Tag Archives: americana


Figure 1A: We are increasingly seeing Muslims making oaths by other than Allah and fighting for other than Allah in the Anglosphere.

The following query was put to a marja`:

I am a soldier in the American army and I have done this in order to obtain American citizenship,  a wage and some other affairs with the knowledge that I may be responsible for engaging in fighting along with the possibility of killing some civilians that aren’t fighting under the guise of falling orders from superiors. So what shall I do in this case?

U.S. Air Force Chaplain Candidate Saleha Jabeen is commissioned by U.S. Air Force Chief of Chaplains (Maj. Gen.) Steven Schaick, Dec. 18, 2019 at the Catholic Theological Union, Chicago, Illinois. Jabeen is the first female Muslim Chaplain in the Air Force and Department of Defense. (U.S. Air Force photo/ Tech. Sgt. Armando A. Schwier-Morales)

The marja`, Imam Rushdi Al-Qalam, may Allah preserve him, tendered this reply:

Praise be to Allah and He is sufficient while let there be peace upon his Messenger, the Chosen One. To address the topic, you should know that you will be brought on the Day of Resurrection as a murderer if you killed (or were killed) under the banner of kufr.

Intercession will never be beneficial for you and nor will your following orders or citizenship. So fear Allah and do not leave from the boundaries of Islam in totality through this act.

Taken from the website of the maraji`


محراب الشيخ الإمام أبي عمر المقدسي

I would like to extend a warm greeting to all the readers that visited us and read from us this Ramadan. Nothing but good came from all that was in this month of Ramadan. Zakat ul-Fitr has come and gone with the month, fasting has come and gone with the month, lessons learned in this month have come and gone and hopefully we will have removed whatever plaguing and regular sins we had in this month.

We now look forward into our tenth month, Shawwal. And more precisely it is 1 Shawwal 1440 AH. This month of Ramadan and the days after reminded me of one principle that kept being emphasised.

Just what exactly are we fighting for? We are fighting for the theology of our ancestors that has been passed down infallibly to us from the beginning to now. Nothing else matters if you do not have that.

After all of Arabia fell in submission to Islam around 10AH, it was crucial that this principle was preserved. The Khawarij attempted to raise their hands but were stamped back down. They would not manifest until some time later.

In the time of the Imam of Muslim Orthodoxy, the cults were the challenged that asked us to confirm what we were fighting for…it was our theology. The cults were fine with a watered down theology that allowed coexistence with an agreement of peaceful acknowledgement of each other’s sects. This was rejected.

If truth is truth, then people must suffer for it. At the end of all of this, only one true theology appeared, namely that agreed upon from the Companions in the time of Ahmad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, to the final Ahmad and the second Siddiq, namely Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

The Christian invasions that brought the Crusaders to us made us ask: What are we fighting for? It was the theology of our ancestors that we are fighting for and with this as the basis we would not compromise with Christianity. It was a false religion and that was it.

They would finally be expelled from the area around the late 600s by Baybars. The area would not suffer another invasion and ravaging until some 800 years later by General Allenby from England.

The Tatar invasion from 656-660 AH upon until their being rebuffed and retarded by the armies of Islam brought the following question to us: what are we fighting for?

It was the theology of our ancestors. The Tatar were fine with a religion that agreed with their own or an Islam in which they could practice the old gods and also this one that they would add as long as we stopped calling their religion false.

This was denied. And out of the ashes of the ruins of Baghdad and selected cities across Sham and Afghanistan, Imams fought against them along with the laity, physically and with words in books. There is but one theology and no compromise would be made.

Names such as Yahya As-Sarsari (d. 656 AH), Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH), Ibn ul-Qayyim (d. 754 AH), Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbali (d. 795 AH) and many others rejected and rebuffed the ecumenism of the Tatars and called it what it truly was: falsehood.

We would face the Catholic Inquisition from the 800s on in the Iberian Peninsula and many of us – rather than compromise – left or faced certain death. The theology of our ancestors was at stake and we would not retreat from the principle. And this is the truth of the matter.

Then came the Great Afghanistan War in 1400 onwards in which 2 million and more people shed their blood to repel at the time the godless, unsightly and bestial Russian army. What were we fighting for? It was nothing more than the same theology that had been before. It was the theology of the laity and nothing more or less.

Spokesman for Islam in the West laying a wreath at a Holocaust memorial that also serves as a memorial and worship location.

We face the same kufr in this day and age and it is the same desire for ecumenism and religious indifferentism that has always been. And we reject this kufr, atheism, ecumenism and the like with the same gusto as we did previous.

Spokesman for Islam in the West at the Kotel, the most sacred spot in Judaism for worship. Why were they they? Who gave them the authority to be there? Why are they in a place of worship of another religion?

If you find yourselves compromising on your most fundamental principles or you don’t know the difference between your theology and false religions or cults, you have to ask yourself: What are you fighting for? If nothing, you have nothing.

If you are fighting for something, make sure you are on the right side of the conflict. Everything, including eternity is on the line.

Until next time,


Al-Hajj Abu Ja`far Al-Hanbali



The following video is the continuation of the debate on Cultural Marxism, whether it is an outcome of actual Marxism and Jordan Peterson’s credentials to discuss and debate the topic. Please take a look as while we continue to watch the implosion of America, different things are being blamed for the collapse.


6 Ramadan 1440 AH

Below is a video in which a slavery detective continues to undercover camps, plantations and other indentured servitude schemes that US news shows drone about being “a long gone relic and thing of the past.” If you have markets in your own country, it’s pretty hard to try to eradicate them somewhere else.



4 Ramadan 1440 AH

The video below explains how men impersonating women have ruined competition for real females in sports and added artificial and unnatural statistics to world records previously set by actual women. The frustration has become so great that some women are leaving competition as they know they will lose against their stronger male counterparts. Those that stay on have prepared to be in 3rd place or lower due to the superior male athletes in their midst. Once again, the natural world doesn’t care about feelings. It just is what it is.

Someone might believe he is Superman and fashion a cape and jump from his window; from there aerodynamics and reality take over and we see the proof. How long will it take others to do the same?



3 Ramadan 1440 AH

There has been constant droning in some circles that Venezuela and Cuba are failing due to the fact that they are socialist and not capitalist and therefore people are running for the hills. The issue then brings the question:

Was Venezuela a failure when 20% of people were lifted out of poverty?

Was Venezuela a failure when it nationalised the oil (the largest reserves in the world) and began trading?

Was Venezuela a failure when it cut ties with the world bank and started using solid commodities to back its currency?

All of these things happened under Chavez. The issue was the same as it was with Muhammad Mossadeq, King Faisal of Iraq, King Talal of Jordan, Fidel Castro of Cuba (when he first swept into power) and so many others.

This has nothing to do with regimes. It has to do with the United States and its hunger for wealth (in a country that is 2% of the world’s population but is consuming most of its natural resources). No, I am not a socialist (I reject as it is nothing to do with Islam); but the sickening actions that have been happening over the past few years of ’80s rhetoric in trying to place the world into “they’re neo-Marxist” or “they’re cultural Marxists” and the like and “they’re free market capitalists” labels has just been unbearably annoying.

The fact of the matter is that we are being presented with a metamorphisised form of Americanism which some people have imbibed without reflection, just like religious indifferentism. Fortunately, others can also see this ’80s foolishness. Below is a video about Venezuela that presents things in a very clear light.

Enough of this. Stop living in the ’80s. That decade is over. And for someone who lived through most of the ’70s and all of the ’80s growing up, I am glad that it and most of its people are DEAD.

TIME TO GET OUT: White Knights ride again?

Figure 1A: The White Knights in full uniform.

The following article below should drive home the reality to Muslims that they need to seek domicile elsewhere and their betterment in another location. Having fought the White Knights on numerous occasions, whether it be the police, the National Guard, the sheriff, CHPs (which recruit from the White Knights), I have seen just about every permutation of this group. Lyndon B. Johnson fought them to a stalemate on the Equal Rights Act and it cost him his presidency.

No one has fought them and not sustained some scars. The White Knights of the KKK grew out of the 1820s and at the time had a foothold in the Democratic Republican Party.

(this would later implode and out of its collapse would come the Democrats and the GOP; it is not as some claim that the Klan was always “democrat” The rise of the KKK came when there was no democratic party; they were Democratic Republicans)

Since that time they have burrowed into law enforcement, the judiciary and so many other facets of US life that not encountering them is rare. Their power comes from being invisible, hence the nickname the “Invisible Empire”.

I am not making reference to a franchise of the KKK or a particular chapter that may/may not be bankrupt. I am talking about the White Knights of the Order of Columbus of the Ku Klux Klan. They have never been out of business and most likely never will be.

