Leatherneck Blogger

Posts Tagged ‘Property Tax

Child camel jockeys in the Middle East – Ansar Burney – Part 1

with one comment

Majestic786
Published on Jun 13, 2011

 

 

 

Copyright Disclaimer

Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

 

 

9/11 jihadi to US in just-released footage: “Your blood is delicious for us and your meat cheap”

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
September 11, 2017

“We have resolved to tread upon your lands and embrace the maidens of paradise on your soil.”

That means that al-Qaeda was planning to mount jihad suicide attacks on U.S. soil, to gain the Qur’an’s promise of Paradise to those who “kill and are killed” for Allah (Qur’an 9:111). That was not an empty boast, as al-Qaeda has been involved in some of the jihad plots we have seen in the U.S. since 9/11.

“Previously Unseen 9/11 Hijacker Warning: ‘Your Blood is Delicious for Us and Your Meat Cheap,’” by Bridget Johnson, PJ Media, September 11, 2017:

Al-Qaeda marked the 16th anniversary of 9/11 by releasing previously unseen footage of Mohand al-Shehri, one of the hijackers aboard United Airlines Flight 175 that crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center, noting that the terrorists have “longed for your beautiful lands” and find the blood of Americans “delicious.”

Al-Shehri, 22, was a Saudi who trained in Chechnya and Afghanistan months before being granted a student visa to the United States. He arrived in the U.S. four months before the attacks and trained on a flight simulator in Vero Beach, Fla.

According to the video, al-Shehri shot the statement April 17, 2001, before he arrived in the United States that May….

It begins with a few minutes of archive footage of late al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden before moving on to al-Shehri reading his statement. “The tyrants have led the ummah [Muslim community] to this abyss. Filth and immorality have become widespread and has deprived the hearts of sobriety and filled them with lowliness,” he said.

“So accompany me in this last will as I address you from the deck of my ship as to guide you to the shores of salvation. Perhaps your boat will hear my words of inspiration and rock with enthusiasm and you would stop in your way and change course to head for the gardens of eternity. Allah will surely replace those who have chosen to sit back and refrain from the obligation of jihad with others who will rise and act on the basis of the Islamic creed, be willing to pay the price of honor and overcome the enemies of Allah,” he continued. “Those who have chosen to sit back will then be left worthless, and their reckoning will neither be delayed nor hastened, for Allah is all-powerful and nothing can stop him from replacing you with another people.”…

Al-Shehri vowed that “this ummah has been molded by the Quran and the sword, and neither of them can be separated from the other,” and decried the “Judaization of Palestine.”

“If we abandon this cause, do not wake up from our slumber and do not dedicate to this cause except for the little spare time that we have, the Arabian Peninsula itself will become a killing ground of Muslims, just like Palestine,” he said, stressing that jihadists need to “defeat America and the Cross.”

“America, where shall you escape? The sea is behind you, we are in front of you, and there is no way out. If you accept Islam, you shall be safe and Allah will give you your reward and the reward of those after you, or else just wait for us. With the permission of Allah, we are coming to sever your heads, rip apart your bellies and make you fall over yourselves. You will be looking for rescue and there will be no way out. There will be no solution for you except death and then even more death,” he continued.

“We have longed for your beautiful lands, for its streams and trees, palaces and lakes. We have resolved to tread upon your lands and embrace the maidens of paradise on your soil. Your blood is delicious for us and your meat cheap. We are thirsty and nothing shall quench this thirst except your blood, nothing shall satiate our hunger except your meat. There is no stopping what has been decreed by Allah.”

Al-Shehri warned that terrorists would be sending America “the most expensive of gifts,” consisting of “coffins followed by coffins, bodies followed by bodies.”…

Pro-Life Speaker Ben Shapiro Answers Pro-Abortion Student’s Question With an “Epic Takedown”

with one comment

By Micaiah Bilger
LifeNews.com
September 15, 2017

Popular conservative author and speaker Ben Shapiro continued to impress his audience Thursday at UC Berkeley when he rapidly refuted a young man’s abortion arguments.

Shapiro’s speech at the liberal California university drew massive media attention because of the violent protests that have broken out on campus during past conservative speakers’ talks. The university and local police increased security, and several people were arrested Thursday.

