Calling criticism of islam "islamophobia" is pure racism and also supports islamic racism and sexism
Is BBC's Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim(?) presenter Mishal Husain an "islamophobe" against evil* islam, or an apostate supporting toothless** "islam"? She doesn't fast during Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol, and doesn't veil herself and says she doesn't feel any threats to her way of life (Klevius: thanks to Human Rights - not sharia islam), well knowing how muslim and non-muslim women suffer in muslim sharia countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia without Human Rights. What would she say to a muslim terrorist asking her if she's a muslim? Isn't it about time to stop this bigoted and hypocritical indirect support of islamofascism that this Saudi/OIC initiated "islamophobia" smear camopaign against Human Rights*** is all about?
* Human Rights equality violating sharia islam
** in line with the anti-fascist, anti-racist and anti-sexist U.N.'s 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration.
*** Socialists have an ideological problem with individual Human Rights, and are therefore vulnerable for islamism (see Klevius 1994).
Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?
Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future
Everything Peter Klevius writes (or has written) is guided by the anti-sexist. anti-racist, and anti-fascist Universal* Human Rights declaration of 1948. In other words, what is declared immoral and evil is so done as measured against the most basic of Human Rights (the so called "negative" rights - i.e. the rights of the individual not to be unnecessarily targeted with restrictions and impositions). Unlike the 1948 Universal Human Rights (UHR) declaration, islam denies Human Rights equality to women and non-muslims. And violation of such basic Human Rights can't be tolerated just by referring to "freedom of religion".
* This means accepting everyone - without exception due to e.g. sex, religion, lack of religion, "security" etc. - as equal in Human Rights. The individual is protected by negative Human Rights, but of course not against substantiated legal accusations - as long as these are not produced as a means that violates the basic Human Rights (compare "not necessary in a free, democratic country"). The legislator may not produce laws that seek to undermine some individuals rights. This also includes e.g. "freedom of religion", i.e. that this freedom doesn't give the right to unfree others, or cause others to be in an inferior rights position. If by islam you mean something that fully adheres to basic Human Rights equality, then you aren't targeted by Peter Klevius islam criticism. However, if you mean islam accepts violations of the most basic of Human Rights, then you may also call Peter Klevius an "islamophobe" - and he will be proud of it. And when it comes to "security" it can't mean "offending" opponents to basic Human Rights.
This is why any effort to twist or accuse the writings of Peter Klevius as "islamophobia" etc. can only be made from a standpoint against these basic Human Rights. As a consequence, no body of authority can therefore accuse, hinder etc. Peter Klevius without simultaneously revealing its own disrespect for these Human Rights. Conversely, Peter Klevius can not accuse anyone who agrees on these rights - i.e. this leaves e.g. "islamophobia" etc. accusations against Peter Klevius without merit.
Every effort against these basic Human Rights is treason against a country calling itself free and democratic.
Most people today are A(mono)theists, i.e. not "believing" in an impossible "one god"*. Such a "collective god" would mean equally many personal "gods" as there are believers/interpretors. "Monotheisms" are for racist/sexist movements - not for individuals. Human Rights are for individuals living among individuals with same rights.
Religion always means a total or partial reduction of some people's (e.g. women''s) Human Rights equality.
Being against A(mono)theism must be categorized as contempt of basic Human Rights equality because "monotheists" have doctrines which can't comply with basic Human Rights equality.
Klevius moral formula is a bedrock you can't beat:
1 There's no absolute and fixed moral in a dynamic society.
2 Therefor we have to repeatedly agree on a minimum moral and equality for all.
3 In doing so we are logically forced to approve of negative Human Rights, i.e. not to impose restrictions other than necessary in a democracy based on as much freedom as possible for all individuals - no matter of sex, race etc. And, for the truly dumb ones, do note that this definition excludes the freedom to restrict freedom.
* Though some people keep calling their own racist/sexist "interpretation" as "god's/allah's will").
Klevius "islamophobia" CV
Some basic facts to consider about Klevius* (except that he is both "extremely normal" and extremely intelligent - which fact, of course, would not put you off if you're really interested in these questions):
* Mentored by G. H. von Wright, Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge.
1 Klevius' analysis of consciousness is the only one that fits what we know - after having eliminated our "pride" bias of being humans (which non-human would we impress, anyway?). Its starting point is described and exemplified in a commentary to Jurgen Habermas in Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992:30-33, ISBN 9173288411, based on an article by Klevius from 1981), and is further explained in a commentary to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis under the title The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH), which can be found in Stalk's archive and which has been on line since 2003 for anyone to access/assess.