My family and I have encountered the White Knights in Annapolis, Maryland, Louisiana, Washington State, Oregon, California, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. These men are no joke and they mean business about what they say. They don’t make threats; they make promises.

I have been shown over and over again that the only way to contend with these men (and I use the word reservedly) is through physical confrontation. The Muslims who have gone into millennial ideology or liberal thought that intersects with it are wholly unprepared for a battle of this type. It is for this reason that my advice is to leave if you are not prepared to exert the maximum level of force necessary to resist them.




Figure 1A: Bahia Amawi

Below is a well put together article on the continued closing down of the society of the United States and further evidence of it eating itself from the inside out.


A Texas Elementary School Speech Pathologist Refused to Sign a Pro-Israel Oath, Now Mandatory in Many States — so She Lost Her Job

December 17 2018, 11:58 a.m.

A CHILDREN’S SPEECH PATHOLOGIST who has worked for the last nine years with developmentally disabled, autistic, and speech-impaired elementary school students in Austin, Texas, has been told that she can no longer work with the public school district, after she refused to sign an oath vowing that she “does not” and “will not” engage in a boycott of Israel or “otherwise tak[e] any action that is intended to inflict economic harm” on that foreign nation. A lawsuit on her behalf was filed early Monday morning in a federal court in the Western District of Texas, alleging a violation of her First Amendment right of free speech.

The child language specialist, Bahia Amawi, is a U.S. citizen who received a master’s degree in speech pathology in 1999 and, since then, has specialized in evaluations for young children with language difficulties (see video below). Amawi was born in Austria and has lived in the U.S. for the last 30 years, fluently speaks three languages (English, German, and Arabic), and has four U.S.-born American children of her own.

Amawi began working in 2009 on a contract basis with the Pflugerville Independent School District, which includes Austin, to provide assessments and support for school children from the county’s growing Arabic-speaking immigrant community. The children with whom she has worked span the ages of 3 to 11. Ever since her work for the school district began in 2009, her contract was renewed each year with no controversy or problem.

But this year, all of that changed. On August 13, the school district once again offered to extend her contract for another year by sending her essentially the same contract and set of certifications she has received and signed at the end of each year since 2009.

She was prepared to sign her contract renewal until she noticed one new, and extremely significant, addition: a certification she was required to sign pledging that she “does not currently boycott Israel,” that she “will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract,” and that she shall refrain from any action “that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israeli or in an Israel-controlled territory.”

The language of the affirmation Amawi was told she must sign reads like Orwellian — or McCarthyite — self-parody, the classic political loyalty oath that every American should instinctively shudder upon reading:


That language would bar Amawi not only from refraining from buying goods from companies located within Israel, but also from any Israeli companies operating in the occupied West Bank (“an Israeli-controlled territory”). The oath given to Amawi would also likely prohibit her even from advocating such a boycott given that such speech could be seen as “intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with Israel.”

Whatever one’s own views are, boycotting Israel to stop its occupation is a global political movement modeled on the 1980s boycott aimed at South Africa that helped end that country’s system of racial apartheid. It has become so mainstream that two newly elected members of the U.S. Congress explicitly support it, while boycotting Israeli companies in the occupied territories has long been advocated in mainstream venues by Jewish Zionist groups such as Peace Now and the Jewish-American Zionist writer Peter Beinart.

This required certification about Israel was the only one in the contract sent to Amawi that pertained to political opinions and activism. There were no similar clauses relating to children (such as a vow not to advocate for pedophiles or child abusers), nor were there any required political oaths that pertained to the country of which she is a citizen and where she lives and works: the United States.

In order to obtain contracts in Texas, then, a citizen is free to denounce and work against the United States, to advocate for causes that directly harm American children, and even to support a boycott of particular U.S. states, such as was done in 2017 to North Carolina in protest of its anti-LGBT law. In order to continue to work, Amawi would be perfectly free to engage in any political activism against her own country, participate in an economic boycott of any state or city within the U.S., or work against the policies of any other government in the world — except Israel.

That’s one extraordinary aspect of this story: The sole political affirmation Texans like Amawi are required to sign in order to work with the school district’s children is one designed to protect not the United States or the children of Texas, but the economic interests of Israel. As Amawi put it to The Intercept: “It’s baffling that they can throw this down our throats and decide to protect another country’s economy versus protecting our constitutional rights.”

Amawi concluded that she could not truthfully or in good faith sign the oath because, in conjunction with her family, she has made the household decision to refrain from purchasing goods from Israeli companies in support of the global boycott to end Israel’s decadeslong occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

Amawi, as the mother of four young children and a professional speech pathologist, is not a leader of any political movements: She has simply made the consumer choice to support the boycott by avoiding the purchase of products from Israeli companies in Israel or the occupied West Bank. She also occasionally participates in peaceful activism in defense of Palestinian self-determination that includes advocacy of the global boycott to end the Israeli occupation.

Watch The Intercept’s three-minute video of Amawi, as she tells her story, here:

When asked if she considered signing the pledge to preserve her ability to work, Amawi told The Intercept: “Absolutely not. I couldn’t in good conscience do that. If I did, I would not only be betraying Palestinians suffering under an occupation that I believe is unjust and thus, become complicit in their repression, but I’d also be betraying my fellow Americans by enabling violations of our constitutional rights to free speech and to protest peacefully.”

As a result, Amawi informed her school district supervisor that she could not sign the oath. As her complaint against the school district explains, she “ask[ed] why her personal political stances [about Israel and Palestine] impacted her work as a speech language pathologist.”

In response, Amawi’s supervisor promised that she would investigate whether there were any ways around this barrier. But the supervisor ultimately told Amawi that there were no alternatives: Either she would have to sign the oath, or the district would be legally barred from paying her under any type of contract.

Because Amawi, to her knowledge, is the only certified Arabic-speaking child’s speech pathologist in the district, it is quite possible that the refusal to renew her contract will leave dozens of young children with speech pathologies without any competent expert to evaluate their conditions and treatment needs.

“I got my master’s in this field and devoted myself to this work because I always wanted to do service for children,” Amawi said. “It’s vital that early-age assessments of possible speech impairments or psychological conditions be administered by those who understand the child’s first language.”

In other words, Texas’s Israel loyalty oath requirement victimizes not just Amawi, an American who is barred from working in the professional field to which she has devoted her adult life, but also the young children in need of her expertise and experience that she has spent years developing.

THE ANTI-BDS ISRAEL OATH was included in Amawi’s contract papers due to an Israel-specific state law enacted on May 2, 2017, by the Texas State Legislature and signed into law two days later by GOP Gov. Greg Abbott. The bill unanimously passed the lower House by a vote of 131-0, and then the Senate by a vote of 25-4.

When Abbott signed the bill in a ceremony held at the Austin Jewish Community Center, he proclaimed: “Any anti-Israel policy is an anti-Texas policy.”

The bill’s language is so sweeping that some victims of Hurricane Harvey, which devastated Southwest Texas in late 2017, were told that they could only receive state disaster relief if they first signed a pledge never to boycott Israel. That demand was deeply confusing to those hurricane victims in desperate need of help but who could not understand what their views of Israel and Palestine had to do with their ability to receive assistance from their state government.

The evangelical author of the Israel bill, Republican Texas state Rep. Phil King, said at the time that its application to hurricane relief was a “misunderstanding,” but nonetheless emphasized that the bill’s purpose was indeed to ensure that no public funds ever go to anyone who supports a boycott of Israel.

At the time that Texas enacted the law barring contractors from supporting a boycott of Israel, it was the 17th state in the country to do so. As of now, 26 states have enacted such laws — including blue states run by Democrats such as New York, California, and New Jersey — while similar bills are pending in another 13 states.

This map compiled by Palestine Legal shows how pervasive various forms of Israel loyalty oath requirements have become in the U.S.; the states in red are ones where such laws are already enacted, while the states in the darker shade are ones where such bills are pending:


Map: Palestine Legal

The vast majority of American citizens are therefore now officially barred from supporting a boycott of Israel without incurring some form of sanction or limitation imposed by their state. And the relatively few Americans who are still free to form views on this hotly contested political debate without being officially punished are in danger of losing that freedom, as more and more states are poised to enact similar censorship schemes.

One of the first states to impose such repressive restrictions on free expression was New York. In 2016, Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order directing all agencies under his control to terminate any and all business with companies or organizations that support a boycott of Israel. “If you boycott Israel, New York State will boycott you,” Cuomo proudly tweeted, referring to a Washington Post op-ed he wrote that touted that threat in its headline.

