Being a proud Atheist, and a freedom loving INFIDEL AKA "KUFFAR", WE are threatened by the primitive pidgeon chested jihad boys in the medieval east.
FRACK YOU!! SAY US ALL!! Don't annoy the Pagans and Bikers,, it's a islam FREE ZONE!!! LAN ASTASLEM!!!!
A major Canadian Islamic charity with it's headquarters in
Mississauga has been fined $550.00 and suspended for a year. ISNA Canada
was audited by Canada Revenue Agency, and it was discovered that they may
have used money to support armed militants. Islamic Society of North
America (ISNA Canada) denies any ties to terrorism, and they are saddened
by the allegations. In an article by
Global News, it was revealed that this is the latest in a number of charges
against the ISNA umbrella:
"The suspension and penalty were the latest
results of federal audits of four formerly affiliated Mississauga
charities. ISNA Islamic Services of Canada was stripped of its charitable status last
year after auditors raised concerns about possible funding of Hizbul Mujahideen. ISNA Development Foundation was
stripped of its charity status in 2013 over similar concerns. The Canadian
Islamic Trust Foundation’s charity status was also revoked."
ISNA president Dr Katherine Bullock has stated in a
panel discussion at York University, Toronto in 2014 that there is
nothing radical about wanting the caliphate and sharia. Following is a
excerpt from from her contribution to the discussion:
"They defined a radical as
this: 1. someone who desires to install a Caliphate.
2. Someone who wants to impose for an Orthodox
Sharia; and 3. the use
of force, for example, resisting coalition
forces in Iraq. So if you’re an Iraqi nationalist who doesn’t believe that
the United States should be occupying your country and you fight against
them, and you believe in the Caliphate, and you believe in Sharia, you are
a radical you’ve been radicalized. But from an Islamic point of
view this absolutely nothing radical about wanting Caliphate or wanting
Sharia. These are completely normal traditional points of view."
Taha Ghayyur,
who is the new Executive Director of the Islamic Society of North America –
Canada (ISNA Canada) also is a proponent of Sharia. He believes that the
Islamic Law can be gradually implemented in North America. link
Following is an excerpt from an article he wrote in
2007:
“The principles of Shariah are universal and are not bound
by the limitations of time and culture.
“It is certainly possible to apply Shariah in the North
American society only if three conditions are fulfilled:
·One, when an environment is developed, provisioned with
preventative measures, that is conducive to a just and productive
lifestyle, which is often not compatible with a consumer lifestyle.
·Two, if the Shariah laws are implemented gradually,
accompanied by continuous public education and training on the importance
of justice, freedom, and one’s purpose on this earth, the way it was
revealed and practiced, as a strategy of pre-crime social reform, over a
period of twenty-three years at the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon
him) and the first generation of Muslims.
·Three, if the punishments in the Shariah are given their due
place, only to be used as a last resort, and not to be practiced in
isolation from the other major objectives of the Shariah.
The existence of a Muslim kingdom in Medieval Spain where different
races and religions lived harmoniously in multicultural tolerance is one
of today’s most widespread myths. University professors teach it.
Journalists repeat it. Tourists visiting the Alhambra accept it. It has
reached the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, which sings the
virtues of the “pan-confessional humanism” of Andalusian Spain (July 18,
2003). The Economist echoes the belief: “Muslim rulers of the past were
far more tolerant of people of other faiths than were Catholic ones.
For example, al-Andalus’s multi-cultural, multi-religious states ruled
by Muslims gave way to a Christian regime that was grossly intolerant
even of dissident Christians, and that offered Jews and Muslims a choice
only between being forcibly converted and being expelled (or worse).”1
The problem with this belief is that it is historically unfounded, a
myth. The fascinating cultural achievements of Islamic Spain cannot
obscure the fact that it was never an example of peaceful convivencia.
The history of Islamic Spain begins, of course, with violent
conquest. Helped by internal dissension among the Visigoths, in 711 A.D.
Islamic warriors entered Christian Spain and defeated the Visigothic
king Rodrigo. These Muslims were a mixture of North African Berbers, or
“Moors,” who made up the majority, and Syrians, all led by a small
number of Arabs proper (from the Arabian peninsula). The Crónica Bizantina of 741 A.D., the Crónica mozárabe of 754 A.D. and the illustrations to the thirteenth-century Cantigas de Santa María chronicle
the brutality with which the Muslims subjugated the Catholic
population. From then on, the best rulers of al- Andalus were autocrats
who through brute force kept the peace in the face of religious,
dynastic, racial, and other divisions.
These divisions, and the ruthless methods of dealing with them, were not unique to Muslim Spain. The jihad launched
around 634 against the then-Christian Middle East by the successors of
Muhammad was marked by internal conflict after the assassination of the
third Caliph, Uthman (644-656). The founder of the Emirate of Cordoba,
Abd al-Rahman I (734?-788), “The Emigrant,” had to flee Syria to avoid
the extermination ordered against his Umayyad family by the rival
Abassids. Allied with Berbers from North Africa and helped by Yemenite
and Syriansettlers in Spain willing to betray their masters, he
proceeded to enter Spain from Africa, defeat the Abbasid governor of al-
Andalus in 756 , and make himself Emir. He kept peace among Muslims and
between Muslims, Catholics, and Jews by means of an army of more than
40,000 soldiers. It was he who ordered the demolition of the ancient
Catholic church of Cordoba to build the much admired mosque. During his
reign and that of Abd al-Rahman II (822-852), the conqueror of
Barcelona, Catholics suffered confiscations of property, enslavement,
and increases in their exacted tribute, which helped finance the
embellishment of Islamic Cordoba.
Under Abd al-Rahman II and Muhammad I (822-886), a number of
Catholics were killed in Cordoba for preaching against Islam, while
others were expelled from the city. Among these victims was Saint
Eulogio, beheaded by the Islamic authorities.2 Muhammad I ordered that
“newly constructed churches be destroyed as well as anything in the way
of refinements that might adorn the old churches added since the Arab
conquest.”3
Abd al-Rahman III (912-961), “The Servant of the Merciful,” declared
himself Caliph of Cordoba. He took the city to heights of splendor not
seen since the days of Harunal- Rashid’s Baghdad, financed largely
through the taxation of Catholics and Jews and the booty and tribute
obtained in military incursions against Catholic lands. He also punished
Muslim rebellions mercilessly, thereby keeping the lid on the boiling
cauldron that was multicultural al- Andalus. His rule presumably marks
the zenith of Islamic tolerance. Al-Mansur (d. 1002), “The One Made
Victorious by Allah,” implemented in al-Andalus in 978 a ferocious
military dictatorship backed by a huge army. In addition to building
more palaces and subsidizing the arts and sciences in Cordoba, he burned
heretical booksand terrorized Catholics, sacking Zaragoza, Osma,
Zamora, Leon, Astorga, Coimbra, and Santiago de Compostela. In 985 he
burned down Barcelona, enslaving all those he did not kill.
By 1031 the internal divisions of al- Andalus had caused its
fragmentation into several tyrannical little “kingdoms,” the socalled taifas. Between 1086 and 1212, new waves of Islamic jihadists from North Africa washed over the land. The first wave were the almoravides, fundamentalist warriors invited by the taifa rulers
to help them against the growing strength of the Catholic kingdoms.
With the support of the Muslim Andalusian masses and of Muslim legal
scholars, who resented the heavy taxation and what they regarded as the
debauched and impious life of their princely rulers, the almoravides deposed the taifa kings
and unified Andalusia. They pushed back the Catholic advances and made
the life of both Catholics and Jews much more difficult than before. By
1138, however, their empire was falling apart under pressure from the
Catholic kingdoms and another wave of North African fundamentalist
Muslims, the almohades. The almohades thought that the almoravides had become too lax in their practice of Islam—perhaps, one may surmise, because of contagion from the Catholics. By 1170 the almohades had taken control of Andalusia and unleashed new horrors on Catholics, Jews, and other Muslims. That the ruthless almohades also produced marvelous architecture and were responsible for the beauty of some mozarabic buildings, such as Santa María la Blanca in Toledo, captures nicely the true nature of Andalusian Spain. But the almohades were
decisively beaten by the allied kings of Castile, Aragon, and Navarra
at Navas de Tolosa in 1212. From then on the Catholics kept the military
initiative, finally defeating the last Muslim kingdom, Granada, in
1492.
The early Muslim invaders were relatively small in numbers, so it was
politically prudent to grant religious autonomy to Catholics, while
trying to protect themselves from the “contagion” of Catholic influence
by segregating themselves from the subject majority.4 Therefore they
maintained the Catholics in a state of dhimmitude —as a
“protected” class curtailed from any possibility of sharing political
power or compromising the hegemonic position of Islam. In times of war
or political turmoil, the Catholics’ freedom was further restricted.
Catholics fleeing Muslim rule lost all “protection,” and their property
was confiscated by the conquerors. “Tolerance at this extreme,” notices
historian Robert I. Burns, “is not easily distinguished from
intolerance.”5
For similar reasons of strategy, not “tolerance,” the invaders
obtained the help of Jewish leaders unhappy with their treatment under
the Visigoths.
…
These presumably “best of times” ended in any event with the arrival of the jihadist almoravides and almohades.
Jews as well as Catholics fell victim to their religious zeal. Many
Jews migrated to Catholic lands, where some became important writers
(the author of the Zohar) and men of influence (diplomats,
bankers, tax collectors, finance ministers to kings). They participated
in the achievements of the reign of Alfonso X “The Learned” of Leon and
Castile (1221- 1284), who gathered in Toledo speakers of many languages
and ordered the translation of Arabic moral works such as the Calila e Dimna along
with the production of Spanish scientific, legal, and historical
treatises, and who himself wrote lyric poems in Spanish and a classic of
Galician literature, the Cantigas de Santa María.
Upon conversion, some members of formerly Jewish families (conversos)
reached important positions within the government (the wealthy Luis de
Santangel, tax collector and financial officer to Ferdinand and
Isabella, and Gabriel Sanchez, treasurer of the kingdom of Aragon) and
the church (bishop Pablo de Santa María, and Tomás de Torquemada), and
even intermarried with the nobility.
They also suffered periodic bloody
persecutions at the hands of peasants and the urban lower classes while
being generally protected by the upper nobility and the higher echelons
of the church, in a way reminiscent of Islamic “protection.”8 This
pattern had been evident under Muslim rule as well: in Granada in
1066—before the arrival of the almoravides—rioting Muslim mobs assassinated the rabbi and visir Joseph
Ibn Naghrela and destroyed the entire Jewish community; thousands
perished—more than those killed by mobs in the Rhineland at the
beginning of the First Crusade.9 Commenting on these events, the memoirs
of king Abd Allah of Granada (c. 1090) muster familiar anti-Jewish
accusations against the visir: avarice, deception, treason, and
favoritism toward coreligionists.10 Muslim suspicion of the Jewish
community lasted until the end of Islamic rule: before surrendering
Granada to Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492, Muslims inserted a clause in
the peace treaty protecting themselves fromfeared Jewish hegemony:
“their Highnesses [the Catholic monarchs] will not allow Jews to lord or
be tax collectors over Moors.”11 “The Golden Age of equal rights was a
myth,” writes historian Bernard Lewis, “and belief in it was a result,
more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam.” 12 Nevertheless, some
writers continue to insist that “Jews lived happily and productively in
Spain for hundreds of years before the Inquisition and the Expulsion of
1492.”13
Let us then consider more closely the evidence for the supposed
Andalusian multicultural harmony. This enlightened state presumably
culminated under the exemplary reign of Abd-al-Rahman III, “The Servant
of the Merciful” (912-961). The admiring words of the contemporary
Muslim historian Ibn Hayyan, however, reveal a different picture:
Abd-al-Rahman III, we are told, kept Islam safe from religious
dissension, “saving us from the trouble of having to think for
ourselves”; under him “the people were one, obedient, quiet, submissive,
not self-sufficient, governed rather than governing”; he succeeded by
applying religious inquisition efficiently, “persecuting factions by all
means available…chastising the innovations of those who drifted away
from the views of the community.”14 This tenth-century ruler, long
before the almoravids and almohads, was as effective
as he was at maintaining control, thanks to the thoroughness so admired
by his chronicler, which included the exhumation of the muladí (a
Muslim of partly or wholly Catholic ancestry) rebel Omar ben Hafsun and
his son—in order to prove that both had died as Catholics and thus
justify the public desecration of their bodies. With the money collected
from the taxation of Catholics and Jews and from the booty and tribute
obtained through military incursions into Catholic lands, Abd-al-Rahman
III not only embellished Cordoba, but built for his favorite female slave
a splendid palace, Medina-Zahara. It contained 300 baths, 400 horses,
15,000 eunuchs and servants, and a harem—not a Catholic institution— of 6,300 women. In 1010 the almoravides destroyed the palace in the course of their jihad and knifed all its occupants.
In the eleventh century, again before the invasion of almoravides and almohades, the man of letters Ibn Hazm saw his books burned and was imprisoned several times. And long after almoravid and almohad rule,
the fourteenth-century thinker Ibn al-Jatib was persecuted, exiled to
Morocco, and assassinated in prison. Indeed, already in the first
century after the conquest, the malikite way of Islam “configured a closed society in which alfaquis, muftis, and cadis exercised
an iron control over the Muslim and non-Muslim population.”15 No wonder
that when political correctness did not yet exist, the great historian
of Islam Evariste Lévi-Provençal observed: “The Muslim Andalusian state
appears from its earliest origins as the defender and champion of a
jealous orthodoxy, more and more ossified in a blind respect for a rigid
doctrine, suspecting and condemning in advance the least effort of
rational speculation.”16
The majority of Andalusian Muslims belonged to this malikite way. A sample of its teachings can be found in the dhimma writings of jurist Ibn Abdun (Seville, c. 1100):
A Muslim must not act as a masseur to a Jew or Christian;
he must not clear their rubbish nor clean their latrines. In fact, the
Jew and the Christian are more suited for such work…A Muslim must not
act as a guide or stableman for an animal owned by a [non-Muslim]…. It
is forbidden to sell a coat that once belonged to a leper, a Jew, or a
Christian, unless the buyer is informed of its origin; likewise if this
garment once belonged to a debauched person…. No…Jew or Christian may be
allowed to wear the dress of an aristocrat, nor of a jurist, nor of a
wealthy individual…. In effect, “Satan has gained the mastery over them,
and caused them to forget God’s Remembrance. Those are Satan’s party” (Quran S.
lviii. 19). A distinctive sign must be imposed upon them so they may be
recognized and this will be for them a form of disgrace; the sound of
bells must be prohibited in Muslim territories and reserved only for the
lands of the infidels; it is forbidden to sell to Jews and Christians
scientific books unless they treat of their particular law. They have
translated scientific books and attributed them to their coreligionists
and their bishops, whereas they are really the work of Muslims! It would
be preferable not to let Jewish or Christian physicians heal Muslims.
Since they are incapable of noble sentiments toward Muslims, let them
treat their fellow infidels; knowing their feelings, how is it possible
to entrust the lives of Muslims to them?17
Of course, such official injunctions were not always obeyed. But
laxity of enforcement was not unique to Andalusia. It has existed also
in other societies, most often for the powerful or rich. As Ibn Abdun
again wisely writes, “No one will be absolved because of a transgression
against religious law, except in the case of people of high social
position, who will be treated accordingly, as the Hadith stipulates: ‘Forgive those in elevated social position,’ since for them corporal punishment is more painful.”
Let us next examine racial tolerance. The Quran does not
proclaim the innate superiority of any racial group. But the enslavement
of black Africans was an entrenched part of the culture of Andalusia.
So was racial prejudice. In his Proverbs, al-Maydani (d. 1124)
wrote, “the African black, when hungry, steals; and when sated, he
fornicates.” 18 Traveling through Africa, Ibn Battuta (1207-1377?)
claimed that blacks were stupid, ignorant, cowardly, and infantile. 19
These attitudes could be found throughout the Islamic world. Early in
the wonderful Arabian Nights, the worst thing about the
adultery of the wives of kings Sahzman and his brother Shariyar is that
their infidelity was with blacks. In Nights 468, a black slave
is rewarded for his goodness by being transformed into a white man. A
similar case occurs in the eleventhcentury “Epistle of the Pardon” by
al- Ma’arri, where a black woman, because of her good behavior, ends up
as a white huri in Paradise.20
In 1068, before the arrival of the almoravids, the cadi of
Muslim Toledo, the Arab Sa’id Ibn Ahmadi, wrote a book classifying the
nations of the world. In it he accounted the inhabitants of the extreme
North and South as barbarians, describing Europeans as white and
mentally deficient because of undercooking by the sun, and Africans as
black, stupid, and violent because of overcooking. In contrast, Arabs
were done just right.21 Racial self-consciousness led the Andalusian Ibn
Hazm to insist that the Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his
predecessors, were all white and ruddy-skinned. h/t The Savage Nation Podcast who interviewed the author – skip to the 50 minute mark to listen (audio is low so turn it up). Video removed. Another interview below.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at
the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing
on the radical left and Islamic terrorism
Hillary Clinton, the spouse of a serial sexual predator, did a tour of
the morning shows to attack Republicans and Brett Kavanaugh.
On MSNBC, Clinton told Rachel Maddow that the benefit of the doubt belonged not to the accused, but the accuser.
In a smarmy chat session with Stephen Colbert, whose old boss and
patron was just forced to resign for numerous counts of sexual
harassment and at least one outright sexual assault, Hillary insisted on
an FBI investigation.
"It would be very easy for the FBI to
go back and finish the background investigation, to investigate these
charges," insisted a woman who had described her own husband's accusers
as "bimbo eruptions".
Juanita Broaddrick, who had accused Bill Clinton of raping her, also accused Hillary of threatening her.
Bill Clinton’s alleged assaults were not carried out in high school.
But there will be no investigation of what a powerful politician did.
There’s no interest among Democrats in revisiting the Clinton case. And
yet Hillary’s hypocrisy in demanding an investigation of Brett
Kavanaugh, despite her work covering up her husband’s victimization of
women, is typical among the Democrats and their media allies.
Senate Democrats launched their smear of Kavanaugh despite the fact that
two top figures within their ranks had become notorious for their abuse
of women. Ted Kennedy’s crimes were so severe that they have become
practically legendary. Al Franken was forced to resign, after numerous
women came forward to accuse him of groping them, but retains strong
support among the Democrat donor base.
That includes George Soros, who attacked Senator Kirsten Gillibrand over her criticism of Franken.
Senator Whitehouse’s staff recently relayed a smear of Kavanaugh
falsely claiming that the nominee had raped someone on a boat in Rhode
Island in 1985. That smear has since been retracted, and has become the
subject of a Senate Judiciary Committee criminal referral of the smearer. But Senator Whitehouse was far less enthusiastic when he was asked about the Democrat attacks on Gillibrand over Franken.
The militant Kavanaugh basher refused to defend Gillibrand against
attacks from Dem donors and of Franken, only said, "I think this was a
very tough result for Al, but he did make his own choice. And I leave
that for him to have made.”
While Soros-funded organizations
protest Kavanaugh, the leftist grandmaster has been vocal in his support
for Franken. Soros complained about due process for Franken, but wants
to deny due process to Kavanaugh.
Soros funded groups have been caught handing out cash
to anti-Kavanaugh protesters. But where were these protesters, some who
claim to be victims of sexual assault, when Franken was in the Senate?
If they’re really there to agitate for victims of sexual assaults, why
are they taking money from George Soros, who has sided with an accused
sexual predator over the women who claim to be his victims?
Soros’ MoveOn activist group has been distributing
a fundraising letter for Senator Joe Donnelly, after his refusal to
approve Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, by Senator Kamala Harris. While
MoveOn touts the willingness of Dem senators to “believe” Christine
Blasey Ford, its funder is quite reluctant to believe the numerous women
who came forward to speak out against Franken. Meanwhile Ford’s lawyer,
Debra Katz, is the vice chair of the board of an organization funded
by, among others, George Soros.
Then there’s Planned Parenthood, which has been loudly assailing
Kavanaugh. That’s the same organization which issued a statement
mourning the loss of Senator Ted Kennedy, a serial predator whose
actions led to the death of at least one woman, and who assaulted a
number of other women.
"As Gaviglio enters the room, the
six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three,
103-pound waitress and throws her on the table," a GQ story related.
"Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then
picks her up from the table and throws her on Dodd, who is sprawled in a
chair. With Gaviglio on Dodd's lap, Kennedy jumps on top and begins
rubbing his genital area against hers, supporting his weight on the arms
of the chair."
Dodd is former Senator Chris Dodd. Despite his
alleged actions, he got a job heading Hollywood’s Motion Picture
Association of America (MPAA). That’s the same entertainment industry
that claims to be battling sexual harassment and whose celebrities rush
to outdo each other in attacking Kavanaugh.
The former Senator had allegedly also tried to block the release of a movie critical of Ted Kennedy.
Planned Parenthood had also fiercely touted serial sexual predators
like Bob Filner, Bill Clinton and Al Franken. Planned Parenthood had
actually described Franken, whose victims included a feminist choir
member as, “a leader for women”.
It claimed that Bob Filner, the Democrat who groped half of San Diego, “has defended women”.
“It tells survivors of sexual assault that they don’t matter,” a
Planned Parenthood email now declares. "And it sends a message that
partisan politics trumps not only fairness, but basic human compassion.
Speak out now: This nomination is a disgrace. Brett Kavanaugh must
withdraw.”
Planned Parenthood possesses as much “basic human
compassion” for women as it does for children. It has repeatedly
promoted Democrat serial victimizers of women for purely partisan
reasons.
And when Senator Flake and Senator Coons went to take
their victory lap for forcing an FBI investigation of Kavanaugh’s high
school years, they did it on 60 Minutes, a show whose former executive
producer, Jeff Fager, was recently forced to resign over sexual
harassment allegations, on CBS, whose boss, Les Moonves, was recently
also forced out over sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations.
Then Saturday Night Live, Franken’s old show whose alumni had issued a
statement of support for the alleged groper, then invited Matt Damon,
who has admitted, after first denying it, that he was aware of some of
what Harvey Weinstein, the serial rapist who made his career, had been
doing to women, to mock Kavanaugh.
The gang coming after Kavanaugh consists of sexual predators and their accomplices.
The ranks of the Democrats are rotten with rapists and with their
enablers, collaborators and colluders. The news networks taking cheap
shots at Kavanaugh are staffed by men who are one story away from being
forced to resign. The entertainment industry passionately advocating
against Kavanaugh is run by compulsive predators. And the Senate
Democrats and the lefty groups attacking Kavanaugh are guilty of the
very crimes that they are trying to lay on the heads of Kavanaugh and
the Republicans.
When an alleged rapist’s wife appears a
network formerly run by an alleged rapist to condemn Kavanaugh, it’s
time for Republicans to stop playing defense and go on the offense
instead.
Even before such
EU-wide legislation, similar ostensible "anti-terror
legislation" in France, for example, is being used as a
political tool against political opponents and to limit
unwanted free speech.
In France, simply
spreading information about ISIS atrocities is now considered
"incitement to terrorism". It is this kind of
legislation, it seems, that the European Commission now wishes
to impose on all of the European Union.
Social media giants
-- Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Microsoft, Google+ and
Instagram -- act as voluntary censors on behalf of the
European Union.
The European
Commission states that it is specifically interested in
funding projects that focus on the "development of
technology and innovative web tools preventing and countering
illegal hate speech online and supporting data
collection", and studies that analyze "the spread of
racist and xenophobic hate speech in different Member
States..."
The
European Union seems fixated, at least for the internet, on killing
free speech. And social media giants -- Facebook, Twitter, YouTube,
Microsoft, Google+ and Instagram -- act as voluntary censors on
behalf of the EU. (Image source: iStock)
In March, the European Commission -- the unelected
executive branch of the European Union -- told social media
companies to remove illegal online terrorist content within an hour
-- or risk facing EU-wide legislation on the topic. This ultimatum
was part of a new set of recommendations that applies to all forms
of supposedly "illegal content" online. This content
ranges "from terrorist content, incitement to hatred and
violence, child sexual abuse material, counterfeit products and
copyright infringement."
While the one-hour ultimatum was ostensibly only
about terrorist content, the following is how the European
Commission presented the new recommendations at the time:
If people enter Canada illegally, they have broken our law and committed a criminal act.
As such, they obviously shouldn’t be able to utilize our justice system against our own country.
And yet, that’s exactly what’s happening.
Two illegal border crossers (or ‘asylum seekers’ as the corrupt and destructive establishment media calls them),
have filed an insane ‘human rights complaint,’ alleging that their
so-called rights are being violated because they can’t get access to
taxpayer-funded childcare benefits.
They complain that without the benefits, they’ll have to stay at home.
Vladimyr Mathieu and his wife – who are originally from Haiti and entered Canada illegally from the United States
– say it’s unfair that they can’t get subsidized daycare in Quebec.
Astoundingly, some radical leftist groups are actually helping them try
and extract those taxpayer benefits, representing them for their
complaints and arguing in their favour.
One group even said that helping the illegal crossers is ‘exactly what subsidized daycare was meant for.’ Of course, that’s total garbage.
Government services are supposed to go only towards citizens, and those with legal status in the country.
If someone is in Canada illegally, how the hell can they have any right to get taxpayer-funded benefits?
Have things really turned that upside down in this country that
people who violate our laws are allowed to then turn around and file
complaints against the very country in which they are illegally
residing?
This only further shows how disgustingly pathetic and weak the entire
bureaucracy and establishment have become, and how the Trudeau
government is allowing our country and our citizens to be taken
advantage of by lawbreakers. Spencer Fernando
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its Role in Enforcing Islamic Law
We need to get off Saudi Barbarian OIL!!!!!Support the Canadian OIL Sands,,, and visit,, Ethicaloil.org
The gravity of the existential threat we face from Islamic Jihad is truly of epic proportions. It is essentially a battle pitting free-civilized man against a totalitarian barbarian. What is at stake is the struggle for our very soul - namely who we are and what we represent. The lives that were sacrificed for individual rights and freedoms that we've come to cherish are being chiseled away from right under our noses by the stealth jihadists. And many of us are in denial and totally clueless.
The left's appeasement and pandering to evil is nothing new. What makes their utopian delusions so infuriating and unpardonable is that it is not only they who will have to pay the consequences, and deservedly, so, they are thwarting and undermining our best efforts at resistance and are thus dragging us down in the process as well.
Posts
