Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite

The evil of Sharia islam is what makes it incompatible with Negative Human Rights (i.e. why islamic OIC violates Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, hence excluding women and non-muslims from equality). The evil of islam and its origin may be easier to grasp with historical examples, e.g. the Origin of the Vikings.

It's racism and sexism even if proposed by a "god"! Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering for the world community in defense of Universal Human Rights . Yes, I know, it's unfair. Klevius vs islam, i.e. Universal Human Rights vs Sharia (OIC) racism/sexism! Of course Klevius will win. The question is just how long we should allow the dying beast to make people suffer. (Negative) Human Rights is not a ”Western” invention! It’s where you end up when you abandon racism and sexism, idiot! After you have abandoned islam! Your confused islamophilia and ignorance about Human Rights make YOU an accomplice to islam's crimes! Whereas Human Rights work as egalitarian and universal traffic rules (no matter who you are or what you drive you have the same rights as everyone else) islam/Sharia differs between muslim men and the rest (women and "infidels")!

Ask yourself, why can't racist islam (OIC) accept Human Rights? The answer reveals the difference between totalitarianism and freedom. And even if everyone converted to islam we'd still have Sharia sexism.
Have you noticed that when the history of slavery is (PC) debated islam is always excluded/excused? Atlantic slave trade and Roman slaves are eagerly mentioned while the world's by far worst, longest and most extensive one is blinked, as is the fact that islam not only sanctions slavery but is itself built on slavery and sex slavery (rapetivism)! The core idea of islam is the most thoroughly elaborated parasitism ever, i.e. what in 1400 yrs has made it the by far worst crime ever. But thanks to islamic teachings muslims are kept extremely ignorant about the evil origin of islam (institutionalized parasitism based on slave finance, rapetivism and pillage). Ohlig: The first two "islamic" centuries lie in the shadows of history. Klevius: There was no islam or islamic Mohammad (that's why the Saudis have levelled Mohammad's "grave" etc), only the evil murdering, pillaging and raping Aramaic-Arabic Jewish("Christian") led illiterate Arab thugs chasing for booty and sex. The "success" of this formula became later institutionalized and codified as a one way (Koran/Sharia) moral excuse (Allah) for further racist/sexist genocides. The bedrock and currency of this system was racist slavery. However, with Enlightenment the new idea of individual (negative) Human Rights emerged (incl. abolishing of slavery) and were, much later (1948), written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which everyone is equal no matter of sex, beliefs etc. Just like in traffic! But unlike traffic rules no one really seems to care about guarding our most precious asset as human beings. Instead racist sexist islamofascism (OIC and the Cairo Sharia declaration) is protected by Human Rights while they strive to undermine and eventually destroy these Human Rights! And most people don't seem to get it. Always remember, there is no islam without Human Rights violating racist/sexist Sharia. So a "vote" for Sharia-islam is AGAINST democracy and the freedom part of Human Rights!

Sayeeda Warsi (UK's non-elected OIC/Sharia politician) in essence doesn't differ from those muslim Saudi women who approve of sex slavery etc, other than that she is either ignorant or a traitor (against democracy and Human Rights) of the worst kind.

Myth vs Truth

Mazda Luce 1800 (1968, same body as 1500, 1966 - already presented in 1964 at the Tokyo Motor Show it was in serial production 1965) was one of the fastest in its class in the 1960's (104 hp/1050 kg and an extremely long stroke but smoothly reving OHC engine with roller lifters etc) and one of the few cars faster than its speedometer. It also had the best manual gearbox. However, due to stupid Japanese consumer surveys some export models were slowed down with automatic and the interior destroyed with a front bench! Same car was also available with Mazda's own super fast, and functioning Rotary (not the non-functioning German Wankel) engine.
How come that Subaru in 1972 introduced 4WD almost a decade before the first European (the poor quality Audi Quatro in 1980)? And how come that Honda does the most advanced eco car (Clarity FCX) and the most advanced robot (Asimo - the one islamists drool over below) whereas BMW does nothing by itself?
How come that Japanese Nissan GTR ($84,000) easily outperforms Bugatti Veyron ($1,700,000) on Germany's foremost race track Nurburgring?! And that the world's best luxury sports car, Lexus LFA, is the fastest ever real car on the ring, beating the best Porsche by some 4 seconds!

Whereas Shinto, the world's oldest religion, has been the master of technology, islam has been the master of crimes and parasitism!
To deny the evil parasitic origin of islam is equally criminal as to deny the Holocaust!

Japan's Hayabusa landed and returned to Earth many years before Europe's Rosetta failed to do so.

The hotline closed since 1400 years - leaving muslims on their own

Klevius is probably now the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad, isn't it), and islam (the worst hate crime ever - now protected by sleazy OIC) is the foremost expression of sex segregation. Also compare Sharia as described by Bill Warner.

Klevius: If truth offenses muslims, should the truth then be forbidden?

Mohammed: I have never come across anyone more lacking in intelligence, or ignorant of their religion than women.

Warner: The Koran says that the Kafir may be deceived, plotted against, hated, enslaved, mocked, tortured and worse. The word is usually translated as “unbeliever” but this translation is wrong. The word “unbeliever” is logically and emotionally neutral, whereas, Kafir is the most abusive, prejudiced and hateful word in any language.