2 Klevius out of island/mainland fluctuating Southeast Asia Denisovans up to big skulled Siberians as the birth of much more intelligent modern humans who then spread all over the world, is the only analysis that fits both genetic reality as well as tool and art sophistication seen in e.g. the Denisova cave (no dude, Blombos etc. don’t come even close).
3 Klevius criticism of Human Rights violating sharia islamofascism (e.g. OIC) which is called "islamophobia" by islamofascists and their supporters who don't care about the most basic of Human Rights (e.g. re. women). Klevius' "islamophobia" has two roots: 1) UN's 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which, contrary to any form of muslim sharia, doesn't, for example, allow sex to be an excuse for robbing females of their full Human Rights equality, and 2) the history of the origin of islam ( e.g. Hugh Kennedy, Robert G. Hoyland, K. S. Lal etc.) which reveals a murderous, pillaging, robbing, enslaving and raping racist/sexist supremacist ideology that exactly follows precisely those basic islamic tenets which are now called "unislamic" but still survive today (as sharia approved sex slavery, sharia approved "liberation” jihad, academic jihad etc.) behind the sharia cover which is made even more impenetrable via the spread of islamic finance, mainly steered from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.
4 Klevius analysis of sex segregation/apartheid (now deceptively called “gender segregation”) and heterosexual attraction - see e.g. Demand for Resources (1981/1992), Daughters of the Social State (1993), Angels of Antichrist (1996), Pathological Symbiosis (2003), or Klevius PhD research on heterosexual attraction/sex segregation and opposition to female footballers (published in book form soon).
Klevius can no longer distinguish between the techniques of BBC and Nazi propaganda - can you!
Racist Theresa May is robbing EU citizens of their Human Rights
Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism
Klevius to dumb (or just evil) alt-left "antifa" people who support the worst of Human Rights violating evil:
True anti-fascism in its purest form is laid down in the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. Islam (OIC) has in UN decided to abandon the most basic of these rights (the so called negative Human Rights).
Fascism is, according to Google's top hit, "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation*, and forcible suppression of opposition." 23 Aug 2017
So let's face islam with this definition.
A political philosophy, movement, or regime (islam) that exalts nation (Umma) and often race (muslims) above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government (Koran text/Mohammad's example) headed by a dictatorial leader (the caliph - e.g. the Saudi based OIC's Saudi leader), severe economic and social regimentation* (sharia), and forcible suppression of opposition (apostasy ban against muslims wanting to leave islam, and demonizing defenders of Human Rights by calling them "islamophobes").
And islamofascism gets away with it by calling itself a religion and thereby being protected by those very Human Rights it opposes.
* According to Cambridge dictionary, "extreme organization and control of people".
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 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")!
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.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Mark Twain: Mosques are plenty, graveyards are plenty, but morals and whiskey are scarce. The Koran does not permit Mohammedans to drink. Their natural instincts do not permit them to be moral. - When I, a thoughtful and unblessed Presbyterian, examine the Koran, I know that beyond any question every Mohammedan is insane, not in all things, but in religious matters. I cannot prove to him that he is insane, because you never can prove anything to a lunatic — for that is a part of his insanity and the evidence of it.
Klevius comment: When will India, Pakistan, Iran etc. eventually realize the full width of the slavery/genocide humiliation their ancestors have suffered under Arabic islam, beginning >1300 years ago?!
Who wants/dare to support/publish A Roots Guide, the key to freedom from islam?
Friday, November 21, 2008
Los Angeles Times editorial: When Malcolm X referred to house Negroes, he mocked Martin Luther King Jr.'s insistence on nonviolent protest. His unyielding eloquence (read violent hate mongering) electrified audiences from mosques in Harlem to Oxford University. America could grant blacks equality and get a carrot, he warned, or he would be the stick, ready to strike (pure Al-Qaeda rhetoric, isn't it). And for years, even after both men had been killed, that's how it was: Malcolm or Martin, anger or faith. A new era has begun - that's "White House Negro."
Klevius comment: Listen to this terror propagandist from LAT! Would you believe it?! But the truth is, of course, that B. Hussein Obama's skin nuance has importance only for racists & crypto-racisists, e.g. as signalled through the LAT editorial above. But what is really at stake isn't Obama's (or anyone else) skin color but his open & deliberate betrayal of the US constitution, & the vulnerable concept of freedom (negative human rights) it protects & what is now under threat from Obama & his tight connection to the extremist Nation of Islam (and behind it pure Saudi wahhabist islamofascism). Would this braindead LAT editorial have been equally positive to an Indian blowing up the block where he sits & wastes energy on useless writings?
The Arabic house negro
Klevius islam lesson for braindead LAT & other editorial writers: It was pure institutionalized (i.e. very "structural") Arabic racism/sexism that made islam the by far worst crime ever against humanity, i.e.boosted it through 1400 years of parasitic slavery & rapetvism. Although most African male slaves died as a consequence of castration, transportation, hard plantation work (e.g. on the Sauds' date palm plantations at Riyadh!), as enforced child slave soldiers etc., the African genetic tan was affecting the white Arab masters through the raped African slave girls (the genetic impact of the disproportionate lack of African male DNA & abundance of African female DNA in Arab populations clearly tells this grim story through modern tech!). This is also perhaps a main reason to why white slave girls from East Europe became so extremely valuable that it even created such otherwise unexplainable phenomenons as e.g. the Vikings (see Klevius analysis of the Origin of Vikings). However, what is really sad is that the Arabic house negro still fights as a terrorist for his islamofascist Arab master!
Btw, I'm not a regular reader of LAT, so has there been a lot of writings lately on islamic terror propaganda as a likely cause to most of the LA blazes?!
However, what really lies behind these pro-islamofascist attitudes is rapetivist sex segregation, i.e. what this pathetic crypto-racist/crypto-terrorist editorial writer at LAT most probably share with the taliban & Al-Qaeda lunatics! Have you considered conversion to islamofascism as did Michael "Wacko Jacko" Jackson (also in LA & just before he's due to appear at London’s High Court where he is being sued by an Arab sheik)?! Or maybe you're already a licensed islamofascist. That would explain a lot...
Friday, November 07, 2008
When it comes to the majority of "black" Americans, who are constantly given an extremely non-proportional affirmative part of political etc power on the behalf of other groups, the "civil rights" road they themselves march is usually lacking any shade of color, not to say all colors, i.e. white.
According to recent polls American "blacks" were in an embarrasingly clear majority among those opposing civil rights for those who want to be able to marry regardless of how they look in their pants. In fact, some polls indicate that the "blacks'" civil rights resistance almost equals the percentage of "blacks" that are muslims or, like the Obamas, belong to racist crypto-islamofascist racist separatist "churches"!
Most of you "blacks" out there who don't fit in the above may well be kin to those "blacks" I call my friends. A telling difference might be revealed through scrutiny of the ideologies of some black extremes. You "liberal"/democrat etc who voted for Obama, do you have anything in common with, e.g., the DC snipers who applauded 9/11, harbored anti-American passions and were black muslims. Moreover, one of them, the teenage Malvo, testified that his mentor, Obama-aged Muhammad, was driven by hatred of America because of its “slavery, hypocrisy and foreign policy” and his belief that “the white man is the devil”. As a logical consequence of this political insight he planned to kill six whites a day for 30 days!
With whom do you feel more close? Martin "Uncle Tom" Luther King or DC snipers Muhammad & Malvo?! I think I'd rather live with King, no matter what my own skin nuance would be.
Klevius marriage lesson for you who have trouble with logic.
The "defense" for hetero marriage, i.e. in fact the opposition to other forms of marriage, is logically one of the easiest to dismiss! And why so eager to "defend" heterosexual marriage while not bothering abt sexist polygamy (for you morons who think you have "natural" reasons see From Klevius without love & What's sex segregation)?!
Marriage as an institution is already undermined by the very fact that biological ("natural") reproduction is no longer a legal necessity nor even a social assumption. And, on the other hand, if a married couple does not procreate or adopt children at all, no one would suggest them to separate because of this, even if they had married at young age. And what about old persons who want to marry? They can hardly have an intention of raising a family, can they? Two options remain. read more!
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Racist/sexist youth in Somalia & the US defending islam, the worst crime ever against humanity, while "moderate muslims" support them simply by being "muslims"!
When a Somali islamic al-Shabab ("the youth" terror group against "enemies of Islam" connected to the Islamic Courts Union which was strongly suppored by Western media & politicians) rebel administration in Kismayo, with the help of 50 boys/men & a lorry full of stones, stoned 13-year-old rape victim Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow to death in front of some 1,000 "moderate" muslims, this event in principle hardly differs from the case of 13-year-old Linda (not to be confused with 18-year-old Linda) in Sweden which I, in vain, have tried to get some more info & light on. Linda was repeatedly gang raped in an ordinary Swedish school without the knowing teachers (out of political correctness) doing nothing, & eventually committed suicide. At least some of the "moderate" Somali islam-supporters reportedly tried to protest.
Islamic imams (islamofascists) preach that islam is the solution against adultery etc "Western" "decadency" & say islam doesn't produce "illegitimate children". