MANY PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE BARBARIAN MUSLIM WORLD MAY BE UNAWARE THAT MUSLIMS CUT OUT THE CLITORIS OF LITTLE GIRLS SO THEY DON'T END UP RUNNING AROUND LIKE STRAY BITCHES LOOK FOR A MALE TO SERVICE THEM. FOR REAL! DO A SEARCH.
This should also frighten you because we are following in England's wake. Biden's illegal and unconstitutional actions to erase the southern border and flood America, not just with illegal aliens from Latin America, but from a variety of countries, many of them Muslim, when combined with the Democrat party's aggressive efforts to create racial schisms in America, means we are also starting down the path to becoming a third-world apartheid country rather than a tolerant, pluralist, constitutional nation. Andrea Widburg
Biden's Support of Religious Freedom for 'All' People
Which means -- for him -- freedom for only one religious group.
6 comments
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
On May 16, President Biden issued a brief video ostensibly dedicated to expressing his support for the religious freedom of “all” people (though in reality dedicated to only one religious group):
All people should be able to practice their faith with dignity, without fear of harassment or violence. We will defend the right of all, as we stand with you. That’s why I ended this shameful Muslim travel ban. And that’s why this administration will speak out for religious freedom for all people, including Uighurs in China and Rohingya in Burma. We also believe Palestinians and Israelis equally deserve to live in safety and security and enjoy equal measure of freedom, prosperity, and democracy. My administration is going to continue to engage Palestinians and Israelis and other regional partners to work toward sustained calm.
It is hypocritical for Biden to claim that he cares about the religious rights of “all” people—when he clearly means only “all Muslims.” So too is it vexing to note that, unlike those whom he totally ignores—for example, the hundreds of millions of Christians currently being persecuted at the hands of Muslims—those Muslims whom he does mention as deserving protection are not exactly innocent.
Consider the three Muslim peoples he singled out: the Palestinians, the Uighurs in China, and the Rohingya in Burma. Far from trying to live peaceably with their non-Muslim neighbors, and like other Muslim populations living alongside or under the authority of non-Muslims, all three have been known to engage in hostile, subversive, and terroristic activities.
One need not dwell much on the well-documented scourge of Palestinian terrorism—primarily in the guise of Hamas and Hezbollah—which, as is well known, is the root cause for conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. But consider the other two lesser known Muslim peoples.
The Rohingya of Burma have been committing the same sort of anti-infidel mayhem, violence, terrorism, and rape that one is accustomed to associating with “radical Islam”—though news of it seldom reaches the West. The main difference is that, unlike, say, the West, Burma has responded with uncompromising ruthlessness—thereby making it the “bad guy” in the media. Consider the words of popular Buddhist leader Ashin Wirathu, whom the media refer to as the “Burmese bin Laden”: “You can be full of kindness and love, but you cannot sleep next to a mad dog,” says the monk in reference to Muslims: “I call them troublemakers, because they are troublemakers.”
Similarly, Reuters quotes the Chinese government saying that it “destroyed 1,588 violent and terrorist gangs” in Xinjiang, where most Uighurs and other Muslims live, “arrested 12,995 terrorists, seized 2,052 explosive devices, punished 30,645 people for 4,858 illegal religious activities, and confiscated 345,229 copies of illegal religious [jihadi] materials.” The same report says that 30 Islamic terror attacks occurred between 1990 and 2016, killing 458 and injuring 2,540.
Critics may argue that China is untrustworthy and essentially fabricating claims of Islamic terrorism to demonize and persecute the Uighurs. And yet, history and current affairs indicate that wherever and whenever Muslim minorities live amidst non-Muslim majorities, they tend to instigate, agitate, subvert, and resort to terrorism. Either way, like Burma and unlike the West, no doubt the Chinese have been intolerantly brutal in the crackdown on their Muslim population.
The point here, of course, is not to argue that all Muslims are troublemakers and therefore “deserve” whatever treatment they get; rather, it is to highlight another instance of humanitarian hypocrisy, this time by Joe Biden. For, while he never mentions the persecution of those minorities who do no wrong, seek to live peaceably with their neighbors, and certainly never resort to terrorism—and yet are persecuted solely on account of their religious identity, as millions of Christians throughout the Muslim world are today—he expresses concern only for Muslims, who are notorious for provoking others into prolonged conflicts.
Incidentally, it’s worth adding that, unlike most of Islam’s persecuted Christians—who are indigenous to the land, often many centuries before Islam invaded it—Muslims in Burma, China, and Israel are not indigenous, but rather the descendants of Muslim conquerors or forced converts, another inconvenient fact that helps shed light on the current conflicts.
The Dirty Secret of Child Marriage
None of the organizations dedicated to combating it dares face why it's so prevalent.
It was an emblematic incident: the News Agency of Nigeria reported Wednesday that “the Chief Imam of the Nasrul-lahi-li Fathi Society of Nigeria (NASFAT), Abdul Azeez Onike, says Islam supports underage marriage.” Onike said thus at a press conference launching his new initiative, “Ending Violence Against Women and Girls,” which was “organised by NASFAT with support from UNICEF.” Is UNICEF troubled by Onike’s support for child marriage? Not enough to keep from working with him. This was yet another example of the abject failure of global “human rights” organizations to confront the uncomfortable fact of why child marriage is so common in some areas of the world: because it is sanctioned in Islam.
Onike himself made this clear, insisting “that the Islamic scripture was clear about marriage” and calling for people to refer to Islamic texts “instead of using contemporary standards” to determine whether or not child marriage was an acceptable practice.
If Abdul Azeez Onike said this in the U.S., he would be excoriated as an “Islamophobe.” But in reality, child marriage has abundant attestation in Islamic tradition and law.
Numerous Islamic authorities worldwide attest to this. Turkey’s directorate of religious affairs (Diyanet) said in January 2018 that under Islamic law, girls as young as nine can marry.
Ishaq Akintola, professor of Islamic Eschatology and Director of Muslim Rights Concern, Nigeria, has said: “Islam has no age barrier in marriage and Muslims have no apology for those who refuse to accept this.” An Iraqi expert on Islamic law, Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-‘Ubeidi, agrees, saying: “There is no minimum marriage age for either men or women in Islamic law. The law in many countries permits girls to marry only from the age of 18. This is arbitrary legislation, not Islamic law.”
So does Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent Muslim cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council: “There is no minimum age for marriage and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.”
Pakistan’s Council of Islamic Ideology has declared flatly: “Islam does not forbid marriage of young children.”
These authorities say these things because hadiths that Muslims consider authentic record that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was six when Muhammad wedded her and nine when he consummated the marriage:
“The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari 7.62.88).
Another tradition has Aisha herself recount the scene:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bukhari 5.58.234).
Muhammad was at this time fifty-four years old.
Marrying young girls was not all that unusual for its time, but because in Islam Muhammad is the supreme example of conduct (cf. Qur’an 33:21), he is considered exemplary in this unto today. And so in April 2011, the Bangladesh Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini declared that those trying to pass a law banning child marriage in that country were putting Muhammad in a bad light: “Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam, [putting] the moral character of the prophet into controversy and challenge.” He added a threat: “Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to women.” The Mufti said that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice their lives for any law restricting child marriage.
Likewise the influential website Islamonline.com in December 2010 justified child marriage by invoking not only Muhammad’s example, but the Qur’an as well:
The Noble Qur’an has also mentioned the waiting period [i.e. for a divorced wife to remarry] for the wife who has not yet menstruated, saying: “And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women, if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated” [Qur’an 65:4]. Since this is not negated later, we can take from this verse that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl. The Qur’an is not like the books of jurisprudence which mention what the implications of things are, even if they are prohibited. It is true that the prophet entered into a marriage contract with A’isha when she was six years old, however he did not have sex with her until she was nine years old, according to al-Bukhari.
Other countries make Muhammad’s example the basis of their laws regarding the legal marriageable age for girls. Article 1041 of the Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that girls can be engaged before the age of nine, and married at nine: “Marriage before puberty (nine full lunar years for girls) is prohibited. Marriage contracted before reaching puberty with the permission of the guardian is valid provided that the interests of the ward are duly observed.”
According to Amir Taheri in The Spirit of Allah: Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution (pp. 90-91), Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful to give their own daughters away accordingly: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” When he took power in Iran, he lowered the legal marriageable age of girls to nine, in accord with Muhammad’s example.
Yet despite all this, worldwide organizations dedicated to ending child marriage universally fail to acknowledge its justifications in Islam. The UN High Commissioner of Human Rights never mentions Islam in connection with child marriage. UNICEF doesn’t, either. Nor does the international network Girls Not Brides or the International Women’s Health Coalition. The latter does say: “Child marriage occurs in every region of the world, and is practiced across cultures, religions, and ethnicities,” and while that is true, no religion or culture offers as much justification for child marriage as Islam does.
Until that is acknowledged, the root causes of this problem will never be addressed. And more girls will suffer.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 21 books including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad and The History of Jihad. His latest book is Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins―Revised and Expanded Edition. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.
Turkey Praises—and Seeks to Emulate?—a Mass-Murdering, Pedophilic, Slave-Trader
What a people’s “hero” says about them.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Turning churches into mosques is very much on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s mind these days. Last Friday, June 4, he “spoke of the Turkish legacy of conquest and the conversion of the Hagia Sophia [into a mosque] during a mosque opening in the city of Zonguldak on Friday.” In his own words, “the re-opening of the Hagia Sophia as a mosque is important, as it is a legacy of conquest.”
Thus, while the West falls all over itself to disavow any “conquest” its ancestors may have engaged in—for example, the “conquest of the Americas” at the hands of the “genocidal” Columbus—here is the president of Turkey praising the violent conquests committed by his Muslim ancestors. The significance of this dichotomy, and what it portends for the future, is in need of acknowledgement.
As a case study, take Erdoğan’s stance towards Turkey’s greatest jihadis of history—men whose atrocious deeds would shame ISIS. Last summer, while celebrating his decree to transform the Hagia Sophia—which for a millennium had functioned as Eastern Christendom’s greatest basilica—into a mosque, Erdoğan repeatedly saluted Sultan Muhammad al-Fatah (“the Conqueror,” 1432-1481) for violently transforming Christian Constantinople into Islamic Istanbul.
And yet consider: Sultan Muhammad’s sole justification for conquering Constantinople was that Islam demands the subjugation of “infidels,” in this case, Christians. He had no other “grievance” than that. In fact, when he first became sultan, he “swore by the god of their false prophet, by the prophet whose name he bore,” a bitter Christian contemporary retrospectively wrote, that “he was their [the Christians’] friend, and would remain for the whole of his life a friend and ally of Constantinople.” Although they believed him, Muhammad was taking advantage of “the basest arts of dissimulation and deceit,” wrote Edward Gibbon. “Peace was on his lips while war was in his heart.”
During his siege of Constantinople, he regularly exhorted his Muslim army with jihadi ideology, including by unleashing throngs of preachers crying,
Children of Muhammad, be of good heart, for tomorrow we shall have so many Christians in our hands that we will sell them, two slaves for a ducat, and will have such riches that we will all be of gold, and from the beards of the Greeks we will make leads for our dogs, and their families will be our slaves. So be of good heart and be ready to die cheerfully for the love of our [past and present] Muhammad.
“Recall the promises of our Prophet concerning fallen warriors in the Koran,” the sultan himself exhorted: “the man who dies in combat shall be transported bodily to paradise and shall dine with Muhammad in the presence of women, handsome boys, and virgins.”
The mention of “handsome boys” was not just an accurate reference to the Koran’s promise (e.g., 52:24, 56:17, and 76:19); Muhammad was a notorious pedophile. His enslavement and rape of Jacob Notaras—a handsome 14-year-old nobleman’s son in Constantinople, whom Muhammad forced into becoming his personal catamite until he escaped—was only one of the most infamous. The sultan stabbed to death another Christian boy who “preferred death to infamy.”
After his conquest and desecration of the Hagia Sophia, Muhammad had the “wretched citizens of Constantinople” dragged before his men during evening festivities and “ordered many of them to be hacked to pieces, for the sake of entertainment.” The rest of the city’s population—as many as 45,000—was hauled off in chains to be sold as slaves.
This is the man whom Turkey and its president honor—including by rededicating one of Christendom’s greatest and oldest churches as a victory mosque to him last year. Nor is Muhammad al-Fatah the only terrorist to be honored; as Erdoğan explained in one of his speeches:
The conquest of Istanbul [Constantinople] and the conversion of the Hagia Sophia into a mosque are among the most glorious chapters of Turkish history.….The resurrection of the Hagia Sophia represents our memory full of heydays in our history, from [the battles of] Badr to Manzikert, from Nicopolis, to Gallipoli [all jihadi victories] … The resurrection of the Hagia Sophia is required by our respect and commitment to all of our ancestors, from Alp Arslan [Islamic victor of Manzikert who opened the way to the conquest of Asia Minor, and massacred or enslaved tens of thousands of Christians], to Muhammad al-Fatah, to Abdulhamid [who massacred as many as 300,000 Armenians in the name of jihad between 1894-1896]. The resurrection of the Hagia Sophia … honors Muhammad al-Fatah’s spirit of conquest… Allah willing, we will continue to walk on this sacred path without pause or hesitation, until we reach our ultimate destination [emphasis added].
The message could not be clearer: jihadi ideology dominates Turkey, at least its leadership. Invading and conquering neighboring peoples—not due to any grievances but because they are non-Muslim—with all the attending atrocities, rapes, destruction, and mass slavery is apparently the ideal, to resume once the sunset of Western power is complete.
Meanwhile, because Americans are used to seeing statues of their own nation’s heroes toppled—for no other reason than that they were white and/or Christian, and therefore inherently evil—the significance of Erdoğan’s words and praise of Muhammad the Conqueror—who as an Asian Muslim is further immune from Western criticism, as that would be “racist”—will remain lost on them.
THE HAGIA SOPHIA WAS BUILT BY BYZINTINE CHRISTIAN SOVEREIGNS EMPEROR JUSTIN AND EMPRESS THEODORA.
MUSLIM INVASION OF SPAIN
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-muslim-invasion-of-spain-and-europe.html
The Hagia Sophia: A True 'Center of Knowledge about Islam'
A look at how delusional Turkish leadership has become.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Last summer, Turkish authorities transformed Hagia Sophia (“Holy Wisdom”)—which was originally built, and for a millennium functioned, as one of Christendom’s greatest cathedrals—into a mosque. On that Friday, July 24, 2020 (which for millions of Eastern Christians is now deemed a “day of mourning”), Muslims met inside the desecrated church, where they were led in prayer by a sword-waving imam, to spasmodic cries of “Allahu Akbar.”
The Turks, beginning with their president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, have been presenting this bit of cultural appropriation as their “right.” Imam Ali Erbas, Turkey’s president of Religious Affairs, has gone one further, claiming that “The goal is for all our mosques and especially Hagia Sophia to become centers of knowledge about Islam.”
So be it. As the anniversary of the Turkish conquest of Constantinople and its Hagia Sophia recently passed (May 29, 1453), let us revisit what happened on that day—a day that truly does impart much “knowledge about Islam,” not least because we have primary source documents describing exactly what the Turks did, particularly in and around Hagia Sophia. (All quoted text in the following narrative was derived from contemporary sources, mostly eyewitnesses; exact references can be found in chapter 7 of Sword and Scimitar.)
Once they had penetrated inside Constantinople, the “enraged Turkish soldiers . . . gave no quarter”:
When they had massacred and there was no longer any resistance, they were intent on pillage and roamed through the town stealing, disrobing, pillaging, killing, raping, taking captive men, women, children, old men, young men, monks, priests, people of all sorts and conditions… There were virgins who awoke from troubled sleep to find those brigands standing over them with bloody hands and faces full of abject fury… [The Turks] dragged them, tore them, forced them, dishonored them, raped them at the cross-roads and made them submit to the most terrible outrages… Tender children were brutally snatched from their mothers’ breasts and girls were pitilessly given up to strange and horrible unions, and a thousand other terrible things happened. . .
Because thousands of citizens had fled to and were holed up in Hagia Sophia, the ancient basilica offered an excellent harvest of slaves, once its doors were axed down:
One Turk would look for the captive who seemed the wealthiest, a second would prefer a pretty face among the nuns. . . . Each rapacious Turk was eager to lead his captive to a safe place, and then return to secure a second and a third prize. . . . Then long chains of captives could be seen leaving the church and its shrines, being herded along like cattle or flocks of sheep.
The slavers sometimes fought each other to the death over “any well-formed girl,” even as many of the latter “preferred to cast themselves into the wells and drown rather than fall into the hands of the Turks.”
Having taken possession of the Hagia Sophia—which at the time of its capture had served as a cathedral for a thousand years—the invaders “engaged in every kind of vileness within it, making of it a public brothel.” On “its holy altars” they enacted “perversions with our women, virgins, and children,” including “the Grand Duke’s daughter who was quite beautiful.” She was forced to “lie on the great altar of Hagia Sophia with a crucifix under her head and then raped.”
Next “they paraded the [Hagia Sophia’s main] Crucifix in mocking procession through their camp, beating drums before it, crucifying the Christ again with spitting and blasphemies and curses. They placed a Turkish cap . . . upon His head, and jeeringly cried, ‘Behold the god of the Christians!’”
Practically all other churches in the ancient city suffered the same fate. “The crosses which had been placed on the roofs or the walls of churches were torn down and trampled.” The Eucharist was “thrown to the ground and kicked.” Bibles were stripped of their gold or silver illuminations before being burned. “Icons were without exception given to the flames.” Patriarchal vestments were placed on the haunches of dogs; priestly garments were placed on horses.
“Everywhere there was misfortune, everyone was touched by pain” when Sultan Muhammad finally made his grand entry into the city. “There were lamentations and weeping in every house, screaming in the crossroads, and sorrow in all churches; the groaning of grown men and the shrieking of women accompanied looting, enslavement, separation, and rape.”
The sultan rode to Hagia Sophia, dismounted, and went in, “marveling at the sight” of the grand basilica. After having it cleansed of its crosses, statues, and icons—Muhammad himself knocked over and trampled on its main altar—he ordered a muezzin to ascend the pulpit and sound “their detestable prayers,” wrote a disgruntled Christian. “Then this son of iniquity, this forerunner of Antichrist, mounted upon the Holy Table to utter forth his own prayers,” thereby “turning the Great Church into a heathen shrine for his god and his Mahomet.”
To cap off his triumph, Muhammad had the “wretched citizens of Constantinople” dragged before his men during evening festivities and “ordered many of them to be hacked to pieces, for the sake of entertainment.” The rest of the city’s population—as many as forty-five thousand—were hauled off in chains to be sold into Easter captivity.
Such is the “knowledge about Islam” that the Hagia Sophia’s experiences truly impart.
Setting the record straight concerning the conquest of Constantinople, as this article has done, is doubly important now that Google and “big tech” are, like the Turks, devoted to hiding the truth of this day: before Turkey violently transformed the Hagia Sophia into a mosque, googling the date “May 29”—a day that for centuries before Pearl Harbor “lived in infamy”—produced numerous search results on the Muslim conquest of Constantinople; today very few do.
Note: Quoted excerpts in the above narrative were taken from and are sourced in the author’s Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West.
Radical Islamist Group Hizb ut-Tahrir Resurgent in Britain Amid Israel-Palestine Conflict: Report
A radical pan-Islamist organisation, which calls for the reinstatement of the caliphate and the global imposition of sharia law, has resurfaced in Britain amid the tension between Israel and Palestine.
Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, which was both David Cameron and Tony Blair tried to have banned in the UK, is reportedly behind a campaign to encourage Muslim armies of the world to “liberate” the Palestinian people in Gaza and the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.
The Islamist group organised anti-Israel protests in London and Birmingham last month, according to the Sunday Telegraph, though the paper noted that they tend to downplay their involvement in organising the demonstrations.
While placards in London and Birmingham were seen bearing the name of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a similar protest held in Luton saw activists cover up the name with black tape.
The head of government relations for the Community Security Trust, which monitors anti-Semitism in the UK, Jonny Newton said that Hizb ut-Tahrir has become “more visible in recent weeks”.
For example, at a protest in Birmingham a man was filmed calling on the “Muslim armies” of the world to wage jihad to “wipe out that Zionist entity” of Israel.
“There is little doubt that they have continued to organise and recruit under the radar and without significant scrutiny since the organisation was exposed as anti-Semitic and homophobic in the 1990’s” Mr Newton said.
He continued: “Hizb ut-Tahrir is a global Islamist group, the leadership of which states explicitly anti-Jewish hatred regarding Israel.
“It was inevitable that its British supporters would echo some of that sentiment on our streets, because that is what they have been doing for decades: despite repeat complaints from the UK Jewish community about the danger posed by the group, both in its own right and as a potential gateway to more violent Jihadi actions.”
Despite the Tory party manifesto of 2010 pledging that a Conservative government would “ban any organisations which advocate hate or the violent overthrow of our society, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir,” Prime Minister David Cameron failed to follow through, claiming that a ban on the radical organisation would not be “workable”.
A 2009 report by the Centre for Social Cohesion found that the ideology of Hizb ut-Tahrir is in direct opposition to the values of Western society.
“Inherent to HT’s worldview is a clash between “Western” and “Islamic” civilisations. The party believes the United Kingdom and United States of America are leading a campaign against Islam and Muslims worldwide,” the report said.
“HT actively seeks mass support for its Islamist revolution among Western Muslims. Party ideology commands them to oppose Western civilisation and to subvert their societies. All Western states are considered “enemies” of Islam and potential land for HT’s expansionist Islamist state via jihad.”
In a statement issued on Saturday, Hizb ut-Tahrir said: “We distinguish between Jewish people as a faith and an ethnicity, and the Zionist military occupation that calls itself a ‘Jewish state’ … In Britain we use the term Zionist entity as we do not recognise the name that it gives itself.
“The demonstration in Luton was a community initiative and not a Hizb ut-Tahrir rally, unlike the simultaneous demonstrations in London and Birmingham on 16th May. The chairman of the executive committee of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain was invited to speak, along with speakers from other organisations, so the party’s presence was open. However it would be inappropriate to have the party’s name on banners at an event that was not its own.
“Hizb ut-Tahrir does not promote fear, criminality or terrorism. No honest person has ever said this nor does any evidence exist to support this. Hizb ut-Tahrir does not encourage violence against civilians.”
Follow Kurt Zindulka on Twitter here @KurtZindulka
DO YOU EVER WONDER IF THERE IS A SINGLE DEMOCRAT POL WHO IS NOT ANTI-AMERICA???
WE MAY NEVER RECOVER FROM WHAT THE DEMOCRAT PARTY HAS DONE TO THIS NATION.
Jews may be realizing that the Democrat party is not their friend
I have access to a Facebook group composed of strongly Democrat-voting Jewish Zionists. It has been fascinating over the past six months watching them coming to come to terms with the fact that, no matter how much Democrats talk about "white supremacists," the only hatred for Jews and Israel is coming from people affiliated with the Democrat party.
Nancy Pelosi: ‘No’ Further Action Needs to Be Taken Against Ilhan Omar Equating U.S., Israel to Terrorists
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during an event, Friday, to discuss the American Jobs Plan and American Families Plan said that no further action needs to be taken on far-left radical Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) remarks comparing the United States and Israel to terrorists.
A reporter asked the speaker, during the event, if “any further action should be taken against Rep. Omar for her comments.”
“No,” Pelosi said, cutting the reporter off.
Pelosi continued to say, “I think that she, clarified her remarks, and that was, uh, uh, we accept that and, uh, she, she, she has a point that she wanted to make, and she has a right to make that point,” adding that she Omar already tried to clarify her remarks:
Nancy Pelosi: “No” action needs to be taken against Ilhan Omar after equating Israel and the U.S. with terrorist groups pic.twitter.com/ZhM7Dy7h4l
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 11, 2021
Breitbart News previously reported Omar made remarks during a hearing she attended virtually to question Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The tweet in which Omar attached a video of her remarks said, “We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity.”
The tweet continued, “We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban.”
Watch:
We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity.
We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban.
I asked @SecBlinken where people are supposed to go for justice. pic.twitter.com/tUtxW5cIow
— Rep. Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan) June 7, 2021
Eventually, Omar scrambled as she tried to clean up her mess by attempting to clarify the initial comment made.
In a statement, she said, “On Monday, I asked Secretary of State Antony Blinken about an ongoing International Criminal Court Investigation.”
“The conversation was about accountability for specific incidents regarding those ICC cases, not a moral comparison between Hamas and the Taliban and the U.S. and Israel,” she noted, “I was in no way equating terrorist organizations with democratic countries with well-established judicial systems.”
No comments:
Post a Comment