How an organization of islamic crimes (OIC) violates Human Rights

OIC (57 muslim populated nations) have agreed to replace UN Human Rights with islamic "human rights" (Sharia) so that girls and women shouldn't be allowed to be equally free as men! OIC now wants to get veto right in UN so to block any UN action critical against islamic Sharia racism/sexism!

How Islamofascism is boosted by BBC

This is Alwaleed bin Talal al Saud (nephew to the world's worst dictator), a "man" who has never worked but who at 56 was accused of raping a 20 year old, and who has spent much more Western oil money on islamic hate mongering propaganda etc than he has officially been given from the dictator house of Saud (which was founded on an Arab slave plantation and later stole the whole land with some handfuls of men and now prosper on oil that "Westerners" found and produced because of "Wests" superior technology)! It's ONLY because of "Western" oil money that this islamofascist Human Rights violating dictator/mafia family is allowed to enter civilized rooms! But should we really let this extreme hypocrisy and bigotry continue?!

Contrast this scumbag against those (incl. Klevius) who relentlessly volunteer for spreading knowledge about Human Rights and are called "islamophobes" simply because islam doesn't submit to Human Rights (this is why the islamofascist organization OIC has openly abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with islamofascist Sharia).

We're all born unequal - that's why we need Human Rights, not islam!

Friday, October 21, 2016

Which country, Russia or US "ally" Saudi Arabia, has actually bombed the US (incl. Pentagon)? And which presidential candidate has got an advisor with ideological as well as family roots in that country?


Media biased? Really! Oh yes...

 Places in Mideast suffering under islamic terror are described in quite different terms depending on who is involved. In Ḿosul and Kirkuk the muslim terrorists are keeping civilians as 'human shields' and in Yemen they are 'violating ceasefire', whereas in Aleppo they aren't even mentioned but Russia, who is fighting them, is accused of 'war crimes'.

BBC gave approximately 100 times (check it out on BBC Radio 4 Today 06:00 Thursday) more space for Clinton than for Trump in its first early news hour Thursday after the latest debate. Moreover, everything Clinton said in the clip was hawkish accusations about some senseless Trump and Putin connection. Of course, Hillary Clinton's real connection with the war crime committing and muslim terrorism supporting islamofascist Saudi dictator family didn't come up.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

It's not about Clinton or Trump - it's about sharia vs. basic Human Rights!

The smear campaign against Trump is all about covering up institutionalized general sharia sexism with particular "locker room sexism" - while Hillary's dirty affair with Saudi islamofascism constitutes the real problem

No, it's not about 5-10% US muslims, NOI supporters, Christian and Jewish fundamentalists etc - it's about the threat it constitutes against US girls/women who already lack full equality due to the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment which was opposed by religious groups.

The anti-fascist 1948 Human Rights declaration guarantees Human Rights equality for women - but the US Constitution doesn't. However, the resistance was all about sex segregation - just like sharia islam. 

                                                                 Drawing and photo by Peter Klevius 1979/2012

To start working as a president in the US is a piece of cake compared to most other job positions because of the well oiled machinery already in place - incl. all the judicial "dampers" etc. A Hollywood b-actor successfully managed it so why not Trump. Even a gray Illinois guy with dubious black supremacist connections* has managed to sit for two periods - albeit ending up with a lot of blood on his hands. 

* Obama and his wife sat for some 20 (TWENTY) years listening to his personal mentor and pastor, the racist, anti-American, and anti-Semitic Reverend Jeremiah Wright! How could Trump's worst records possibly trump that?!

German Trump smearer  cherry picked today by BBC: Americans can't be that easily bought.

Klevius: No, it has indeed cost a lot of make up to present a medieval sharia fascism as a better alternative than Human Rights equality.

Women watch up! The most determined Trump attacks come from Saudi Arabia - and Utah! Does it mean anything to you that Hillary supports Saudi islamofascism rather than women's Human Rights equality?

And don't you think Donald Trump would be a more reliable defender against Human Rights violating sharia than Hillary Clinton.

It's all about sharia - from US to UK and Mideast

UKIP leadership battle in EU headquarter (left) is all about sharia or "islamophobia".

The islamic sharia elephant in the political PC shop

No matter how BBC/politicians try to twist it - "islamophobia" equals defense of the most basic Human Rights and is therefore against Human Rights violating sharia. Criminalizing "islamophobia" is therefore also a direct support to Saudi islamofascism and the Saudi based and steered sharia organization OIC.

OIC's "islamophobia" campaign has resulted in muslim hate crimes against Jews being made invisible although they are the most common. How come? Simply because of the PC "diversity education".

William Kilpatrick: The more that Jews in Germany learned about the Nazis, the more they justifiably feared them.  The ones who fully understood the Nazi mentality left Germany while there was still time.  Jews are again leaving Europe to escape the threat of anti-Semitism.  This time they are faced with Islamic anti-Semitism -- an anti-Semitism that is rooted in Islamic scripture and tradition.

It’s true that Americans need to be better educated about Islam.  But that’s because they’ve been subjected to a decades-long disinformation campaign designed to make Islam look like a slightly exotic variant of the Unitarian Church.  That disinformation campaign has had the effect of lulling Americans into complacency about a religious-political system that aims to subjugate all other systems of belief and governance.

