The UN disgraces itself again 58

 Read here how the nefarious and ghastly UN Human Rights Council once again proves that it stands against humanity, justice, truth and decency.

Posted under Uncategorized by Jillian Becker on Monday, June 30, 2008

Tagged with , , ,

This post has 58 comments.

Permalink

Islam attains power in Scotland 222

Read here how the Muslim Brotherhood has been welcomed into the government of Scotland, and given power of decision in the matter of Britain’s nuclear defenses.

Posted under Uncategorized by Jillian Becker on Thursday, June 26, 2008

Tagged with , , ,

This post has 222 comments.

Permalink

The New York Times aids Islamofascism 141

The New York Times, which has made a habit of being on the side of America’s enemies, now does whatever it can to excuse, and so to promote, soft jihad in the US.

Read about it here.

Posted under Commentary by Jillian Becker on Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Tagged with , ,

This post has 141 comments.

Permalink

Paying for our own destruction 45

Read this article about sharia-compliant financial deals and why they are a bad idea.

Posted under Uncategorized by Jillian Becker on Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Tagged with , , ,

This post has 45 comments.

Permalink

‘Destroy Islam’ 141

 ‘Islam is nothing but one man’s insanity,’ says this author, Ali Sina. It cannot be reformed, so ‘destroy it.’ 

Muhammad was ‘a narcissist, a misogynist, a pedophile, a lecher, a torturer, a mass murderer, a cult leader, an assassin, a terrorist, a mad man and a looter,’ he says, and he offers $50,000 to anyone who can prove him wrong.

Posted under Uncategorized by Jillian Becker on Saturday, June 21, 2008

Tagged with ,

This post has 141 comments.

Permalink

The UN curbs freedom of speech 346

The disgusting United Nations tries to forbid criticism of Islam.

But Islam is a supremacist ideology and must be critically examined.

Silence on Supremacist Ideologies Not Consistent With History or Democracy

The gross illogical nature of such an approach is seen by looking at another form of supremacist political ideology that the United States government, the United Nations, and other nations have aggressively debated and have enforced change in their governments and their people to remove.

If the issue was a racial supremacist ideology, would such objections exist?

Can one imagine the United Nations refusing to debate “white supremacism” due to fears of insulting “whites,” or refusing to debate “apartheid”?

Can one imagine the U.S. government refusing to use terms such as “white supremacism” in dealing with fighting the Ku Klux Klan, or in refusing to consider the influences of white supremacist ideology when guaranteeing civil rights for all of its citizens, and in creating laws to effectively ban white supremacist influences in schools, businesses, and public places?

Most of all, in fighting white supremacist terror groups as the Ku Klux Klan, would the FBI have consulted “non-violent” white supremacists for ideological guidance? Would the FBI and the federal government have stated that it could not be involved in the “war of ideas” against white supremacism?

With the context of history, such questions are obviously absurd. That is precisely the point regarding the unwillingness to address the challenges of Islamic supremacist ideologies.

History shows that, in fact, none of this happened, and that the United Nations, the U.S government, and federal U.S. law enforcement all took action against such supremacist ideologies and publicly, aggressively, debated these in a war of ideas that would change the world and the nation. For the United States, the history of such federal action against such supremacist ideologies goes back nearly 140 years.

Therefore, such deliberate silence and denial regarding Sharia and Islamic supremacist ideologies is completely inconsistent with the history of such organizations and with America’s democratic values. I will be addressing this in more detail in a future article to be entitled “Jihad and Supremacist Ideologies.”

UNHRC president Doru Romulus Costea silenced debate on Sharia due to his fears of pursuing a “slippery slope” in such discussions.

Yet it is precisely such a “slippery slope” of denial on Islamic supremacist ideologies that the world is facing in the debate over Jihad, or in the words of Osama Bin Laden “the greater state of Islam from the ocean to the ocean, Allah permitting.”

On a national and global level, the combination of denial and refusal to address the impact of Sharia and Islamic supremacist ideologies in providing an ideological basis for global Jihadist activity is truly a “slippery slope” for the safety of the entire world.

Read the whole article here.

Posted under Commentary by Jillian Becker on Friday, June 20, 2008

Tagged with , ,

This post has 346 comments.

Permalink

Who is welcome in Britain? 93

 Abu Qatada, one of bin Laden’s top men? Yes. 

Martha Stewart? No.  

Read about it here.

Posted under Commentary by Jillian Becker on Friday, June 20, 2008

Tagged with ,

This post has 93 comments.

Permalink

The darkness of Islam 75

 Read here what the Koran and the hadith prescribe for the position and treatment of women and little girls.  

Women are slaves in Islam. They can be, and are, brutally treated and have no remedies.   

 

 

Posted under Uncategorized by Jillian Becker on Thursday, June 19, 2008

Tagged with , ,

This post has 75 comments.

Permalink

The wages of fear 362

 Read to the end of this report on the freeing from prison of Abu Qatada, ‘Bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe’, by a British court, to discover how much it is costing the British  tax-payer to keep and protect this dangerous man.

Scroll down to about one third the length of the page to find the article. 

Posted under Uncategorized by Jillian Becker on Thursday, June 19, 2008

Tagged with , , , ,

This post has 362 comments.

Permalink

It is right to judge 181

 The wisdom of an atheist we much admire, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, shines in all she says.

For example:

Hirsi Ali has used her platform to challenge Westerners about their own inconsistencies. Having come late to the political culture of individual rights and the rule of law, she was astonished by the willingness of many in the West to cast a blind eye to gross violations of rights so long as they occurred among foreigners. The multiculturalism that guided Dutch policy in the 1990s sprang from a desire to respect difference, but in practice it meant tolerance for what, if undertaken by native Dutchmen, would be crimes.

"People in the West swallow this sort of thing because they have learned not to examine the religions or cultures of minorities too critically, for fear of being called racist," she wrote. "It fascinates them that I am not afraid to do so."

"Human beings are equal, cultures are not," she told a New York audience last year:

A culture that celebrates femininity is not equal to a culture that trims the genitals of her girls. A culture that holds the door open to her women is not equal to one that confines them behind walls and veils. … A culture that encourages dating between young men and young women is not equal to a culture that flogs or stones a girl for falling in love. A culture where monogamy is an aspiration is not equal to a culture where a man can lawfully have four wives all at once.

Read the whole article from Front Page Magazine here

 

Posted under Commentary by Jillian Becker on Thursday, June 19, 2008

Tagged with , , ,

This post has 181 comments.

Permalink
« Newer Posts - Older Posts »