Inside the sold-out auditorium, Shapiro received a huge applause when he quickly destroyed a young man’s arguments in favor of first-trimester abortions. A video of the exchange received a lot of attention Friday, and some described Shapiro’s argument as an “epic takedown” of abortion.

During the question and answer period Thursday, a young man asked Shapiro why he believes abortion is wrong.

“Why do you think a first-trimester fetus has human value?” the young man asked, explaining that he believes sentience is what makes humans valuable.

“Ok, so when you’re asleep, can I stab you?” Shapiro asked. The young man said no.

“Ok, if you are in a coma from which you may awake, can I stab you?” Shapiro continued.

Again, the young man said no. “But that’s still potential sentience!” he added.

“Do you know what else has potential sentience? Being a fetus,” Shapiro said, followed by a massive applause.

 

 

NRA Takes WaPo Writer to the Woodshed Over ‘Fake News’ Story on the SHARE Act

with one comment

By Erika Haas
Bearing Arms
September 15, 2017

If you just so happen to find yourself perusing through the Washington Post’s opinion section, you might stumble upon this gem: “The NRA’s idea of recreation: Assault rifles, armor-piercing bullets and silencers.”

As you’d expect based on the snide headline, the piece tears into the NRA for supporting sport-shooting. More specifically, the author takes issues with the NRA’s backing of the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2017, also known as the SHARE Act, which was recently revived by the House.

In fact, the (bipartisan) bill was advanced by the House Committee on Natural Resources on Wednesday. According to the committee, the act “expands opportunities for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting; increases safety and hearing protection for sportsmen and women; and protects Second Amendment rights.”

Upon passage out of the committee, Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) said, “The SHARE Act removes bureaucratic roadblocks that inhibit Americans’ access to outdoor sporting activities on federal lands and reigns in federal encroachment on Second Amendment rights. Members also adopted important amendments that improve upon this package, including provisions to address cumbersome permitting processes for guides and outfitters, which will result in more jobs and more Americans recreating outdoors. I look forward to advancing this package through the House and working with our Senate colleagues on a final bill that can be signed into law.”  

However, in the eyes of the Washington Post, if the bill is passed, it means  hunters will soon be able to “load their automatic weapons with armor-piercing bullets, strap on silencers, head off to the picnic grounds on nearby public lakes — and start shooting.”

Thankfully, the NRA wasn’t going to let this one go. It decided the best way to address this poorly-researched, fear-mongering article would be with, well, facts (via the NRA Blog):

Washington Post Fake News:

Under the Share Act, hunters “will load their automatic weapons with armor-piercing bullets, strap on silencers, head off to the picnic grounds on nearby public lakes — and start shooting.”

The Facts:

Automatic Weapons

It is against the law in every state to hunt with fully automatic firearms. Such weapons are highly restricted and very rare due to the 1986 ban on their manufacture or importation.  The SHARE Act doesn’t change this.

“Armor piercing bullets”

All shotgun and rifle ammunition is so-called armor piercing. Congress never intended to place restrictions on all shotgun and rifle ammunition. The SHARE Act simply clarifies congressional intent and limits interpretations that are contrary to that.

Picnic grounds and public lakes

Laws restrict hunting and shooting to designated areas on public lands. You can’t just go to any casual “picnic ground” and “start shooting.”

Washington Post Fake News:

The SHARE Act would allow people to “bring assault guns and other weapons through jurisdictions where they are banned.”

The Facts:

Since 1986, federal law has allowed a person in lawful possession of any firearm to transport it from any place where they can lawfully possess a firearm to any other place where they can lawfully possess the firearm. But prosecutors in anti-gun states such as New York and New Jersey have ignored this federal law, and arrested individuals who were lawfully travelling with firearms.  The SHARE Act would put a stop to that.

Washington Post Fake News:

The SHARE Act would “[r]oll back decades-old regulations on the use of silencers.
The Facts:

The SHARE Act would simply make it easier for law-abiding gun owners to protect their hearing with suppressors, sometimes called silencers in Hollywood movies. Current federal law requires registration, the paying of a $200 tax, and up to a 12 month wait to acquire a firearm suppressor. The SHARE Act would replace that antiquated 1934 system with the modern NICS system used for acquiring firearms in the United States.

According to the Center for Disease Control,“The only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students’ or instructors’ noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of noise suppressors that can be attached to the end of the gun barrel.”  The SHARE Act recognizes that we must give law-abiding sportsmen and women greater options for protecting their hearing.

Washington Post Fake News:

The SHARE Act would: “Eas[e] importation of foreign-made assault rifles.”

The Facts:

Due to a quirk in federal firearms import law, firearms that are perfectly legal to manufacture, acquire, and possess in the United States are nonetheless prohibited from importation.  The SHARE Act would simply allow for the importation of firearms that are already legal within the United States.

Washington Post Fake News:

The SHARE Act would “[protect] the practice of baiting birds with grain as they migrate and then [mow] them down.

The Facts:

Currently, if a person happens to hunt migratory game birds near a cornfield, they could be cited for “baiting” the animals.  This law leaves hunters open to fines whenever hunting near any agricultural operations. The SHARE Act would clarify that such activities are only unlawful where the agricultural operations are manipulated in some way to entice the game birds into the area.

Well done, NRA, for putting this WaPo columnist in his place.

Can The Government Confiscate My Firearms During a Disaster?

with 4 comments

By US and Texas Law Shield Admin
September 6, 2017

During the recent disaster wrought by Hurricane Harvey in Texas and the impending landfall in Florida of Hurricane Irma, many of our members have been asking if the government can confiscate their firearms if the Governor or Federal Government declare a state of emergency.

Following the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the New Orleans police went door to door seeking people who rode out the storm in their homes to force them to comply with the forced evacuation ordered by the government. As part of the effort, the officers were also confiscating firearms.

This created an outrage among the law-abiding gun owners of the country and resulted in the passage of state and federal laws to prevent such confiscations from occurring in the future.

In 2006, Congress passed the DISASTER RECOVERY PERSONAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2006. The law was intended to prevent the government from seizing legally owned firearms during the time of a disaster. It was incorporated as an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act 2007 and signed into law on October 4, 2006.

CAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONFISCATE MY FIREARMS?

This law amended 42 U.S.C 5201 Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to add the following provision:

SEC. 706. FIREARMS POLICIES.

(a) PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS- No officer or employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, may–

(1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under Federal, State, or local law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation;

(2) require registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by Federal, State, or local law;

(3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any rule, regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any firearm, in any place or by any person where such possession is not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or local law; or

(4) prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local law, solely because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from the major disaster or emergency.

(b) LIMITATION- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person in subsection (a) from requiring the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a major disaster or emergency, provided that such temporarily surrendered firearm is returned at the completion of such rescue or evacuation.

Following the lead of the federal government, most state legislatures adopted their own version of this law.

TEXAS LAW ON FIREARMS CONFISCATION

In Texas, Government Code Chapter 418 (EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT) permits the Governor to declare a State of Disaster which suspends certain state laws and regulations to allow local authorities to conduct rescue and recovery operations.

However, it does not allow for the seizure of any legally owned firearms, with limited exception.

Specifically,

Sec. 418.003.  LIMITATIONS.  This chapter does not:

(5)  except as provided by Section 418.184, authorize the seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from an individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition;

Sec. 418.184.  FIREARMS.

(a)  A peace officer who is acting in the lawful execution of the officer’s official duties during a state of disaster may disarm an individual if the officer reasonably believes it is immediately necessary for the protection of the officer or another individual.

(b)  The peace officer shall return a firearm and any ammunition to an individual disarmed under Subsection (a) before ceasing to detain the individual unless the officer:

(1)  arrests the individual for engaging in criminal activity; or

(2)  seizes the firearm as evidence in a criminal investigation.

To read Governor Abbott’s actual declaration, click here.

FLORIDA LAW ON FIREARMS CONFISCATION   

Article IV, Section 1(a) of the Florida Constitution permits the Governor to issue an Executive Order to declare a State of Emergency in times of a natural disaster, allowing him to enact provisions of the State’s Emergency Management Plan.

