ex-Muslims like Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Ayan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina, etc. They left the faith, but not the battle, and they say Islam. They understand it first hand, they suffered under it, and they suffer for telling the truth about it, and their first hand knowledge of all things Islam should make those who truly don't know Islam pause before mouthing off about it, for they will invariably get it wrong in the name of something other than the truth.

The beginning of the end of this war will be when we are no longer afraid to name their evil by its name, Islam. Radical Nazism, Extremist Communism, Totalitarian Fascism, we never heard these terms, because each, like Islam, was another name for evil. But unlike these evil ideologies, Islam is accepted as a religion and with that comes all kinds of blinders, and not only from those who are religious.

We are respecting evil in the name of tolerance and in the name of '1.4 billion Muslims', and in the name of lies. But it is evil that we are showing respect to by not calling it by its name. Its name is Islam and if enough of us call it out, it will be the beginning of the end of its evil, no matter if '1.4 billion' Muslims have the collective fit of all time. We will remind them that there are 5 billion non-Muslims who want to remain as we are.

-Bosch Fawstin

Obama & DNC Admit All Allegations of Federal Court Lawsuit - Obama’s “Not” Qualified to be President!!!

Pastorius' comment:

So, let me get this straight; Phil Berg filed a suit. Obama didn't respond. The Court takes the lack of response as an admission of guilt. However, there has been no ruling on the admission of guilt by way of non-response, as of yet.

Am I right?

Read on -

Obama Should Immediately
Withdraw his Candidacy
for President

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/21/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and tbe DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed “ADMITTED.” Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President.

OBAMA - Admitted:

1. I was born in Kenya.

2. I am a Kenya “natural born” citizen.

3. My foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.

4. My father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. admitted Paternity of me.

5. My mother gave birth to me in Mombosa, Kenya.

6. My mother’s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham.

7. The COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website “Fightthesmears.com” is a forgery.

8. I was adopted by a Foreign Citizen.

9. I was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia.

10. I was not born in Hawaii.

11. I was not born at the Queens Medical Center in Hawaii.

12. I was not born at Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Hawaii.

13. I was not born in a Hospital in Hawaii.

14. I am a citizen of Indonesia.

15. I never took the “Oath of Allegiance” to regain my U.S. Citizenship status.

16. I am not a “natural born” United States citizen.

17. My date of birth is August 4, 1961.

18. I traveled to Pakistan in 1981 with my Pakistan friends.

19. In 1981, I went to Indonesia on my way to Pakistan.

20. Pakistan was a no travel zone in 1981 for American Citizens.

21. In 1981, Pakistan was not allowing American Citizens to enter their country.

22. I traveled on my Indonesian Passport to Pakistan.

23. I renewed my Indonesian Passport on my way to Pakistan.

24. My senior campaign staff is aware I am not a “natural born” United States Citizen.

25. I am proud of my Kenya Heritage.

26. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my first name.

27. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my last name.

28. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my place of birth.

29. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my first name.

30. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my last name.

31. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my place of birth.

32. The document identified as my Indonesian School record from Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia is genuine.

33. I went to a Judge in Hawaii to have my name changed.

34. I went to a Senator and/or Congressman or other public official in Hawaii to have my name changed.

35. I had a passport issued to me from the Government of Indonesia.

36. The United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.

37. I am ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States.

38. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Indonesia.

39. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Kenya.

40. I am an Attorney who specializes in Constitutional Law.

41. Kenya was a part of the British Colonies at the time of my birth.

42. Kenya did not become its own Republic until 1963.

43. I am not a “Naturalized” United States Citizen.

44. I obtained $200 Million dollars in campaign funds by fraudulent means.

45. I cannot produce a “vault” (original) long version of a birth certificate showing my birth in Hawaii.

46. My “vault” (original) long version birth certificate shows my birth in Kenya.

47. The only times I was to a Hospital in Hawaii was for check-ups or medical treatments for illnesses.

48. Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii does not have any record of my mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to me.

49. Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii does not have any record of my mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to me.

50. I was born in the Coast Province Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.

51. I represented on my State Bar application in Illinois that I never used any other name other than Barack Hussein Obama.

52. I went by the name Barry Soetoro in Indonesia.

53. My Indonesian school records are under the name of Barry Soetoro.

54. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when admitted to the State Bar of Illinois to practice Law.

55. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when I was Sworn into my United States Senate Office.

56. I hold dual citizenship with at least one other Country besides the United States of America.

DNC - Admitted:

1. The DNC nominated Barrack Hussein Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President.

2. The DNC has not vetted Barrack Hussein Obama.

3. The DNC did not have a background check performed on Barrack Hussein Obama.

4. The DNC did not verify Barrack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States.

5. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya.

6. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born” United States citizen.

7. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was not born in Hawaii.

8.The DNC admits they have not inquired into Barrack Hussein Obama’s citizenship status.

9. The DNC admits they have a duty to properly vette the Democratic Nominee for President.

10.The DNC admits Lolo Soetoro, M.A., an Indonesian citizen adopted Barrack Hussein Obama.

11. The DNC admits the Credentials Committee has been aware of this lawsuit since August 22, 2008 as the lawsuit was faxed to our Washington D.C. Office on August 22, 2008.

12. The DNC admits their Credentials Committee failed to verify and/or inquire into the credentials of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as the President of the United States.

13. The DNC admits their Credential Committee’s Report failed to address the issues of Barack Hussein Obama’s ineligibility to serve as President of the United States.

14.The DNC admits Howard Dean, Chair Person has and had knowledge Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya and ineligible to serve as the President of the United States.

15. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all Democratic citizens of the United States have been personally injured as a result of not having a qualified Democratic Presidential Nominee to cast their votes upon.

16. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional Right to vote for the President of the United States and to have two (2) qualified candidates of which to choose from.

17. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional right to have a properly vetted Democratic Presidential Nominee of which to cast their vote.

18. The DNC admits an FBI background check is not performed on the Presidential or Vice Presidential Candidates.

19. The DNC admits the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.

20. The DNC admits they collected donations on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama for his Presidential campaign.

21. The DNC admits Plaintiff and Democratic citizens donated money based on false representations that Barack Hussein Obama was qualified to serve as the President of the United States.

22. The DNC admits if Barack Hussein Obama is elected as President and allowed to serve as President of the United States in violation of our Constitution, it will create a Constitutional crisis.

23. The DNC admits Barack Hussein Obama took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution.

24. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a “natural born” citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff’s rights to due process of law in violation of the United States Constitution.

25. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a “natural born” citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff’s rights to Equal Protection of the laws in violation of the United States Constitution.

26. The DNC admits the function of the DNC is to secure a Democratic Presidential Candidate who will protect Democratic citizen’s interests, fight for their equal opportunities and fight for justice for all Americans.

27. The DNC admits the Democratic National Committee has been promoting Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidential election knowing he was ineligible to serve as President of the United States.

Our website http://www.obamacrimes.com/ now has 50.7 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers, radio and TV stations. Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.

Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@obamacrimes.com