As The Intercept reported at the time, Cuomo’s order “requires that one of his commissioners compile ‘a list of institutions and companies’ that — ‘either directly or through a parent or subsidiary’ — support a boycott. That government list is then posted publicly, and the burden falls on [the accused boycotters] to prove to the state that they do not, in fact, support such a boycott.”

Like the Texas law, Cuomo’s Israel order reads like a parody of the McCarthy era:

What made Cuomo’s censorship directive particularly stunning was that, just two months prior to issuing this decree, he ordered New York state agencies to boycott North Carolina in protest of that state’s anti-LGBT law. Two years earlier, Cuomo banned New York state employees from all nonessential travel to Indiana to boycott that state’s enactment of an anti-LGBT law.

So Cuomo mandated that his own state employees boycott two other states within his own country, a boycott that by design would harm U.S. businesses, while prohibiting New York’s private citizens from supporting a similar boycott of a foreign nation upon pain of being barred from receiving contracts from the state of New York. That such a priority scheme is so pervasive — whereby boycotts aimed at U.S. businesses are permitted or even encouraged, but boycotts aimed at Israeli businesses are outlawed — speaks volumes about the state of U.S. politics and free expression, none of it good.

Following Cuomo, Texas’s GOP-dominated state legislature, and numerous other state governments controlled by both parties, the U.S. Congress, prodded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, began planning its own national bills to use the force of law to punish Americans for the crime of supporting a boycott of Israel. In July of last year, a group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — supported a law, called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), introduced by Democratic Sen. Benjamin Cardin of Maryland, that would criminalize participation in any international boycott of Israel.

After the American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement vehemently condemning Cardin’s bill as an attack on core free speech rights, one which “would punish individuals for no reason other than their political beliefs,” numerous senators announced that they were re-considering their support.

But now, as The Intercept reported last week, a modified version of the bill is back and pending in the lame-duck session: “Cardin is making a behind-the-scenes push to slip an anti-boycott law into a last-minute spending bill being finalized during the lame-duck session.”

The ACLU has also condemned this latest bill because “its intent and the intent of the underlying state laws it purports to uphold are contrary to the spirit and letter of the First Amendment guarantee of freedoms of speech and association.” As the ACLU warned in a recent action advisory:

While that “new version clarifies that people cannot face jail time for participating in a boycott,” the ACLU insists that “it still leaves the door open for criminal financial penalties” for anyone found to be participating in or even advocating for a boycott of Israel.MORE DANGEROUS ATTACKS on free expression are difficult to imagine. Nobody who claims to be a defender of free speech or free expression — on the right, the left, or anything in between — can possibly justify silence in the face of such a coordinated and pure assault on these most basic rights of free speech and association.

One common misconception is that the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech only bars the state from imprisoning or otherwise punishing people for speaking, but does not bar the state from conditioning the receipt of discretionary benefits (such as state benefits or jobs) on refraining from expressing particular opinions. Aside from the fact that, with some rare and narrow exceptions, courts have repeatedly held that the government is constitutionally barred under the First Amendment from conditioning government benefits on speech requirements — such as, say, enacting a bill that states that only liberals, or only conservatives, shall be eligible for unemployment benefits — the unconstitutional nature of Texas’s actions toward Bahia Amawi should be self-evident.

Imagine if, instead of being forced by the state to vow never to boycott Israel as a condition for continuing to work as a speech pathologist, Amawi was instead forced to pledge that she would never advocate for LGBT equality or engage in activism in support of or opposition to gun rights or abortion restrictions (by joining the National Rifle Association or Planned Parenthood), or never subscribe to Vox or the Daily Caller, or never participate in a boycott of Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, or Russia due to vehement disagreement with those governments’ policies.

The tyrannical free speech denial would be self-evident and, in many of those comparable cases, the trans-ideological uproar would be instantaneous. As Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, warned: “[T]his template could be re-purposed to bar contracts with individuals or groups affiliated with or supportive of any political cause or organization — from the political Left or Right — that the majority in a legislature or the occupant of a governor’s office deemed undesirable.”

Recall that in 2012, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel tried to block zoning permits allowing Chick-fil-A to expand, due to his personal disagreement with the anti-LGBT activism of that company’s top executive. As I wrote at the time in condemning the unconstitutional nature of the mayor’s actions: “If you support what Emanuel is doing here, then you should be equally supportive of a Mayor in Texas or a Governor in Idaho who blocks businesses from opening if they are run by those who support same-sex marriage — or who oppose American wars, or who support reproductive rights, or who favor single-payer health care, or which donates to LGBT groups and Planned Parenthood, on the ground that such views are offensive to Christian or conservative residents.”

Those official efforts in Chicago (followed by mayors of other liberal cities) to punish Chick-fil-A due to its executive’s negative views on LGBT equality were widely condemned even by liberal commentators, who were horrified that mayors would abuse their power to condition zoning rights based on a private citizen’s political viewpoints on a controversial issue. Obviously, if a company discriminated against LGBT employees in violation of the law, it would be legitimate to act against them, but as Mother Jones’s Kevin Drum correctly noted, this was a case of pure censorship: “There’s really no excuse for Emanuel’s and [Boston Mayor Thomas] Menino’s actions. … You don’t hand out business licenses based on whether you agree with the political views of the executives. Not in America, anyway.”

The ACLU of Illinois also denounced the effort by Chicago against Chick-fil-A as “wrong and dangerous,” adding: “We oppose using the power and authority of government to retaliate against those who express messages that are controversial or averse to the views of current office holders.” That, by definition, is the only position that a genuine free speech defender can hold — regardless of agreement or disagreement with the specific political viewpoint being punished.

Last week, the ACLU’s Senior Legislative Counsel Kate Ruane explained why even the modified, watered-down, fully bipartisan version of the Israel oath bill pending in the U.S. Congress, and especially the already enacted bills in 26 states of the kind that just resulted in Amawi’s termination, are a direct violation of the most fundamental free speech rights:

This is a full-scale attack on Americans’ First Amendment freedoms. Political boycotts, including boycotts of foreign countries, have played a pivotal role in this nation’s history — from the boycotts of British goods during the American Revolution to the Montgomery Bus Boycott to the campaign to divest from apartheid South Africa. And in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, the Supreme Court made clear that the First Amendment protects the right to participate in political boycotts.

The lawsuit which Amawi filed similarly explains that “economic boycotts for the purposes of bringing about political change are entrenched in American history, beginning with colonial boycotts on British tea. Later, the Civil Rights Movement relied heavily on boycotts to combat racism and spur societal change. The Supreme Court has recognized [in Claiborne] that non-violent boycotts intended to advance civil rights constitute ‘form[s] of speech or conduct that [are] ordinarily entitled to protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.’”

WHO CAN JUSTIFY that — as a condition for working with speech-impaired and developmentally disabled children — Amawi is forced by the state to violate her conscience and renounce her political beliefs by buying products from a country that she believes (in accordance with the U.N.) is illegally and brutally occupying land that does not belong to it? Whether or not you agree with her political view about Israel and Palestine, every American with an even minimal belief in the value of free speech should be vocally denouncing the attack on Amawi’s free speech rights and other Americans who are being similarly oppressed by these Israel-protecting censorship laws in the U.S.

As these Israel oath laws have proliferated, some commentators from across the ideological spectrum have noted what a profound threat to free speech they pose. The Foundation for Middle East Peace’s Friedman, for instance, explained that “it requires little imagination to see how criminalizing Americans’ participation in political boycotts of Israel could pave the way for further infringements to Americans’ right to support or join internationally-backed protests on other issues.” She correctly described such laws as “a free speech exception for Israel.”

The libertarian lawyer Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies, similarly warned: “It is not a proper function of law to force Americans into carrying on foreign commerce they personally find politically objectionable, whether their reasons for reluctance be good, bad, or arbitrary.”

National Review’s Noah Daponte-Smith last year denounced the Cardin bill seeking to criminalize advocacy of the Israel boycott as “so mind-bogglingly stupid that it’s hard to know exactly what to say about it,” adding that the bill “penalizes political beliefs and so is both unconstitutional and unconscionable.” The conservative writer continued: “The senators who currently support it should be, quite frankly, ashamed of themselves; they have lost sight of one of the founding principles of American government, allowing it to be overshadowed by the spectral world of the Israeli–Palestinian dispute.”

Meanwhile, though, there is an entire pundit class that has made very lucrative careers from posing as defenders and crusaders for free speech — from Jonathan Chait, Bill Maher, and Bari Weiss to the glittering renegades of the intellectual dark web — who fall notoriously silent whenever censorship is aimed at critics of Israel (there are some rare exceptions, such as when Chait tweeted about Cardin’s bill: “BDS is awful, but this bill criminalizing it sounds insane and unconstitutional,” and when Weiss criticized Israel for barring a Jewish-American boycott advocate from entering).

CNN’s recent firing of Marc Lamont Hill due to his pro-Palestine speech, and the threats from the chair of Temple University’s Board of Trustees to fire Hill from his tenured position over his contempt for the views expressed in that speech, produced not a word of protest from this crowd. The same was true of the University of Illinois’s costly decision to rescind a teaching offer to Palestinian-American professor Steven Salaita for the thought crime of condemning Israel’s bombing of Gaza.

But as The Intercept has repeatedly documented, the most frequent victims of official campus censorship are not conservative polemicists but pro-Palestinian activists, and the greatest and most severe threat posed to free speech throughout the west is aimed at Israel critics — from the arresting of French citizens for the “crime” of wearing “Boycott Israel” T-shirts to Canadian boycott activists being overtly threatened with prosecution to the partial British criminalization of the boycott of Israel.

Put simply, it is impossible to be a credible, effective, genuine advocate of free speech and free discourse without objecting to the organized, orchestrated, sustained onslaught of attacks on the free speech and free association rights undertaken specifically to protect the Israeli government from criticism and activism. Self-professed free speech defenders who only invoke that principle when their political allies are targeted are, by definition, charlatans and frauds. Genuine free speech advocates object to censorship even when, arguably especially when, the free speech rights of their political adversaries are assaulted.

Anyone who stands by silently while Bahia Amawi is forced out of the profession she has worked so hard to construct all because of her refusal to renounce her political views and activism — while the young children she helps are denied the professional support they need and deserve — can legitimately and accurately call themselves many things. “Free speech supporter” is most definitely not one of them.



Below is another revealing article about that illegitimate daughter (British Islam) imitating her harlot mother (American Islam) and the trials that brings. It will be interesting to see how these victims will be received by their communities for stepping forward and telling the truth about these child abusers. Please have a look.


Police praise courage of victims after cleric jailed for sex abuse

By Matthew Cooper, Press Association,PA Ready News UK

Police have urged anyone abused by Faruque Ahmed to seek support.

An Islamic tutor has been jailed for 14 years for sexual assaults against two young girls – prompting police to urge other potential victims to come forward.

Faruque Ahmed, 46, abused the victims over a two-year period while employed to teach Arabic at a family home in Warley, West Midlands, police said.

In a statement issued after Ahmed was jailed at Wolverhampton Crown Court on Friday, West Midlands Police said the abuse came to light when one of the victims made disclosures to a nurse in 2016.

The complainant disclosed that Ahmed, an Imam living in Stoke, had abused her and struck her with a bamboo cane if she resisted.

Ahmed was arrested in February last year, and in police interview admitted tutoring the girls between 2009 and 2011 but denied assaulting them.

Officers charged the cleric with sexually touching a child and sexual assault of a child by penetration, leading to him being found guilty on 10 of the 13 counts against him.

Ahmed, formerly of Cobridge, Stoke-on-Trent, was also given a sexual harm prevention order banning him from working with children for life, and was ordered to register as a sex offender for life.

Detective Constable Sarah West, from West Midlands Police’s Child Abuse Unit, said: “Both victims want to raise awareness within their community and to urge anyone who’s suffered abuse to speak out.

“They know first-hand how victims can feel pressured to remain silent – that by reporting offences it somehow brings shame on the family – but they recognise now that by doing so it allows offenders to continue offending and puts other children at risk.

“The girls have now got justice for the horrible abuse inflicted on them by Ahmed and are getting the support they need to move on with their lives

“And they want other survivors of abuse to do the same.

“I wish the girls all the very best for their futures and thank them for their courage in speaking out. Their brave actions may save other children from being abused and for that they can be rightly proud.”


Figure 1A: The creation of a group of people called transgender has no more remedied society’s ills than the creation of the groups teenagers, tweenies or prostitots.

Please have a look at the following video below for a very thought provoking presentation and investigation on the topic of people having sex change operations and then changing their minds and wanting to go back to being normal. This issue has always been there but the difference is in the world of the internet it can no longer be hidden as was the case in the ’80s when this matter became much more prominent. The DSM has had this along with homosexuality and bestiality closely listed in its chapters until recently.

One can dig up PDFs, journal articles, read testimonials, examine peer reviewed journals, see data on how the operation is carried out and much more. This might be the type of disclosure needed to dislodge the foolishly entrenched argument that transgender issues can be compared to race issues.