One frequently repeated bit of disinformation is the argument that terrorists act out of ignorance of Islam.  According to the bien pensants, the terrorists suffer from the same malady that supposedly afflicts the Reverend Obi:  they don’t understand the Islamic faith and its message of peace.

That sort of talk sounds good in the faculty lounge, but it isn’t supported by the facts. Indeed, studies have shown that jihadists are better educated on Islam than the average Muslim.  And that goes double for terrorist leaders.  The Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the Iranian Revolution, was the author of over forty books.  Abdullah Azzam, the founder of MAK (later renamed al-Qaeda), had a doctorate in Islamic jurisprudence from al-Azhar University.  Omar Abdel-Rahman (“The Blind Sheik”), who masterminded the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, also has a doctorate in Islamic jurisprudence from al-Azhar.  The late Anwar al-Awlaki, the chief propagandist for al-Qaeda, was studying for a doctoral degree at George Washington University.  Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the founder of ISIS, has a Ph.D. in Islamic studies.

Klevius: As long as sharia islam violates the most basic Human Rights equality, it constitutes the true big Satan - no matter how "reformed". And if sharia would be compatible with the most basic of Human Rights - then Klevius would immediately stop criticizing islam - or whatever is left of islam, if anything when its racist/sexist allure is cut off.

Friday, October 14, 2016

BBC abuse children in their war propaganda, and (like pathetic Michelle Obama) generalize about women and Trump - all in an effort to protect Saudi Sunni sharia islamofascism

How could it possibly be more important to get rid of Assad than getting rid of the Saudi backed muslim terrorists who are the only ones hindering a peace process?

The two words behind the majority of atrocities that BBC etc. don't want you to think about: Saudi and sharia! In their place BBC etc. have placed Trump and Russia.

BBC's bigotry/hypocrisy seems to have no limits whatsoever anymore in their eager/desperate effort to pave the way for Saudi (Sunni/Salafist/Wahhabist) sharia islamofascism. 

Every day now BBC send children's voices from Syria/Aleppo asking Assad to stop the war - but not a single mentioning about the Saudi backed muslim terrorists (al-Nusra/al,-Qaeda etc) who keep the the terror ticking. And not a single child voice from Yemen complaining about the Saudi atrocities there. And after the children's voices BBC put forward Boris Johnson (the guy the US administration laughed at just a few month ago when informed he would stand as a PM candidate) asking for an escalation by proposing UK military intervention for the purpose of protecting the Saudi backed muslim jihadis from air attacks.

Interestingly, BBC always talk about "people" killed in Syria by Russia, without showing any effort to specify that they in most cases are muslim terrorists who usually use hospitals, schools etc. as their main basis for launching attacks - precisely because they know its propaganda value. And they can't care less about the suffering of Syria's children as long as it can be used against Assad and Russia. And they know for sure that BBC will support them in this evil method. Moreover, it could be argued that BBC together with other Western media themselves have invited muslim terrorists to this form of child abuse.

Is Michelle Obama US most bigoted and hypocritical woman?

Her records may speak for themselves. She sat for some 20 years (TWENTY YEARS) with her husband listening to one of US worst racist supremacist preacher - only stopping because it didn't look great in her husband's presidential campaign.

Now she, like BBC, generalizes about Trump and women when to our knowledge Trump has never said what sharia islam always has said, i.e. that women are inferior to men.

All the Trump hate is nothing else than a smoke cover to avoid the real issue for US women: Their low status in the US Constitution, which gaping legal hole invites for sexist sharia.

Klevius is pretty sure that Donald Trump at this time and age, and after this enormous smear campaign, would be a much better advocate for women's rights than sharia supporting Saudi steered Hillary Clinton.

Will US adopt Sharia before/instead of an Equal Rights Amendment?

US women have less rights than most women in the civilized world. And this is precisely because of a fanatic religious strain that has kept US women strangled by sexism. The countries first to give women full freedom and equality in a meaningful way were those in Fennoscandia (Nordic countries). And what was common to them all was Atheism (we're not talking abt Communist "atheism" here but Human Rights equality for all) and the lack of powerful religious fundamentalism. Against this background it's a pity that OIC's "islamophobia" campaign has again started to undermine women's freedom in the Nordic countries.

Klevius wrote:

Friday, March 08, 2013

Klevius on women's day: The worst ever "president" paves the way for OIC/Sharia in a US where women still have less rights than former male slaves had long ago!

US' women locked in inequality* - and a "president" whose Shariagate may keep them there forever

* No, the US Constitution still doesn't guarantee women equal rights with men, although most women are quite unaware of it.

Jane Fonda: Stop violence against women!

Klevius: Islam is (and has been for some 1400 years) the worst institution for violence/rapetivism against girls/women!

Will US adopt Sharia before/instead of an Equal Rights Amendment?

US is one of very few civilized countries were women are still not equal to men. Just as they were among the very last to get the right to vote. Compare this to Finland (the land where both men and women are 'hän'*) which was first in the world to give its ladies full franchise.

* Sweden has also proposed to use a unisex pronoun instead of 'han'/'hon' (he/she) but why on Earth have they settled for stupid 'hen' when it would have been much more natural to use the Finnish 'hän', especially considering that the Finnish language is also part of Sweden's history (see Kvenland/Queenland, the home of the Goths). And the vowel ä is used in both languages! 

The reason for the US' backwardness is of course religious sex segregation. And with muslim born (apostate?!) Mr X "president" Barry Barakeh Barack Hussain Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever) applauding islamofascism and with a majority of the Supreme Court being Catholics, and with the administration full of Sharia enthusiasts, the future for US girls/women seems equally dark as for truly free women in Hollywood productions.

The weird formula behind the denial of islam's crystal clear evilness explained by Klevius

First of all, never trust a religious "scholar". Then consider the following nonsense, which is actually quite racist:

'Muslims and islamic countries may be evil or backward but islam is always good'.

'Let's not look at evilness in islam but rather focus on what we may share'.

Klevius comment: Reminds me of my former friend Max Scharnberg (when he hinted he'd be a suicide bomber if he only had the courage to do it, I immediately finished our friendship) to whom I presented Hitler's Nationalsocialist party program after having erased the mentioning of Jews and some few too revealing words. After having read the text Max Scharnberg thought it was a Social-democratic party program.

In other words, if assessed with the same tools as islam, the Nazi program would have easily found lots of points for "mutual understanding" and "tolerance".

Klevius suggestion: Only focus on the evil parts of islam, i.e. those parts which collide with Human Rights and which constituted the only reason why the most powerfyl muslim world organization, Saudi based OIC, replaced them with Sharia (the so called Cairo declaration).  

There is no future for islam because the very essence of islam is precisely those parts were it differs from basic Human Rights (the so called negative Human Rights). And an imaginary "reformed" islam castrated from politics and legislation etc would be of no interest neither for Klevius or for true (Sharia) muslims.

Read Klevius - your intellectual bedrock in a confused world!

Klevius wrote:

Thursday, March 08, 2012

Klevius on Women's Day: If you respect islam then you don't respect women's Human Rights!

This muslim born apostate (?!) says he respects the worst ideological crime ever against humanity!

While islam continues its Millennium+ of genocides, slavery and rapes in Sudan etc  Mr X "president’s" envoy to Sudan, Princeton Lyman declares: “Frankly we do not want to see the ouster of the [Bashir - wanted by ICC for crimes against humanity] regime, nor regime change... It is not in our interests to see the ouster of the regime in Sudan, for this will only create more problems.”

Klevius comment: Obama hence also supports Kony's LRA via Bashir.

Some old news (1870) from the same area and same islam

S W Baker: It is impossible to know the actual number of slaves taken from Central Africa annually; but I should imagine that at least fifty thousand are
positively either captured and held in the various zareebas (or camps)
or are sent via the White Nile and the various routes overland by Darfur
and Kordofan. The loss of life attendant upon the capture and subsequent
treatment of the slaves is frightful. The result of this forced
emigration, combined with the insecurity of life and property, is the
withdrawal of the population from the infested districts. The natives
have the option of submission to every insult, to the violation of their
women and the pillage of their crops, or they must either desert their
homes and seek independence in distant districts, or ally themselves
with their oppressors to assist in the oppression of other tribes. Thus
the seeds of anarchy are sown throughout Africa, which fall among tribes
naturally prone to discord. The result is horrible confusion,--distrust
on all sides,--treachery, devastation, and ruin.

 It appeared that slavery and the slave trade of theWhite Nile were institutions almost necessary to the existence of
Egyptian society.
It was obvious to all observers that an attack upon the slave-dealing
and slave-hunting establishments of Egypt by a foreigner--an
Englishman--would be equal to a raid upon a hornets' nest, that all
efforts to suppress the old-established traffic in negro slaves would be
encountered with a determined opposition, and that the prime agent and
leader of such an expedition must be regarded "with hatred, malice, and
all uncharitableness." At that period (1869) the highest authorities
were adverse to the attempt. An official notice was despatched from the
British Foreign Office to the Consul-General of Egypt that British
subjects belonging to Sir Samuel Baker's expedition must not expect the
support of their government in the event of complications. The
enterprise was generally regarded as chimerical in Europe, with
hostility in Egypt, but with sympathy in America.

It was freely stated that an Englishman was placed in
command because an Egyptian could not be relied upon to succeed, but
that the greed of new territory was the actual and sole object of the
expedition, and that the slave-trade would reappear in stupendous
activity when the English personal influence should be withdrawn. Such
unsympathetic expressions must have been a poor reward to the Khedive
for his efforts to win the esteem of the civilized world by the
destruction of the slave-trade in his own dominions.

Few persons have considered the position of the Egyptian ruler when
attacking the institution most cherished by his people. The employment
of an European to overthrow the slave-trade in deference to the opinion
of the civilized world was a direct challenge and attack upon the
assumed rights and necessities of his own subjects. The magnitude of the
operation cannot be understood by the general public in Europe. Every
household in Upper Egypt and in the Delta was dependent upon slave
service; the fields in the Soudan were cultivated by slaves; the women
in the harems of both rich and middle class were attended by slaves; the
poorer Arab woman's ambition was to possess a slave; in fact, Egyptian
society without slaves would be like a carriage devoid of wheels--it
could not proceed.

In the year 1870 the slave-hunting of Central Africa was condemned.
Since that time Englishmen have been honoured with the special attention
of the Khedive, and have been appointed to posts of the highest
confidence. European tribunals were established in the place of consular
jurisdiction, British government officials have been invited to reform
the financial administration, and Mr. Rivers Wilson has been induced to
accept the responsible office of Minister of Finance. Nubar Pacha has
been recalled to office, and he must regard with pride the general
confidence occasioned throughout Europe by his reappointment. The
absolute despotism hitherto inseparable from Oriental ideas of
government has been spontaneously abrogated by the Khedive, who has
publicly announced his determination that the future administration
shall be conducted by a council of responsible ministers.

I found lands varying in natural capabilities according to their
position and altitudes--where sugar, cotton, coffee, rice, spices, and
all tropical produce might be successfully cultivated; but those lands
were without any civilized form of government, and "every man did what
seemed right in his own eyes."

In this dislocated state of society, the slave trade prospered to the
detriment of all improvement. Rich and well-populated countries were
rendered desolate; the women and children were carried into captivity;
villages were burnt, and crops were destroyed or pillaged; the
population was driven out; a terrestrial paradise was converted into an
infernal region; the natives who were originally friendly were rendered
hostile to all strangers, and the general result of the slave trade
could only be expressed in one word--"ruin."

The slave hunters and traders who had caused this desolation were for
the most part Arabs, subjects of the Egyptian government.

These people had deserted their agricultural occupations in the Soudan
and had formed companies of brigands in the pay of various merchants of
Khartoum. The largest trader had about 2,500 Arabs in his pay, employed
as pirates or brigands, in Central Africa. These men were organized
after a rude military fashion, and armed with muskets; they were divided
into companies, and were officered in many cases by soldiers who had
deserted from their regiments in Egypt or the Soudan.

Klevius wrote:

Sunday, March 27, 2016

The Devil's pact

How 1.6 Billion "muslims" are used as a single tool to feed the Saudi "guardians of islam".

The "close ally" the Saudi dictator family's spread of religious hatred can convincingly be traced to the muslim terrorist attacks in France and Belgium because Belgium from which they departed, in 1974, a year after the oil crisis, bowed the Saudi dictator family's demand to "respect" and "tolerate" islamofascism.

However, long before that occasion the Saudi dictator family has, as with so many other countries, thoroughly tied up a disastrous islamofascist relationship with Belgium "based on mutual respect and common interests and non-interference in the internal affairs of each other". In other wordds tolerating islamofascism.

Belgian Embassy in Jeddah (where OIC's Human Rights violating sharia headquarter recides) opened in 1954 at a level of chargé d' affaires. The first ambassador of Belgium was Ronald Watteeuw in 1964, and the first ambassador of the Saudi dictator family to Brussels was Fouad Nazer a year earlier in 1963. Mohamed Hamza Charara followed him in 1972, Ibrahim Bakr in 1982, Abdallah Al Mouallimi in 2007 and Faycal Trad in 2011. Abdulrahman Alahmed started on 18 February 2014 as the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Saudi dictator family to Belgium, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, to the European Union and to the European Society of Atomic Energy.

The official exchange between the Saudi dictator family and Belgium at the highest levels, started by the visit of the islamofascist "king" Abdul Aziz Al-Saud in 1967. Due to a visit of King of Belgium Baudouin, a piece of land was given to the muslim community where the Saudi steered and influenced Islamic and Cultural Centre in Brussels has been established, and is considered one of the most important islamic centers in Europe.

Eight high-level Belgian economic and trade missions visited Saudi Arabia in the years 1967,1974,1975,1982,1993,2002,2009 and the most recently one was the economic and trade mission to Saudi Arabia headed by Princess Astrid in March 2014. More than 350 economic and trade participants accompanied her. During the mission, several contracts and agreements have been signed between businesspersons from both Saudi and Belgian sides.

In Riyadh on March 16, 2014 a memorandum of "understanding" was signed pertaining political consultations between the Foreign Ministries of the Saudi dictator family and Belgium. It was signed by "prince" Saud Al Faisal, Minister of Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Saudi dictator family and by Mr. Didier Reynders, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs on behalf of Belgium.

Saudi based and steered OIC with its sharia Fuhrer, Saudi dictator family member Iyad Madani.

Klevius advice if you are so stupid so you don't trust Klevius: If you don't know about OIC and its Human Rights violating sharia declaration via UN and how this sharia is connected both to sharia finance from London to the Islamic State etc. then please look it up for yourself!

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Whereas UK's Jeremy Corbyn was elected by party members - not the mass of general voters, Donald Trump is the opposite - a man of the people, not the party

What would the polls have revealed were it not for media and politicians smearing him more than any presidential candidate to date?

Donald Trump may actually now constitute the best possible (after Ayaan Hirsi Ali, of course) raw material to be trimmed into the oval office. His background is as different from that of Ayaan Hirsi Ali you can imagine, yet they have both ended up opposing sharia islam, state socialism and shrewed politicians.

Klevius wrote:

Monday, July 11, 2016

Klevius: Jeremy Corbyn has to go because he's an undemocratic racist/supporter of racsim/sexism. However, will that change Labour's cooperation with islamofascists?

Some 150,000 Labour party "members" can't overrun the parliamentarians voted in by some 9 million voters. Moreover, Jeremey Corbyn is a dumb, or alternatively, shrewed, racist/racism supporter.

If Labour voters were informed that Corbyn's use of "islamophobia" doesn't mean their cultural non-sharia muslim friend but something way more sinister, then probably only islamic sharia extremists would give him their "vote", i.e. a "vote" from a "voter" who is against democracy and "British values":. 

Jeremy Corbyn couldn't for his life first remember that he had welcomed this extremist muslim. Only under hard pressure did he later managed to recollect his suppressed memory. Is he demented or something much worse?

Jeremy Corbyn's attacks on Human Rights defenders (calling those critical of Human Rights violating sharia, "islamophobes") while supporting racist and sexist islamofascists, fulfills not only the most common criterion on racism, but also mirrors the very same socialist "radicalization" that created the Nazi party, i.e. the socialist workers party that departed from its mother party, the German social democrats. Only now it's the islamic sharia Umma that constitutes the "national" part of the movement. So whereas conventional Labour voters may still associate it with NHS, welfare etc. (however, remember that Labour acted exactly in line with the conservatives about cutting benefits), the party has now become a dis-proportional power base for Human Rights violating sharia islam.

Whether Jeremy Corbyn is just so dumb (let's hope so), or just so canny (i.e. a typical shrewed politician selling out his alleged incentives for the purpose of cheap votes)  remains to be seen. However, as Klevius wrote in a previous post, he might just stick to the evil of state socialism which tramples the rights of the individual, hence constituting a perfect partner for e.g. islamofascism.

Klevius wrote:

Friday, May 06, 2016

Ryan can't endorse Trump - because that would be against sharia and the Saudi dictator family


Klevius: People entangled with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and/or* its rape accused Wall Street terrorist scumbag Alwaleed bin Talal, usually have problems endorsing Trump.

 * Muslim rape accused scumbag Alwaleed bin Talal in essence constitutes the Saudi dictator state's unofficial department for spreading islamofascist hate mongering around the world by channelling Saudi oil funds - especially targetting media, education and politicians.

Paul Ryan unmasked:

 By declaring that it would not be “proper” or “appropriate” for the United States to consider the religion of a visa applicant— or whether the applicant supports Sharia law or Muslim theocracy— Ryan is effectively suggesting that the United States should not be allowed to select whom we admit based on likelihood of assimilation.

This view is consistent with Ryan’s two decade long history of pushing open borders immigration policies. As NumbersUSA President Roy Beck has said, “[Ryan] has spent his entire adulthood ideologically connected to the open borders crowd. Open Borders is in his ideological DNA… Open borders seeps out of every pore of his being… It’s just who he is.”

In 2013, Ryan insisted that it is the job of a U.S. lawmaker to put oneself in the shoes of a foreign national—who does not live in the United States, but would like to come here— and then work to find solutions to improve the life of that foreign citizen:

    Put yourself in another person’s shoes, which if you’re in elected office, that’s what you kind of have to do that almost every single day. The job we have– and what we do is we take different people’s perspectives. The gentleman from India who’s waiting for his green card… We take all these different perspectives. We process it through our values and our morals and our principles. And then we come up with the answer to try and solve this problem. That’s basically what we do in our jobs.

Indeed, Ryan was instrumental in defeating an effort to cut visa issuances during the mid-90s, thus derailing the effort to codify into law Civil Rights leader Barbara Jordan’s plan for substantial immigration cuts in order to protect the American worker. As Game Change author John Heilemann wrote in 1996, “[Ryan’s] ties to the pro-immigration mafia ran deep.”

Hannity pressed Ryan specifically about the House’s legislation that will allow Obama to continue the Syrian refugee resettlement plan, which is opposed by a majority of all voters. Hannity asked Ryan about Babin’s amendment, which as Breitbart News reported, was “blocked [tonight] by House Rules Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX) – that would have placed a six-month moratorium on allowing refugees into the United States.”

Hannity asked:

    Are you including the Babin amendment, which would put a pause for six months on it, or are you not including that part [to the House’s legislation]?

Ryan replied:

    This would put a pause, I believe, for longer than that. This effectively puts a pause on the program and it will take longer than six months, I believe, to put these kind of security…

However, Sen. Sessions specifically debunked this claim in a statement released earlier on Wednesday. Sessions explained that Ryan’s plan—far from blocking Obama’s refugee resettlement project—would allow for unlimited immigration and does nothing to strengthen the security of the American people:

    The current proposal being considered in the House in response to the President’s dangerous refugee plan – the American SAFE Act – fails to defend the interests of the American people… The American SAFE Act allows the President to continue to bring in as many refugees as he wants from anywhere in the world. With respect to Syria and Iraq, the American SAFE Act requires only that the President direct his Secretary of Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, and FBI Director (all his appointees) to sign off on the administration’s screening process – a process that the White House continually asserts is adequate and ‘ensures safety.’ The plain fact is that this bill transfers the prerogative from Congress to President Obama and ensures the President’s refugee resettlement initiative will continue unabated.

NumbersUSA, a pro-security immigration group, echoed Sessions’ criticism of the Ryan’s plan:

    NumbersUSA is extremely disappointed in the legislation that the House intends to put on the floor on Thursday to respond to the threat of Islamic State-inspired terrorists infiltrating the refugee flow to the United States… Instead of legislating that pause, or even bringing to the floor an existing bill (H.R. 3314 by Rep. Babin) that would pause the refugee flow, the House instead will vote to cede its responsibility for America’s safety to the FBI, the DNI, and DHS in the hopes that they can pick and choose correctly from a limited number of “covered” aliens.

