Global Gun Control Advocates to Meet in NYC to Set UN Disarmament Agenda

28d51747fd5fd83522efa694064d799c_xl

Written by 

Anti-gun globalists will meet in New York City this week discuss ways to confiscate small arms and ammunition from civilians and to consolidate monopoly control over those weapons in the hands of the governments of United Nations (UN) member states. The convention is part of a UN-controlled process of disarmament called the Programme of Action (PoA).

From June 6-10 delegates from around the world will attend the Sixth Biennial Meeting of States (BMS6) of the PoA. This latest planning meeting will give delegates an opportunity to move the ball closer to the goal of ridding the world’s civilian population of the small arms and ammunition that could challenge the ability of UN-approved governments to carry out the will of the world body.

Serving as an agenda for the deliberations will be the Chair’s Summary published after the last meeting in 2015. For Americans, then, it will be instructive to examine this document and identify all of the proposals that would violate the Constitution, specifically the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. To this end, I will highlight a few of the provisions of the Chair’s Summary that represent the most clear and present danger to liberty.

First, the plan as put forth in the Chair’s Summary calls for the UN’s member states to eliminate the threat of technologically advanced weapons, including so-called polymer firearms and 3D printed guns, as well as the tracking of materials used in the “craft-production of small arms and light weapons.”

Not surprisingly, the representative from China called for increased UN-mandated regulations on 3D printers and the weapons they produce.

Specifically, the Chair’s Summary calls for “strengthening 3D printing regulations in the context of 3D weapon printing,” for “ensuring export licenses [are] in place for 3D printers,” for drawing global attention to “the need to pay attention to the resale of such printers,” and for “strengthening controls over 3D printing technology.”

No one is shocked, of course, that the globalists at the UN want to draw up comprehensive plans to take guns — any and every variety of gun — out of the hands of civilians.

After discussing similar strategies to lock down the manufacture, purchase, sale, and transfer of polymer weapons and modular weapons, the next item on the agenda warrants an immediate withdrawal of the United States from the world body.

Paragraph 33 of the Chair’s Summary of the meeting calls for urgent tracking of civilian-owned firearms, recommending that manufacturers be forced by the UN to install “RFID and biometric technologies in limiting the access to the weapon to authorized users only,” with authorized users defined as state actors (UN member nations).

That’s right. As part of the Programme of Action (the foundation upon which the Arms Trade Treaty is built — a treaty nearly half of the U.S. Senate supports), the United States has committed to passing legislation that will require domestic firearms and ammunition manufacturers to equip their products with RFID chips and biometric technologies that will help the government slowly but surely disarm civilians.

That’s not all. At the end of that paragraph, the UN suggests governments look into combining RFID chips, biometrics, with GPS tracking technologies to be sure to prevent regular people from getting their hands on guns.

So, at this week’s meeting, the UN will not only set out the schedule of domestic gun regulations, but it will instruct third-world regimes where to look for the money to help pay for the implementation of these new disarmament policies: increased foreign aid from the United States.

Specifically, the unelected, unaccountable UN globocrats call for greater “international cooperation and assistance” (read: American taxpayer dollars) to offset the massive cost of the “transfer of technology and knowledge” necessary to make the proposed gun grab a reality.

It should be noted that Paragraph 42 of the summary proposes funding this fascism “through the UN regular budget,” 22 percent of which is paid by the United States, through a process that can be described as nothing less than legalized theft of the wealth of the American worker.

Next, the document calls for the cultivating of a “culture of peace,” which is certainly shorthand for flooding the United States with UN-created propaganda linking the civilian ownership of firearms with homicide and other violent crimes.

Given the fact that both major party presidential candidates endorse some level of federal restriction on the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn’t take too much foresight to predict a panoply of renewed calls for controlling and regulating civilian access to firearms.

Additionally, according to the text of the Chair’s Summary that will serve as the to-do list for the world’s international cadre of gun confiscators, the POA will serve as an “international instrument to enable states to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner,” the small arms and light weapons that are the subject of the scheme.

In practice, this means that the governments of member nations (including the United States) will soon create a massive, all-inclusive database of all parties that manufacture, own, sell, trade, or transfer arms and ammunition.

If recent history is a reliable indicator of how such data would be used, after the catalog is complete, Congress could pass a law (or the president could issue an executive order) compelling “voluntary” surrender of privately-owned weapons, ammo, parts, and components (including reloading equipment). If, after a statutorily-set window, citizens don’t turn in these items to their local law enforcement, then officers will be sent to remind violators of their responsibility under the law to disarm.

How will this worldwide tracking of weapons, ammo, and component parts be carried out?

Paragraph 32 of the Chair’s Summary lays out the plan for “real-time tracking” of firearms and ammunition “from manufacturer to storage and from storage up to the individual users.”

Once the governments of the member nations begin tracking and confiscating weapons from civilians, the Programme of Action (paragraphs 30 and 31) mandates that member governments take “direct control over transfers of small arms and light weapons.”

This control will require the federal government to begin stockpiling these items and making a database of the recently impounded guns, bullets, 3D printers, plastics, polymers, and component parts.

This database must include “the marking, record-keeping and tracing of weapons, and in this regard considered barcodes, radio frequency identification (RFID) and biometrics for purposes of electronically identifying stored items, collecting data on them and enabling the data to be entered automatically into record-keeping systems.”

It is evident from a reading of this latest UN disarmament publication that despite the rhetoric related to ”promotion of a culture of peace,” there are only two reasons the UN is making every effort to disarm the population of the United States: to weaken our sovereignty, and to take from our people their ability to resist those despots (at home and abroad) who would place us under the boot of tyranny and demote us to the ranks of slaves on a “sustainable” global plantation.

Finally, the upcoming confiscation confab will demand member states confirm their commitment to achieving the climate and sustainability goals set out in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which was adopted in September 2015. The startling complexity and comprehensiveness of these goals were examined by The New American’s Alex Newman in an article published earlier this year. Newman writes:

Perhaps the single most striking feature of Agenda 2030 is the practically undisguised roadmap to global socialism and corporatism/fascism, as countless analysts have pointed out. To begin with, consider the agenda’s Goal 10, which calls on the UN, national governments, and every person on Earth to “reduce inequality within and among countries.” To do that, the agreement continues, will “only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.”

Americans committed to preserving their natural right to protect their liberty from those who would threaten it through the implementation of international agreements requiring the de facto repeal of the Second Amendment are encouraged to stand together in this urgent fight for freedom.

There is no organization better positioned to prepare Americans with the resources necessary to defeat the forces of disarmament in the UN and in our own government than The John Birch Society (JBS). For more than five decades, the JBS has worked to “Get U.S. out of the UN.” The strength that results from this unmatched record of results makes the JBS uniquely able to increase the awareness of the American people for the fight to retain the right to keep and bear arms.

Source : The New American


America at War would like to add That there are things in this world worth dying over, and I would have to classify the ability to defend myself as one of those things!!! So you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand

Federal Judge Oversteps

From Kris Anne Hall and OregonLive.com

#‎ActionAlert‬:

We must protest this federal court judge! Federal courts act with virtually NO accountability, that’s why they act like kings and queens. It is time for We The People to hold them accountable and a simple phone call can make a difference!

Every red-blooded, liberty loving American should be outraged by t Federal Judge, Robert E. “Gag Order” Jones’, destruction of the 1st and 6th Amendments.

Contact the judge’s chambers: (503) 326-8340

Now we can even contact this judge’s boss!
Chief District Judge Michael W. Mosman (503) 326-8330

***Tell them we will not tolerate federal destruction of our Rights!***

Once again this federal court judge believes that he can arbitrarily give and take away the Rights of the people. This is so repugnant to Liberty we should not sit quiet!

Defendant Shawna Cox was “admonished” by this judicial tyrant to be silent on not only the charges against her, but ALL ISSUES surrounding her protests against the federal government. When a federal judge, in a federal court, presiding over federal criminal charges, can tell an American to be silent, how can we possibly have fair trials?

Must we remind Senior District Judge Robert E. “Gag Order” Jones about the 1st and 6th Amendments?

Do we now live in an America where an agent of the federal government can declare an American’s Rights to freedom of speech, press, and protest are revoked?

Benjamin Franklin said this:
“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or controul the Right of another: And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought to know.”

Franklin continues by explaining the character of men who would deny us these Rights:

“This sacred Privilege is so essential to free Governments, that the Security of Property, and the Freedom of Speech always go together; and in those wretched Countries where a Man cannot call his Tongue his own, he can scarce call any Thing else his own. Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech; a Thing terrible to Publick Traytors.”

And there you have it: Senior District Judge Robert E. “Gag Order” Jones has classified himself as a “Publick Traytor.”

The 1st Amendment is not the only Right infringed by this judicial supremacist; what about the 6th Amendment?

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…”

Public Trial? How do you have a Public Trial when the government’s agent is imposing gag orders at the threat of force?

We should seriously contemplate WHY our framers would insist on a “Public Trial.” Consider the following:

In the federal system…
1. Laws are written by the federal government;
2. Laws are enforced by federal agents;
3. Laws are prosecuted by federal prosecutors;
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, your liberties will be defended by a federal defense attorney;
5. Once you get to court, your case will be decided by a federal judge.

How can anyone have any hope of a fair trial when the federal government writes the laws, enforces the laws, prosecutes and defends, and finally sits in judgement of you in regard to its own laws?

That is why we MUST have speedy and PUBLIC trials, with a jury of our peers. Without a public trial, the government controls all the facts, dictates the narrative, and the only information received by the public is that which the government approves! That is a court of Kings, not one of the people of a Constitutional Republic.

The actions of Senior District Judge Robert E. “Gag Order” Jones ought to outrage every red blooded American. The dictates of this judicial tyrants ought to be offensive to all who love America and the Liberties our Constitution attempts to secure.

Senior District Judge Robert E. “Gag Order” Jones needs to be SHAMED for his complete disregard for the Rights and Liberties of generations of Americans. If this judge can get away with this without public condemnation, may God have mercy on our Posterity for the federal government WE created in silence.

Let us be silent no more!

Let’s prove to this judge that he cannot order silence. Let’s be Shawna’s voice in defiance of this enemy to Liberty!

Contact the judge’s chambers: (503) 326-8340

Contact his Boss! Chief District Judge Michael W. Mosman (503) 326-8330

Contact the judge’s assistant: Judicial Assistant/Courtroom Deputy: Becky Peer (503) 326-8341

Print out this post and mail it to:
Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse
Room 1007
1000 Southwest Third Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204-2946

Read the Oregon Live article: http://goo.gl/BkWzrV

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmond Burke

KrisAnne Hall's photo.

Source : Kris Anne Hall

The “Fatwa” is an Islamic “Contract” on someone’s life

I want to share with you a story from Pamela Geller about Fatwas publicly issued against women by Muslim Leaders

But first I want to discuss this matter with you. Even though many Muslims refuse to take ownership of the evils within their religion, those evils exist! The average Muslim will not admit to cheering on the day the World Trade Center was attacked if asked, yet the streets around the World were filled with Muslims celebrating the attack. That is a FACT!

Then you have these “Fatwas” issued by Muslim Leaders against people all around the World for various reasons, usually for something perceived as “Offensive to Muslims” like in the case of the fatwa against Stephane Charbonnier, better known by the resulting 12 deaths at Charlie Hebdo, his employer.

I don’t care who you are, if you publicly call for the death of someone, then you should immediately be placed on a “shoot on site” list. For these radical lunatics to be roaming around and encouraging their followers to kill people indiscriminately and without consequence is unbelievable to me. Any Muslim leader guilty of issuing a fatwa against a US citizen should have a US Military “Fatwa” put out on HIM the same day!!!

Because whether it eventually happens or not, he is publicly calling for the assassination of a US citizen, to be carried out by the mental cases that follow him. And many of these end sadly in a massacre of dozens of people.

So I submit to you the proper US response to such a thing should be immediate assassination of the guy. “An eye for an eye” or  A fatwa for a fatwa. Seems like the perfect response to me.  Quit laying down for people who want to rule the world with fear, and Stand up like a MAN! And that goes DOUBLE for our leaders!!!


From FOX News

The women marked for death by Islamic fatwa face threats with fear, courage

Twenty-seven years ago, Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini called for the death of a British author, giving new fame to Salman Rushdie and infamy to the term “fatwa.”

Rushdie, whose “The Satanic Verses” had been deemed offensive to Muslims, remains threatened by the Islamic decree, but six American women who lack the resources of a best-selling author also have been marked for death by Muslim leaders. Some have been driven from their homes and jobs and even forced to live the rest of their lives in hiding, with little hope that the fatwa will be lifted.

“It is not safe, of course, not even in the West, for anyone who has a fatwa of death issued against them,” Nonie Darwish told FoxNews.com.

“I just look over my shoulder in the parking lot.”

– Raheel Raza, subject of fatwa

Darwish, an Egyptian-born U.S. citizen who was born Muslim and later converted to Christianity, spoke out against radical Islam following the 9/11 attacks. She has since been the subject of multiple fatwas issued by various Islamic clerics. Like others who bear a price on their heads, Darwish stays below the radar, and constantly looks over her shoulder.

“There are constant attempts to silence us by many Islamic organizations,” she said. “We are the No. 1 target of jihadists and ISIS sympathizers who are now in all 50 states.”

Darwish is cut off from her family in Egypt, which disapproved of her decision to speak out. She has published several books, including “The Devil We Don’t Know: The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East,” and is the founder and president of “Arabs for Israel.”

Molly Norris was a respected newspaper cartoonist in 2010, when Comedy Central censored a “South Park” episode that featured the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, amid outrage from extremists. Norris fought back with free speech, but it cost her her career.

Norris drew a cartoon of the religious figure, whom Islamist scholars believe must never be portrayed, on various items such as a teacup, a thimble and a domino. Her work was never formally published, but images went viral on the Internet and helped promote “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.”

Suddenly, Norris was deluged with death threats. Influential U.S.-born Muslim cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki issued a fatwa calling for her death a year before he was killed by a U.S drone strike in Yemen.

Former FBI counter-terrorism agent David Gomez, who handled Norris’ case from the Seattle field office at the time, told FoxNews.com that the bureau advised Norris of the “very legitimate” threats against her. The bureau stopped short of telling Gomez to go underground, but advised her to take certain precautions, including changing her appearance.

Norris opted to disappear, leaving her job and home and cutting off communication with friends and neighbors.

“Molly really took the advice to heart,” Gomez said. “She really went dark.”

A source told FoxNews.com that Norris is alive and living a new, quiet life in an undisclosed location and that the decision to completely disappear was spurred by fear for the lives of her loved ones. However, many argue she was hardly given a choice.

“People are shocked to realize a journalist inside the U.S. could be forced into hiding by radical Islam,” said author Larry Kelley, founder of the Free Molly Norris Foundation. “This issue is a really big one as far as our freedoms are concerned.

Kelley’s foundation has raised an undisclosed sum and hopes to give it to Norris to help her get by, but hasn’t been able to get in touch with her.

And the fatwa against Norris has not faded. She was again spotlighted three years ago in Al Qaeda’s “Inspire” magazine on its “Wanted: Dead or Alive for Crimes Against Islam” list alongside the likes of Rushdie and French cartoonist Stephane Charbonnier, known for his irreverent drawings of Muhammad.

The fatwa against Charbonnier ended Jan. 7, 2015, when two Muslim fanatics stormed the offices of his employer, the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, and killed him and 11 others.  If Norris had thought about resurfacing, the attack surely gave her new pause.

“I do hope she is okay,” said Mark Baumgarten, Norris’ old editor at Seattle Weekly. “But I have no way of knowing.”

Fatwas are not empty threats, according to experts. Many subjects in addition to Charbonnier have been killed by fanatics who believe they win eternal favor by making good on the threats. Egyptian academic  Forag Foda, who wrote in defense of secularism and Western values, was assassinated in 1992 after a fatwa from Sheikh Gad al-Haq Ali Gad al-Haq, who at the time was the Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Egypt’s highest authority in Sunni Islamic thought and Islamic jurisprudence.

After the order went out against Rushdie, the British-Indian author hired armed guards, traveled under a phony name, wore disguises and rarely saw his own son. Stores that sold his books were burned and the Japanese translator of “The Satanic Verses” was murdered.

Just last month, 40 state-run Iranian media outlets added a reported $600,000 to the near $4 million bounty for Rushdie’s head and renewed calls for his death.

“Depending on the issue, a fatwa could be permanent or temporary. In the case of established principles like respecting prophet, it is permanent,” Daniel Akbari, an Islamic scholar and Shariah-certified lawyer for the Supreme Court of Iran, now an adjunct professor of law at St. Mary’s University in Texas, told FoxNews.com. “Going underground and living secretly is the first step the targets of fatwa take to avoid the life-threatening danger that could even threaten the life of their families. They have to limit the number of people they used to socialize with and in many cases leave their jobs.”

Fatwas were traditionally issued by muftis, who are very high-ranking imams. But in recent times, less respected scholars and figures with less credibility and followers have begun issuing fatwas.

Pamela Geller, co-founder of the controversial anti-Muslim extremist American Freedom Defense Initiative, is believed to have been the target of two men who tried to storm a “Draw Muhammad” cartoon competition in Garland, Texas, last year. She had already been threatened with death from various Islamist groups, including ISIS.

Geller has defiantly lived under Islamist death threats since at least 2006, when her blog, Atlas Shrugs, reprinted cartoon images of Muhammad originally published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Geller organized a “Draw the Prophet” cartoon contest held May 3, 2015, at the same site in Texas where a Muslim group had months earlier held a “Stand With the Prophet” event.

Two Muslim extremists were killed in a shootout with a Garland Independent School District police officer outside the event.

“I was their prime target,” Gellar told FoxNews.com. “Muslims have called for my death and published on Twitter what they think is my home address. Shortly after the Garland event, ISIS issued a formal fatwa calling for my death.”

A month later, a 26-year-old Muslim man, Usaamah Rahim, was killed by Boston police after charging at them with a military knife. After his death, police revealed that Rahim was an ISIS follower who had planned to behead Geller in retaliation for her Muhammad art exhibit.

Gellar’s strong stance against radical Islam has angered more than just Muslims. She was denied entry into the UK in 2013 as “not conducive to the public good” and has been branded a bigot by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Geller, who lives in New York City under constant guard, said she will never give up her campaign to warn the world about radical Islam.

“I take nothing for granted. I’m aware of the risks,” Geller noted. “But I would rather die standing up than on my knees.”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born, Dutch-American, routinely calls for a reformation of Islam, asserting that “we cannot get away from the reality that there is something within Islam that inspires, incites and mobilizes millions of people to engage in what our president euphemistically calls ‘violent extremism.’”

In 2004, Ali worked with Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh on a highly contentious short movie “Submission” regarding the subjugation of women under Islam. Death threats against the pair ran rampant and Van Gogh was soon murdered in the streets of Amsterdam, a note pinned to his body promising that Ali would be next.

Now a fellow at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, Ali, whose latest book, “Heretic,” was released last year, continues to rail against what she sees as the injustice of Islam.

Like Ali, Raheel Raza left her Islamic homeland and discovered freedom in North America. Twenty-eight years ago, she moved with her husband and two children from Pakistan to Canada, where she is an activist for the rights of Muslim women.

“I am most passionate about human rights and women’s rights in the Muslim world,” the Karachi University graduate and author of “Their Jihad, Not My Jihad: A Muslim Canadian Woman Speaks Out” said.

Her efforts, which include advocating for a burka ban, mixed-gender prayers for Muslims and opposiong plans to build a Muslim community center near New York’s Ground Zero, have yielded death threats, hate mail and a fatwa.

Raza does not have personal bodyguards, and is not provided protection by the Canadian government.

“Many people get full-time security, but I just leave it in God’s hands to protect me,” she told FoxNews.com. “If I allow myself to be afraid I can’t do the work I do, so I don’t wallow in the luxury of fear.

“I just look over my shoulder in the parking lot,” she said.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

When leftist protesters can’t handle the truth.

Editor’s Note: This is a letter to the editor written by David Horowitz, printed in The Daily Trojan in response to the column “David Horowitz does not belong on campus,” which ran in the March 23, 2016 edition of The Daily Trojan.

On the day I was scheduled to speak at USC this week, a column appeared in the Daily Trojan, titled “David Horowitz Does Not Belong On Campus.” The author, an Iranian student named Lida Dianti, justified her desire to ban me from speaking by claiming that I was a racist and anti-Muslim, and that I “vilified Palestinians.”

In fact, I have been a lifelong defender of minorities and particularly African Americans, having been in my first civil rights march 68 years ago, during the Truman administration, almost half a century before Lida Dianti was born. Dianti justifies her claim that I am an anti-black racist with these words: “He has refuted the prevalence of institutionalized racism,” and “[dismissed] the systems that actively oppress black Americans.” Well, if I’ve “refuted” the claim that there is institutional racism then what is the complaint? Apparently, the complaint is that the truth is racist. This actually captures my view of the protests against conservative speakers on this and other campuses: The protesters can’t handle the truth.

I do believe that institutionalized racism is a myth. Despite protests at the University of Missouri and Yale about “racism,” for example, these institutions spend millions of dollars to recruit minority students and rig admissions requirements to benefit those that can’t meet their standards. Those are facts, not opinions, which leftists can’t refute and therefore want to suppress.

The claim that I am anti-Muslim was lifted by Dianti from a left-wing smear site where I am described as “the godfather of the anti-Muslim movement.” Despite the fact that I have written more than a million published words and there are hours of video recordings of my campus speeches and TV appearances on YouTube, neither the left-wing smear site nor Lida Dianti were able to find even one sentence that could honestly be described as “anti-Muslim.” I am not against Muslims. I am against Islamic terror and the Islamic jihad. My detractors convert this into an attack on all Muslims by ignoring that crucial distinction.

I have never described Muslim students as “Wahhabi Islamicists who basically support our enemies,” as Dianti falsely claims. I have said that specific organizations, like Students for Justice in Palestine, were created by the Muslim Brotherhood and support the Hamas terrorists who are our enemies. Students for Justice in Palestine and the Muslim Students Association, which is also a creature of the Muslim Brotherhood, have conducted national campaigns to demonize Israel and its Jews, and support the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement whose goal is to strangle the Jewish state — which is the real reason why I am regularly attacked by the left on campuses like this.

Finally, in a speech at Brooklyn College, I did say that the Palestinians are “morally sick” — one of the few statements in Dianti’s column that is true — but she left out the context. I had first pointed out that Hamas and the Palestinian leadership explicitly call for the extermination of the Jews. I described this as “Nazi.” I pointed out that 100 percent of Palestinians who vote, vote for terrorist parties with these Nazi agendas. I said leftists will nonetheless defend the support of Nazi agendas as the regrettable effect of being oppressed. Then I said this: “But even if they were oppressed, that is no excuse for embracing Nazism. People have been oppressed for thousands of years, yet there has never before been a people that has strapped bombs to its own children, told them to blow themselves up along with other children who are Jews, and if they do so they will go to heaven.  Moreover, if they are lucky enough to be male, they will be rewarded with 72 virgins. That is sick.” You may disagree with my conclusion but it is hardly an attack on Palestinians as such. It is an attack on their behavior.

Lida Dianti concludes her plea that I should be silenced by saying that hers “is not an attack on freedom of speech but rather on hate speech.” This is a very dangerous misunderstanding of freedom of speech, which either protects all speech or is meaningless. One woman’s hate speech is another man’s truth. Learn to live with that, Lida, and since you are a college student, learn to deal with arguments you don’t like by finding ways to refute them, rather than by conducting protests to suppress them.

Source : FRONTPAGE MAG


It’s always easier to silence those you disagree with, especially when you are wrong!!!

David Horowitz hit the nail on the head here. Just like myself, he does not “Hate” people of any race or religion. Instead he condemns the misguided  ideals to which they adhere to. I judge a man on his Character alone. His Color or Religion never even enters my mind UNLESS his religion is one that wants to harm me or others. Anyone who condones killing in the name of a Religion, ANY Religion, is misguided in their beliefs.

I do not have the right to kill YOU because you don’t believe in my religion, just like YOU don’t have the right to kill ME because I do not believe in yours!!! When Religion becomes an excuse to commit violence and atrocities against peaceful people it has become a cult, a cult of Death.

Every day multiple people die in this world because someone believes their “Religion” dictates they become judge, jury, and executioner. Any doctrine calling for the death of people who will not submit to it,  or submit to it’s followers has nothing to do with Religion, and instead falls into the category of a cult.

There is nothing Holy or “Religious” in the taking of human life. And believing otherwise indicates to me, someone who seeks to rationalize their own violent behavior, by blaming it on Religion. Most people believing this way will not admit it on the public stage, they will only confess their murderous thoughts when surrounded by others with the same beliefs.

If your belief was something Holy, something legitimate and true…………..You would not need to hide it! You would instead celebrate it and share it with the World.

 

USA Today: U.S. cities face anti-Muslim backlash

Here we go again. After every Islamic jihad massacre, the mainstream media acts as if Muslims, not non-Muslims, were killed. Notice that while this headline portends Muslims being persecuted all over the nation, the article doesn’t give any examples other than vague and unsubstantiated assertions from the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which wants and needs hate crimes against Muslims, because they’re the currency they use to buy power and influence in our victimhood-oriented society, and to deflect attention away from jihad terror and onto Muslims as putative victims. Hamas-linked CAIR, designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, andotherMuslimshaveonmanyoccasionsnothesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques. Most notably, in February, 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.”

sad Muslims

“‘Islamophobia’: U.S. cities face anti-Muslim backlash,” by Mike James and Linda Dono, USA TODAY, March 24, 2016 (thanks to Christian):

WASHINGTON — Cities across the USA are preparing for the next phase that inevitably follows a terror attack: anti-Muslim backlash.

Across social media, in public forums on college campuses, and even in mainstream political rhetoric from presidential candidates, anger over the deadly terror attacks in Brussels has spawned discontent and suspicion directed at Muslim groups. After the Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attacks, leaders in California, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and spoke out quickly to dissuade anti-Muslim sentiment.

The aftermath of an attack “is always a difficult time for Muslims in the United States,” said Nabil Shaikh, a leader of the Muslim Students Association at Princeton University.

“On Princeton’s campus, students took to anonymous forums like Yik Yak to comment that there are Muslims at Princeton who are radical and would therefore condone yesterday’s attacks,” Shaikh said. “These comments not only are appalling and inaccurate but also threaten the well-being of Muslim students.”

Unlike in Belgium and Paris following the November terror attacks, the backlash in the U.S. is not as confrontational.

Europe has seen occasional anti-Muslim rallies in Flemish cities such as Antwerp and Ghent. Some Muslim leaders have accused police in Europe of overtly targeting Muslim communities in lockdowns and raids of homes.

“The average Muslim still feels intimidated, still feels scared, still feels insecure.”
Khusro Elley, Chappaqua, N.Y.

Muslim communities in the U.S. face opposition more in the form of rhetoric — but in an election year, such rhetoric can lead to sweeping change.

The day of the Brussels attack, Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz said that the U.S. needs to “empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.” His comments struck an already raw nerve in Muslim communities throughout the U.S. although Donald Trump praised Cruz’s idea.

President Obama called the approach “wrong and un-American.”

“I just left a country that engages in that kind of surveillance, which by the way the father of Senator Cruz escaped, to America, the land of the free,” he said, referring to Cuba.

Politics plays a role in fostering anti-Islamic sentiment, said Khusro Elley of Chappaqua, N.Y., a trustee at Upper Westchester Muslim Society in Thornwood, N.Y.

“The average Muslim still feels intimidated, still feels scared, still feels insecure,” especially in a political climate where it’s become common to depict Muslims as terrorists, he said.

While brutal attacks on Muslims in the United States haven’t been reported to the Council on American-Islamic Relations since the Brussels attack, bullying and hate speech are growing, said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Washington-based civil-liberties group.

“For girls, it’s pulling on the hijab and calling them terrorists, and for boys it’s saying that they have a bomb in their backpack and calling them terrorists,” Hooper said. Some politicians make the problems worse. “They really have mainstreamed Islamophobia.”

Children hear the hate speech on TV and hear their parents agreeing with it, he said. Increasingly, they’re taking the language to school.

In Louisville, more than two dozen Islamic leaders gathered Wednesday to condemn the attacks and urge the public not to link all Muslims with terrorism, describing a growing level of Islamophobia.

“I do feel that with the attacks in Brussels and especially after Paris, people feel like they are entitled to speak hatefully. It’s actually a lot worse than what happened after 9/11.”
Maira Salim, Muslim Student Association at Wichita State University

Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer, a Democrat, called some Republican political candidates’ responses in wake of the Brussels attack “naive and unrealistic.”

“For them to play to people’s basest fears” to gain political support is “contrary to American values,” Fischer said at an interfaith prayer vigil, contending that such candidates are “masquerading as presidential timber.”

Muslims in Louisville haven’t felt fearful, especially since non-Muslim volunteers came out in force to paint over anti-Islam graffiti two days after the Louisville Islamic Center was vandalized Sept. 16, said Mohammed Wasif Iqbal, head of the center. But Iqbal said some have criticized Islamic leaders for not condemning attacks strongly enough.

“We will stand here every single time and condemn it,” he said, arguing that extremists should not define the Islamic religion.

Muhammad Babar, a Louisville Islamic leader with Muslim Americans for Compassion, called the Brussels attack heartbreaking.

“Do not see us through the actions of ISIL,” he said. “We are as American as you are.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Florida chapter has seen a fivefold increase in reports of hate incidents during 2015 compared with 2014, 26 vs. five, said Hassan Shibly, the chapter’s chief executive director. A grand majority occurred in the final two months of the year, after the Paris terrorist attacks.

“Unlike what happens after the mass shootings committed by white supremacists that happen almost daily in America, whenever an act of terrorism involves those who identify themselves as Muslims, politicians respond by calling for the curtailment or the rights of American Muslims,” he said. “Our enemies can never destroy us. We can only destroy ourselves if we allow fear and hate to turn us against each other.”

The national Council on American-Islamic Relations, founded in 1994, called for Cruz to retract his demand for law enforcement to secure Muslim neighborhoods.

“Mr. Cruz’s call for law enforcement to ‘patrol and secure’ neighborhoods in which American Muslim families live is not only unconstitutional, it is unbefitting anyone seeking our nation’s highest office and indicates that he lacks the temperament necessary for any president,” the national council’s executive director, Nihad Awad, said in a statement.

Awad called Cruz’s plan fascist-like.

“I do feel that with the attacks in Brussels and especially after Paris, people feel like they are entitled to speak hatefully,” said Maira Salim, president of the Muslim Student Association at Wichita State University. “It’s actually a lot worse than what happened after 9/11. … I’m all for free speech, but hate speech is not OK.”

Source : Jihad Watch


Editorial Comment :

Hey, I have an original idea here. How about if Muslims stop killing non-Muslims and then they would not have to fear “anti-Muslim backlash”!!! Sound reasonable???

And as far as CAIR goes, they should be booted out of America altogether, because letting terror have a voice in America is insane! They are proven to have terrorist ties, and despite being on Obama’s “favorite political lobby” list, they are listed as a terrorist organization by the FBI.

The funny thing about these claims of “Anti-Muslim” actions by Americans……They are claims, very rarely supported by witnesses or any kind of proof whatsoever.

As a matter of fact, they frequently catch the Muslim “victim” who filed the unsubstantiated report, as being the perpetrator!!! All nothing more than political BS. Toss CAIR out of America, because we don’t sanction terror here, or give it a voice!!!

And as far as Ted Cruz’s comment, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Police “patrolling and securing” any neighborhood in America, that is after all their job!!! He did not call for them to violate anyone’s rights.

He simply called for them to patrol and secure the neighborhoods. Why is it that CAIR seems to believe they are “above the law”??? They whine like babies when they are treated like everyone else, but they claim all they want is to be treated like everyone else.

Brussels: “March Against Fear” canceled for fear of jihad attack

Fear wins out in Brussels. Belgians can thank their leaders, who have brought this problem upon themselves with their disastrous policies regarding Muslim immigration.

Brussels2

“Brussels ‘March against Fear’ cancelled over security concerns,” DW, March 26, 2016:

Following officials’ warnings, the rally’s organizers have postponed a march against the terror attacks. European nations have boosted security after the bombings, with Germany and Belgium arresting several suspects.

Belgian Interior Minister Jan Jambon on Saturday urged people to refrain from participating in Sunday’s planned “March against Fear” rally.

Brussels Mayor Yvan Mayeur said at a joint press conference with Jambon that authorities were stretched by ongoing investigations following Tuesday’s attacks across Brussels that left more than 30 dead and hundreds injured.

A man arrested in connection with the deadly Brussels attacks is facing terrorism charges, prosecutors say. Eleven suspects have been arrested in Belgium and Germany since the attacks.

“Let us allow the security services to do their work and that the march – which we, too, want to take part in – be delayed for several weeks,” the mayor told reporters.

Following the press briefing, the rally’s organizers announced the event’s cancellation in a statement.

“The security of our citizens is an absolute priority,” the organizers said.

“Consequently, we completely join the authorities in their proposal to postpone to a later date. We thus ask citizens not to come this Sunday to Brussels,” the statement added….

Source : Jihad Watch


AAW Editorial comment :

“March against Fear” cancelled due to Fear!!! What kind of message does that send??? Once your country has been “swallowed up” by Jihad happy immigrants you will ALWAYS be afraid!!! Because it’s nearly impossible to stop people willing to die for their cause. You have to stop the flow before the population reaches 5%, because above that mark it just ain’t pretty!!!

 

Cruz: “Patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized” — Hamas-linked CAIR outraged

“‘It’s really beyond belief that you have one of the leading presidential candidates calling for law enforcement to target religious communities totally based on the fact that they are of a particular faith,’ said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the [Hamas-linked] Council on American-Islamic relations [sic].” Meanwhile, significant segments of Hooper’s religious community worldwide are targeting people totally based on the fact that they are not of a particular faith. What does he propose to do about that? Why, nothing. And the fact that Muslim communities are more likely to be areas of terror plotting than Amish communities? Hooper cares about that not at all: he wants us to waste our resources chasing politically correct fantasies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/005ecace-f05d-11e5-a2a3-d4e9697917d1

“Ted Cruz calls for law enforcement to ‘patrol and secure’ Muslim neighborhoods,” by Katie Zezima and Adam Goldman, Washington Post, March 22, 2016:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said following Tuesday’s terrorist attacks in Brussels that law enforcement should “secure” Muslim neighborhoods, a comment that drew swift criticism.

“We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized,” Cruz said in a statement issued after the attacks, which killed at least 32 people and wounded dozens.

Cruz spokeswoman Alice Stewart later said there needs to be a robust law enforcement presence in American neighborhoods where many Muslims live.

“We know what is happening with these isolated Muslim neighborhoods in Europe. If we want to prevent it from happening here, it is going to require an empowered, visible law enforcement presence that will both identify problem spots and partner with non-radical Americans who want to protect their homes,” Stewart said. She gave few other specifics.

“Local, state and federal law enforcement agencies all have divisions that target threats like drugs, gangs, human trafficking and organized crime. Radical Islamic terrorism is a significant and growing threat in this country, but this administration refuses to recognize it because they are afraid of being labeled ‘politically incorrect,’” Stewart said.

Cruz said: “For years, the West has tried to deny this enemy exists out of a combination of political correctness and fear. We can no longer afford either. Our European allies are now seeing what comes of a toxic mix of migrants who have been infiltrated by terrorists and isolated, radical Muslim neighborhoods.”

Cruz’s campaign also criticized New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) for his efforts to strengthen ties with the American Muslim community.

“In New York City, Mayor de Blasio succumbed to unfounded criticisms and eliminated the efforts of law enforcement to work with Muslim communities to stop radical Islamic terrorism,” Stewart said.

Those efforts involved disbanding a controversial and secretive unit of plainclothes detectives that mapped the Muslim community, spying on businesses, mosques and documenting conversations.

The unit, which was revealed in news reports, had angered Muslims in New York who felt they were targeted solely because of their religion. While widely praised by some, the unit had never generated a terrorism lead and was doing little by the time de Blasio and New York Police Commissioner William J. Bratton got rid of it.

Earlier this year, the New York Police Department agreed to settle a pair of federal lawsuits that claimed Muslims were the target of baseless surveillance and investigations because of their religion. In the settlement, the NYPD admitted no wrongdoing but paid attorney fees. The settlement, which has yet to be approved by a judge, called for a civilian monitor who could review terrorism investigations and codified certain policing practices. The NYPD has said the settlement doesn’t make the city any less safe.

“We challenged the NYPD’s surveillance of Muslims for violating the Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and religious freedom,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project. “It was also divisive and alienated Muslim communities from law enforcement. The settlement in our case should send a forceful message that discriminatory police practices are unlawful and unnecessary.”

Cruz, when asked at a news conference in New York how he would carry out his plan, said, ““You would continue the proactive policing that we saw here in New York. You would reinstate the program.”

Cruz said de Blasio did away with the program because of “political correctness.”

Monica Klein, de Blasio’s deputy press secretary, said in an email: “This is blatantly false. Now we know why everyone is calling Ted Cruz a liar.”…

What exactly is false about it?

Elsewhere, reaction to Cruz’s statement about securing neighborhoods was swift and harsh.

“It’s really beyond belief that you have one of the leading presidential candidates calling for law enforcement to target religious communities totally based on the fact that they are of a particular faith,” said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the [Hamas-linked] Council on American-Islamic relations [sic].

“In normal times, this would be the sort of thing that would disqualify someone from running for dogcatcher, much less president of the United States. We call on voters to reject this. It just shows you what happens when you appoint policy advisers like Frank Gaffney and Jerry Boykin to your team,” he said.

Last week, Cruz named a 23-member foreign policy team that includes Gaffney, who is known for holding anti-Muslim views, and Boykin, who has said that there should be no mosques allowed in the United States….

I want you to take the time to watch the video…………..And the few that follow this one ain’t bad either!!! VOTE TED CRUZ!!!

Source : Jihad Watch

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,913 other followers

%d bloggers like this: