The following article explains a very strange issue with British Islam and its’ American counterpart. Both of them claim that they are open for freedom, yet they have bizarre, myopic and even more rabid and vitriolic opinions than people who have lived around Jews their whole lives. As I have said before, we need to look carefully at freakball  groups such as these and understand what is going on. Take a look at the article below:
Beat this for a piece of spin. Today the Labour party was in trouble over remarks one of its MPs, Naz Shah, made online in 2014 about Israel and Jews. Journalists asked a spokesman for Jeremy Corbyn whether Mrs Shah was anti-Semitic.
“We’re not suggesting she’s anti-Semitic,” said the spokesman. “We’re saying she’s made remarks that she doesn’t agree with.”
To repeat. She’s made remarks… that she doesn’t agree with.
Well, I suppose that makes sense. You can see what must have happened. One evening, as Mrs Shah sat quietly at home, relaxing after a hard day’s community-building, her fingers suddenly started typing out opinions of their own free will. To Mrs Shah’s horror, they were opinions which ran counter to everything she stands for.
“No!” she cried, as the rogue digits tapped mutinously away. “Stop! That isn’t what I think at all! I unequivocally condemn every word of what I’m writing!”
Yet the fingers wouldn’t listen. Powerless to intervene, Mrs Shah wailed in dismay as they published the opinions on Facebook, and then defied her despairing pleas to delete them.
Poor Mrs Shah. A hostage to her own hands. Still, she had to act, and swiftly, to prove that she utterly rejected the comments misattributed to her by her fingers. There was only one thing for it.
Keep schtum for two years, and apologise only once her views had been exposed in the media.
At Prime Minister’s Questions, David Cameron demanded to know why Jeremy Corbyn had done nothing to discipline Mrs Shah. Shouldn’t he be listening to his shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, who in March had said that if anyone in Labour expressed anti-Semitic views then “full stop, they’re out”?
Standing behind the Speaker’s chair, Mr McDonnell was out of most MPs’ sight. But I unmistakably saw him nod.
After PMQs, pressure continued to mount. Journalists asked Mr Corbyn’s spokesman to confirm that the Labour leader had the authority to dismiss Mrs Shah as a party whip. “Of course, he’s the leader,” said the spokesman. “Having met with her, he’s chosen not to.”
News of this decision did not meet with universal acclaim. Desperately, Mrs Shah had a go at apologising to MPs in the Commons. “I fully acknowledge I have made mistakes,” she said, “and I wholeheartedly apologise for the words I used… I truly regret what I did…”
It wasn’t enough. An hour later, Labour announced that she was suspended from the party. “Jeremy Corbyn and Naz Shah,” said a statement, “have mutually agreed that she is administratively suspended from the Labour Party by the general secretary.”
Look at the wording of that. The party leader, who decided that Mrs Shah should face no consequences, agrees that she’s subsequently been suspended by someone else.
I wonder how Labour members feel now, when they look back at last September’s leadership election. Are any of them beginning to worry that they did something they don’t agree with?
 freak.ball adj. when two radically unrelated groups or things come together based on an underlying reason, cause or shared origin and work effectively; usually in synergy. n. freakball, sing. and pl., “Muslims groups in the Anglosphere and hard lefts working together; it’s totally freakball.” adj. “These freakball groups.” v. “In the 1960s, the KKK and the NOI freakball in a bid to further the cause of segregation.”