In the interview, however, Ryan seemed determined to convey that the House’s bill would, in fact, “pause” refugee resettlement—despite the contrary analyses of Sen. Sessions and NumbersUSA.

Throughout the course of the short interview, Ryan specifically declared seven times that the House’s legislation would “pause” refugee resettlement.

Breitbart News has compiled Ryan’s uses of the word “pause” throughout the interview:

    He [Obama] just said he’s going to veto our bill putting a pause on the refugee program… We obviously know that ISIS wants to infiltrate the refugee population, that’s very clear, so we need to put a pause on this program… We have to put this bill in place which pauses the program effectively… This [legislation] would put a pause, I believe, for longer than [the Babin measure]. This effectively puts a pause on the program and it will take longer than six months, I believe, to put [in place] these kinds of security… The FBI cannot right now certify these standards, so this [legislation] does pause the program… We are asking all of our colleagues to support fixing this— pausing this— and getting this right.

Ryan’s emphatic insistence that the legislation will “pause” the refugee resettlement program may be fueled by polling data, which shows that the American people overwhelmingly want to see the program blocked.

As Hannity explained:

    Here’s my question though… Why don’t we just cancel it? Why don’t we just say, ‘You cannot come here, it’s too big a risk to the American people.’ I don’t think we can fully ascertain what’s in people’s hearts. I don’t think anybody can assure us that ISIS wouldn’t lie and create documents and the document trail, I think they would do anything to get here. Why don’t we just end the program and that might mean defunding the program. Wouldn’t that be a better idea? […] We have two polls— two polls that are out that show two-to-one the American people are against Obama bringing in Syrian refugees altogether. I would prefer— I don’t know if we can really fully vet anybody like this. Nor do we have the resources. I personally am of the belief that we shouldn’t taking them in. I think it’s too big a risk.

Ryan said, in part, that the reason the program could not simply be canceled is because, “We’re a compassionate country. The refugees laws are important laws and we don’t want terrorists to dictate how we run—whether we have a law or not.”

While throughout the interview Ryan seemed to ground his argument on the premise that we cannot apply a religious test as a basis for admissions to the United States, both Rush Limbaugh and Andrew McCarthy have explained how U.S. law does, in fact, require a religious test when it comes to making considerations about visa issuances.

McCarthy explained:

    Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant. Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a “refugee” as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , U.S. Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion: The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion [among other things] …[.] The law requires a “religious test… it is downright dishonest to claim that taking such religious distinctions into account is “not American”…  How can something American law requires be “not American”?

Limbaugh said:

    When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are.  We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”  I would venture to say that virtually everybody who hears him say that probably has to nod their head in agreement.  “Yeah, yeah, that’s probably right.”  Except you’d all be wrong…  It’s in federal law.  There are religious tests and requirements through the United States law.. the law requires a religious test, and the reason for the religious test is obvious… Asylum is a discretionary national act of compassion directed by law, not a whim to address persecution… There is no right to emigrate to the United States of America… Nowhere does the law say we must put ourselves at risk in order to exercise this compassion…Therefore, us — we — by maintaining our standards as established by law, protecting our national security and sovereignty are not violating anybody’s rights by standing up for our own.

Moreover, a provision in the Immigration and Naturalization Act states, “In general – any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the communist or other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.”

This arguably could apply to individuals who hold theocratic or totalitarian ideologies. In fact, in recent video footage captured on the streets of Cedar Riverside, Minnesota, showed a number of U.S. Muslims explaining that they preferred Sharia Law to American law.

Regardless, every year, under Ryan’s vision the United States can expect to continue to bring in two Muslim migrants for every one Iowa Republican primary voter. According to Pew, by 2040, the United States’ Muslim population is expected to surpass the nation’s Jewish population. It is unlikely that the Muslim migrants brought in under the nation’s current federal policy will support Ryan’s limited government platform as only 11% of U.S. Muslim, according to Pew, are Republican or lean-Republican. Ryan’s continued support for the visa gusher, however, is consistent with his past statements on the matter.

When radio talk show host David Webb asked Ryan last year whether he thought, “immigrants from the third world are more likely or less likely to support conservative policies,” Ryan answered that he thought “immigrants from the third world” were “some of the best Americans”.

Ryan declared:

    Some of the best Americans are the newest Americans. People who left former Communist countries, people who left scandalous nations that are crony capitalism that deny them their rights. So people who come from those kinds of systems and those kinds of governments can make the best patriots because they finally see and taste what freedom is like, and they want to fight for it. So that kind of a person can make the best American. And the way I look at it, from our Party’s perspective, is we have to do a better job of going into these communities and exposing people to a different mindset– to these principles that they may not even have ever heard or seen before. This is a challenge that conservatives have to answer.

Klevius declared:  So Paul Ryan thinks sharia muslims want to fight for a non-sharia US Constitution. Really? Isn't it more likely that they continue to fight for a sharia US Constitution? With all means available. As they have relentlessly been doing all the time.

The first amendment doesn't protect sharia islamofascism although it's definitely the original islamic religion which started with the slaughtering of all the Jews in Medina.

Saturday, October 08, 2016

What's more important: Bragging about seducing women - or robbing them of their Human Rights? A vote on Hillary is a vote favoring sharia over Human Rights!

How much bigoted hypocrisy can Americans take from the appalling Clinton supporters who can't come up with any real criticism but have to create it themselves

President Bill Clinton used to sleep on a sofa on the second floor of the White House for three months during the Lewinsky affair.

Some on the staff have said that Hillary knew about Lewinsky (and the others) long before it came out, and that what really upset her was not the affair itself but its discovery and the media feeding frenzy that followed.

Klevius: So what about the media feeding frenzy against Trump? So far he hasn't come even close to the Clinton scandals - yet media create "scandals" out of trivialities in comparison.

Bill Clinton to the American people: Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.

Hillary Clinton: "The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.

Linda Tripp: Hillary Clinton not only knew about her husband's sexual misbehavior against young interms, she also made it her personal mission to disseminate information and destroy the women with whom he dallied.

Tripp said Hillary Clinton is inappropriately presenting herself as 'a champion of women’s rights worldwide in a global fashion, and yet all of the women she has destroyed over the years to ensure her political viability continues is sickening to me.'

Klevius: However, what is even more sickening is her support of sharia islam that robs girls and women around the world of their Human Rights equality. Every decent person who cares about sexism should vote for Trump - if not for any other reason than that he is positive to vetting islam and muslims for sexist and racist sharia.

This disgustingly bigoted and hypocritical muslim sharia presenter at BBC today eagerly misinformed the Brits about Trump again. And why shouldn't she, because she has to defend sexist sharia islam against its biggest threat, Human Rights equality.

Swedish school "comforting" parents to 9-year old girl who was the subject of horrifying sexism by (mostly muslim? - they'll never tell you if they are) boys: 'She is blond and pretty and therefore exciting as a target.'

Klevius has told the world about these school atrocities in Sweden since 9/11. So, how are things at your end of the world?

Here's an other appalling mis-reporter about sharia islamofascism:

Christopher Mathias National Mis-reporter, The Huffington Post: A recent report from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, documented at least 260 hate crimes against Muslims in 2015 ― a nearly 80 percent rise from the year before and the highest annual number of such crimes since 2001. The Huffington Post has also documented over 260 instances of anti-Muslim violence, harassment, discrimination and political speech so far in 2016.

Klevius: What a load! Those numbers say absolutely nothing before compared to hate crimes by muslims against non-muslims or "wrong-muslims".

Compounding this rise of Islamophobia in the U.S. is the fact that most people in the U.S. simply don’t know their Muslim neighbors. Last year, nearly 70 percent of Americans reported not having any Muslim friends. Perhaps not coincidentally, most Americans polled also have an unfavorable view on islam.

Klevius: Are there even enough friendly muslims in America to cover more than that?! And why would it be surprising that a religion/ideology that has taught enslavement, genocides, racism and sexism for 1400 years and still today causes most of the worlds terrorism, wars, racism and sexism would not be look upon with a critical eye? The dreamed up Western islam that doesn't tick all these boxes isn't shared by many muslims outside the "friendly" Westernized muslims - and often not even by them, although they won't mention it other than when they can share values with fundamentalist Christians etc..

Christopher Mathias: Wajahat Ali ― a writer and former Al Jazeera America host who happens (sic) to be muslim ― wants Americans to know that islam does not promote hate, and that he is not “commanded to kill the infidels.”

Klevius: He's right. Not 'compelled to kill' but compelled to support (in whatever way) those "defending" islam when it's "attacked".

Christopher Mathias: Wajahat Ali recently joined HuffPost to dispel (SIC) some of the most pervasive and pernicious anti-muslim myths Americans see online.

The Quran? On the whole, it’s a book that promotes faith and peace. Scary quotes you see attributed to the Quran are often fake or taken out of context.

Klevius: Islamic "peace" is a totalitarian utopia that is behind most of historical as well as today's terror and wars.

Wajahat Ali: Sharia? It’s not a strict set of laws as much as a set of guidelines for how Muslims can live their lives. (And no, lawmakers aren’t trying to implement Sharia in the U.S.)

Klevius: Guidelines that clash head on with the most basic of Human Rights - which fact lies behind the Saudi based and steered OIC's campaign (supported by Hillary Clinton) to silence criticism of islamofascist sharia islam.

Wajahat Ali: Jihad? It doesn’t always mean violence. It’s an Arabic word that means “exerted effort” or “struggle.” It can be a Muslim’s jihad to exercise more, or to go on more dates.

Klevius: Right again. It doesn't "always" mean direct physical violence - in most cases it means institutionalized racism and sexism against non-muslims, as well as using whatever means available to spread Human Rights violating sharia islam.

Wajahat Ali: Hijab? It’s a traditional way Muslim women choose to express their faith. (Hijabs aren’t mentioned in the Quran.) Are some Muslim women limited by their faith? Some are, yes. Yet there have been far more female heads of state in Muslim countries than in the U.S.

Klevius: However, they have all had to abandon Human Rights for women to get to the top - just like Hillary Clinton.

Wajahat Ali: “But the most important thing to know is that Islam, like any religion, is complex and requires more than just one video to understand,” Ali said. “So keep reading. Talk to actual Muslims! Visit a mosque! And remember: An entire religion can never be summed up in just one meme.”

Klevius: Yet, this "entire religion" is always summed up in just one meme when it comes to defending its own diverse atrocities.