For Hurricane Irma, the Executive Order provides specific provisions regarding the activities permissible to state and local officials during the emergency, as provided for in  Florida Statutes beginning with Chapter 252.31  “State Emergency Management Act.”

In part, the Executive Order states:

Section 2. I designate the Director of the Division of Emergency Management as the State Coordinating Officer for the duration of this emergency and direct him to execute the State’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and other response, recover, and mitigation plans necessary to cope with the emergency. Pursuant to section 252.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, I delegate to the State Coordinating Officer the authority to exercise those powers delineated in sections 252.36(5)-(10), Florida Statutes, which he shall exercise as needed to meet this emergency, subject to the limitations of section 252.33, Florida Statutes.

But those powers have certain limitations with regards to firearms. In particular,

Chapter 252.36(5)(h) states the Governor may:

(h) Suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives, and combustibles. However, nothing contained in ss. 252.31-252.90 shall be construed to authorize the seizure, taking, or confiscation of firearms that are lawfully possessed, unless a person is engaged in the commission of a criminal act.

FINAL WORD

So, there you have it. During our times of disaster, we can all focus on recovery and not have to worry about the authorities coming along and confiscating our firearms. The Second Amendment survives disasters.

Surprising Hurricane Harvey Heroes

 

[Addendum: Due inquiries from Members, this story was updated on Sept. 7.]

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS CONFISCATING FIREARMS

On Tuesday, the island’s Governor ordered the National Guard to confiscate weapons and ammo that may be required for them to carry out their mission.  What that specifically means is unclear. Also, the U.S. Virgin Islands IS NOT governed by the U.S. Constitution, but instead by the “Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands,” a federal law approved by Congress in 1954. The island does not have its own constitution yet.

The NRA has threatened to file a lawsuit, and here is their take:

In 1997, the chairman of the House Committee on Resources asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to clarify just how the U.S. Constitutional applies to various “U.S. Insular Areas,” including the U.S. Virgin Islands. Its findings were inconclusive and unsettling, especially to those now living under Governor Mapp’s orders. Said the report:

Under the Insular Cases and subsequent decisions, rights other than fundamental rights, even though they may be stated in the Constitution, do not apply to the territories or possessions unless the Congress makes them applicable by legislation. The Congress can by law extend the coverage of the Constitution in part or in its entirety to a territory or possession, and has done so with respect to some territories. In the absence of such congressional action, however, only fundamental rights apply.

Digging further, one finds that only parts of the Fifth Amendment are considered to be “fundamental” based on court rulings, and none of the Sixth Amendment applies. And nothing is said in the 75-page report about the Second.

If the NRA does sue and their position is sustained by the courts that people living on the island are U.S. Citizens with full protection of the U.S. Constitution, the issue will be settled. If not, or no suit is filed, those living on the island will be subjected to having their weapons confiscated by the National Guard.

Teen with Down Syndrome Surprises Merkel on Live TV With Late-Term Abortion Question

with one comment

By Lauretta Brown
Townhall
September 12, 2017

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was put on the spot Monday by a German teen with Down syndrome during a live “Vote Debate” event in the northern city of Lübeck.

“Mrs Merkel, you are a politician. You make laws. I’m an editor at a magazine for people like me who have Down Syndrome,” Cologne-native Natalie Dedreux told the Chancellor according to a translationby The Local Germany.

“Nine out of ten babies with Down Syndrome in Germany aren’t born,” she said.

“A baby with Down Syndrome can be aborted days before the birth, in what is called ‘late stage abortion.’ My colleagues and I want to know what your opinion on late stage abortion is, Mrs Merkel. Why can babies with Down Syndrome be aborted shortly before birth?”

“I don’t think it’s good politically. This topic is important to me,” she added.

“I don’t want to be aborted, I want to be born,” Dedreux concluded, receiving loud and sustained applause from those gathered.

Merkel was visibly flustered by the question, some in the media noted, according to the Express. She replied that she grew up in communist East Germany where handicapped children were given no support.

“There was no support at all, there was nothing. And this is one of the great advantages of German unity, that today you can see what you could do with support,” she said.

Merkel argued that her party, the Christian Democrats (CDU), had fought for years to require that parents receive a compulsory consultation before an abortion.

“It was unbelievably difficult to win a majority for that,” she said.

“She attributed the fact that so many parents opt for abortion to people being unaware of the support that is on offer to them if their child is born with a handicap,” the Local Germany noted.

“Everyone has so much potential and every one can do something for society,” Merkel said.

“There is so much in each person’s abilities and possibilities,” Merkel told Dedreux. “Say something like that again and again.”

She asked Natalie about the Cologne Caritas group that she works for and told her, “maybe I’ll stop by.”

Natalie ended the exchange with a smile, telling Merkel that she felt like Merkel had fought for the rights of the handicapped during her time as Chancellor and that she was a “big fan.”

Abortions are permitted in Germany if the woman presents the doctor with a certificate indicating that she obtained counseling at least three days before the operation and not more than twelve weeks have elapsed since conception. However, late-term abortions are permitted after counseling when there is a risk to the health of the mother or when a prenatal diagnosis shows that the unborn baby has a severe disability.

 

 

National Reciprocity Reportedly Going Nowhere Due To Paul Ryan

with 2 comments

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
September 11, 2017

Republicans are supposed to be pro-gun. Not only is that how Democrats paint them, but it’s how Republican lawmakers paint themselves. After all, the Second Amendment is a sacred right and must be defended.

Following the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise at the hands of a deranged liberal terrorist, Rep. Thomas Massie introduced a bill for national reciprocity. This bill would make it so concealed carry license would be treated like marriage licenses or drivers licenses; a permit in one state would be recognized in every other state.

The bill, however, has stalled, and Massie points the finger for this squarely at Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

Speaker Paul Ryan will not allow Congressional action on national concealed carry reciprocity to move bills forward, Rep. Thomas Massie told host Mark Walters Thursday on Armed American Radio.  The reason given is Ryan thinks the timing isn’t right to consider H.R. 2909, the D.C. Personal Protection Reciprocity Act, a supplement to state reciprocity provisions of H.R. 38.

“We’ve got over 80 cosponsors at this point,” Massie told Walters when asked the status of his bill, which is currently and procedurally in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform because Congress has oversight responsibility for Washington D.C. He’s “pressing for a hearing on it.”

“Why haven’t we seen movement over either 38 or 2909 since the horrific events in Virginia?” Walters asked, noting the Republicans control the House and the Senate and both Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appear to be blocking bills advancing the right to keep and bear arms.

“You know what?” Massie replied, “The Speaker told me he didn’t think the timing was right. And I think this is the exact timing to bring this bill.”

I’m forced to agree with Massie. This is exactly the right time. The GOP has control of both chambers of Congress and the White House. That may not necessarily be the case in after the midterms.

Unless Ryan is thinking the right time is just a couple months away, he’s wasting this opportunity to strike a meaningful blow for the Second Amendment. Assuming, of course, what Massie says is accurate.

Yet, despite this, he’s likely to maintain his pro-2A credentials. After all, those good grades from pro-gun organizations are typically dependant on how they vote on Second Amendment-related legislation. Vote against gun control bills when they spring up, vote in favor of repealing gun control laws, maybe propose a few pro-gun bills, and you get a good grade from the gun groups.

In fairness, that’s all they have to go on. The backroom deals are, by definition, out of the limelight and hard to quantify. As it stands, all we have is Thomas Massie’s word for what’s transpiring, which means groups like the NRA may be hesitant to base any part of their grading on such claims.

However, none of that really matters. National reciprocity, as well as other pro-gun legislation, needs to move forward, get passed, then signed by President Trump.

Frankly, I’d be delighted to hear just how the timing could be any better.

Social Justice Warriors Suggest Banning Veterans From Campus

with one comment

By Erika Haas
Bearing Arms
September 4, 2017

The social justice warriors are at it again, and this time they’re going after our veterans.

A flyer was recently posted on a community bulletin board at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs (UCCS) claiming veterans have no place at traditional, four-year universities or colleges, reports Campus Reform.

The flyer is apparently a part of a new “Social Justice Collective Weekly” newsletter, which aims to “promote justice in our society.” The first issue included an article titled “Should Veterans Be Banned From UCCS and Other Universities?” And according to the author, the answer is yes – because nothing screams justice quite like a veterans ban.

“A four-year, traditional university is supposed to be a place of learning, of understanding, of safety, and security. However, there is an element among us who may be frustrating those goals: Veterans,” the author writes.

He goes on to call our veterans tainted individuals who are nothing more than insensitive, close-minded racists that are a product of a “white supremacist organization.”

“Many veterans openly mock the ideas of diversity and safe spaces for vulnerable members of society,” he writes. “This is directly in contradiction to the mission of UCCS.”

“Veterans usually are associated with extremist right-wing groups such as the Tea Party and the NRA,” he continues. Since when is the NRA an extremist group?

The author then claims that veterans only frighten other students, and are simply a distraction. They offer nothing of value to their peers’ education.

“[They] are no longer fit for a four-year university,” the author asserts.

But don’t worry, this doesn’t mean veterans should be completely banned from getting an education.

“Veterans should be allowed to attend trade schools, or maybe even community college,” he offers (how kind). “But in order to protect our academic institutions, we must ban veterans from four-year universities.”

So these veterans are good enough to fight for your freedoms, to put their lives on the line so you can maintain the right to say whatever you choose without fear – even if it’s a crazy idea like banning veterans from getting an education – but they’re not good enough to sit by you in class at a four-year university and earn their degree like everyone else?

A spokesman from UCCS tells Campus Reform that the creators of the newsletter are in no way affiliated with the university.

“[The newsletter] does not represent the views of the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs,” he says. “As a university, we value the contributions of veterans to the campus as well as to the broader community and nation.”

Similarly, the university’s chancellor issued a formal statement saying “UCCS does not discriminate against veterans…People earn the right to study at UCCS by virtue of hard work and individual effort, and we do not bar the door.”

“I disagree with anyone who says that we should refuse veterans a UCCS education,” he concludes. “We know our student veterans to be high achieving individuals with diverse viewpoints and values, and all of us are enriched by and fortunate to have the military community represented in our classrooms and campus spaces.”

It’s becoming more and more clear that the only people we need to protect our academic institutions from are these social justice warriors.

Despite negative publicity, Muslims in Calgary continues to teach health benefits of FGM as an Islamic practice

with one comment

By Christine Douglas-Williams
Jihad Watch
September 5, 2017

Breitbart just wrote about this today, and so it is getting a great deal of attention, but Muslims In Calgary first posted this article on July 7, and Jihad Watch first reported on it on August 15. Despite that initial burst of attention, however, it remained on the Muslims In Calgary website, and is still there now.

“Male circumcision and female circumcision has immense scientific and medical value,” according to Muslims in Calgary, which also proclaims that FGM is an “Islamic tradition.”

FGM is indeed an Islamic practice and tradition in accordance with the Sharia, but one assertion by Muslims in Calgary is horribly wrong:

Misogynists and Feminists are feeding upon each other to denigrate an Islamic practice that brings untold benefits to women.

Few things can be more misogynistic than FGM. This cruel practice is routinely performed in the most barbaric fashion, and in the West to boot. As reported by none other than al Jazeera, of all publications:

“The horror of female genital mutilation” has seen “an estimated 66,000 girls…illegally mutilated in the UK, but no one has yet been prosecuted for this practice.”

In Sweden, 150,000 women have undergone FGM, and authorities have admitted to “large areas under Islamic rule.”

In the US, an Ethiopian Muslim in Georgia, Khalid Adem, was convicted in March of aggravated battery and cruelty for using a scissors to perform FGM on his two-year-old daughter.

We live in an era in which falsehoods are being widely accepted as truth. This practice is nothing short of abusive. One wonders why traditional feminists are not decrying it, particularly those of mainstream media status such as the infamous Linda Sarsour, who has distorted the truth by stating the opposite of what Muslims in Calgary states about FGM: Sarsour has stated that FGM is not an Islamic practice.

To continue for a moment on how the truth gets increasingly obscured, Sarsour has also stated, with much support, that “wearing the hijab is some kind of symbol of female liberation.” Well, it has now emerged that this foremost spokesperson for women’s rights — particularly Muslim women’s rights — has given the real reason she wears a hijab: it transformed her from “white” into a “person of color.” Says Sarsour: : “When I wasn’t wearing hijab, I was just some ordinary white girl from New York City.”

So now that the truth is on the table, let us continue to discuss the truth about FGM, contrary to how Muslims in Calgary have tried to spin the practice as being gentle and harmless, as well as in  keeping with Sharia.

In February, the World Health Organization (WHO) joined “individuals and organizations worldwide in marking the International day of zero tolerance for female genital mutilation” (FGM). Note: zero tolerance.

WHO reports that “over 200 million girls and women living worldwide have experienced this harmful practice…which has no health benefits and is a violation of the human rights of girls and women.” Effects include “severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, as well as complications in childbirth and increased risk of newborn deaths.”

Muslims in Calgary have made the grossly false claim that FGM is the equivalent of male circumcision. There are in fact, health benefits to male circumcision, and sometimes it is medically necessary. Male circumcision does not have long term devastating health effects, as does FGM.

The question should be arising repeatedly: why is the West not doing more to crack down on criminal practices that violate human rights, and on those who incite hatred and intolerance? The answer has been clear: to protect “diversity” in the name of political correctness, in favor of one group over another. This racist agenda relegates Muslims to an inferior status. Abuses by white supremacists are never tolerated; nor should they be. Zero tolerance on human rights abuses by white supremacists and by Islamic supremacists equally should be expected. Unfortunately, those who call out the human rights violations that are justified by Sharia, and the human rights violations of Islamic supremacists and jihadists are being called “racist.”

Recently it came to light that Canada’s Border Services Agency was on the alert for the arrival of travelling practitioners of female genital mutilation, and “photos of the cutting tools, belts and ‘special herbs’ practitioners might be carrying in their baggage when they arrive in the country” were circulated to border officers. How will authorities now view the advertisement of FGM by Muslims in Calgary? A recent national report out of Canada says this: “Ottawa says female genital mutilation is ‘abhorrent,’ but offers no commitment on tracking cases.” Why not?

“Male circumcision and female circumcision has immense scientific and medical value”, Muslims in Calgary, July 7, 2017:

How Misogynists and Feminists are feeding upon each other to denigrate an Islamic practice that brings untold benefits to women

Female Circumcision is an Islamic tradition, and involve only the removal of the clitoral prepuce and no more.

All the early scholars of Islam were agreed that all that is needed to be removed in the circumcision of the female was the prepuce of the clitoris, the fold of skin covering the clitoris. This is the female equivalent of the foreskin in males which is taken off during circumcision.
The inspiration for writing on this touchy topic arose at a recent week-long workshop held by an international Muslim women’s rights organization in Kandy (in Sri Lanka) which I had the fortune of attending thanks to its local organizers.
This group had a lot of nice things to say about women’s rights in Islam and I must say I agreed with much of it, like the rights of Muslim women to enter into marriage with their free consent and even contract marriages on their own accord or their rights to divorce or pre-nuptial agreements to safeguard their freedoms, all well and good, because Islam concedes all these rights to women, on which topics I too have written extensively.

But there was one topic I begged to differ when they brought up the matter, and that was female circumcision. They asked us to discuss a recent Fatwa issued by Malaysia’s National Council for Islamic Religious Affairs in 2009 (*) that declared that the practice was mandatory for Muslim women. They expected us to rip it to pieces, but I differed. Why, because I could not find anything objectionable in it. Reading it carefully, I noticed that those who had drafted it were not at all motivated by a negative attitude towards women’s rights. Rather it clearly stated that all forms of FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) found by the WHO to be harmful to women such as clitoridectomy (removal of the clitoris) and infibulation (a still more barbaric practice where the female’s external genitalia including the labia minora and clitoris are removed and stitched) were against the Shariah. But it made an exception, stating that all that was necessary in the case of women was to remove the skin covering the clitoris, which it declared to be obligatory, pointing out that a majority of the classical scholars of Islam including Imam Shafi and Imam Hanbali thought it to be so.

I plainly told the sister who was moderating the show, I could see nothing wrong with it, since all they said that was required was to remove the prepuce or the skin covering the clitoris, a relatively minor and harmless procedure very much like male circumcision which like it might confer some health benefits as well. That raised a few eyebrows, probably because none of them had heard such a novel idea before.

Female Circumcision in Islam involve the removing of part of the prepuce or the skin covering the clitoris, a relatively minor and harmless procedure and very much like male circumcision
Of course there’s really nothing so novel about it. Much has been written about it even by Western Doctors but these studies have been conveniently overlooked to conform to Islamophobic sentiments expressed by a largely Jewish controlled media. This media machine works in different ways. For one thing, it will say that Islam advocates genitally mutilating women to curb their sexuality, citing examples of barbaric forms of FGM practiced in sub-Saharan Africa, thereby associating Islam with a misogynistic attitude. But of late, we see another trend, one that seeks to disassociate female circumcision altogether from Islam without differentiating the proper Islamic form from the rest. Why, you may ask? It’s very simple really. There is a strong body of evidence emerging to support the view that the proper Islamic procedure involving the removal of the clitoral prepuce is beneficial to women and not detrimental to them……

Liberal Group Raising Funds for Hurricane Harvey Victims to Have Abortions

with one comment

By Micaiah Bigler
LifeNews.com
September 1, 2017

Abortion activists are fundraising so that more people will die in the wake of Hurricane Harvey.

The death toll from the massive hurricane reached 46, as of Friday afternoon, according to the New York Times. But no one will count how many more human lives will be lost to abortion as a result of abortion activists’ fundraising off the natural disaster.

The Free Beacon reports one of the groups capitalizing off Hurricane Harvey is the Lilith Fund, which funds abortions and abortion advocacy.

The Texas-based group set up an “Emergency Fund for Harvey Survivors” to raise money for women who are “seeking an abortion but cannot afford it,” according to the group’s Facebook page.

“With increased barriers like temporary clinic closures, displacement, loss of homes/vehicles, and more, access to abortion just got even more difficult for those affected by Harvey,” the group wrote.

Other abortion activists also have been urging people to donate to abortion groups to help hurricane victims abort their unborn babies. And the pro-abortion blog Romper dedicated a whole article to urging donations for abortions in Texas.

“May I suggest that, among your donations for #Harvey relief, you consider also donating to a Texas abortion fund? This, too, is needed,” pro-abortion writer Verónica Bayetti Flores wrote on Twitter this week.

“Disasters mean missed appointments,” she continued. “Mass disruptions like this wreak havoc on people’s lives, particularly w this time sensitive care.”

Here’s more from the report:

Some other groups have also been focused on goals outside of funding rescue, food, water, clothing, or shelter, and still disagree with Lilith’s fundraising approach. Members of New Wave Feminist are focused on empowering women during the tragedy. The group has collected supplies and has reminded women “they are not alone,” RedState reported.

The founder and president of New Wave Feminist, and a Texan, Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa, said of Lilith’s approach:

The fact that this group would use a natural disaster to fundraise is absolutely appalling. For so many struggling right now, they need to know that their fellow Texans are here to support them with resources and real help so that they can make nonviolent choices. Just because they’ve lost everything, that doesn’t mean their child has to lose their life.

In contrast to abortion activists’ life-destroying fundraising efforts, pro-life pregnancy centers, ministries and others are providing support for pregnant and parenting moms in the wake of the hurricane.

Meredith Phillips, who helps operate a Christian housing ministry for pregnant moms called LifeHouse in Houston, told Pregnancy Help Newsthat they had to relocate nine pregnant women and several staff members because of the flood.

Since then, Phillips said they have been reaching out to other expectant moms in the area and providing any resources that they can.

Here’s more from that report:

By the end of the day Wednesday, Phillips had talked at length with five expectant mothers who had lost their homes and had nowhere to go. She was able to immediately place one of the women in LifeHouse, which has the capacity for as many as 18 moms at a time, while the team helped connect 10 more women to vital resources within the community.

“We really worry about that pregnant woman who has been in this kind of stress,” Phillips said. “We want to be able to give her an environment where she can rest physically and emotionally and be able to nurture the baby who is growing inside of her.”

Several Houston-area pregnancy centers and maternity homes affiliated with Heartbeat International also have reopened and are reaching out to flood victims. Others were damaged by the hurricane and floods.

%d bloggers like this: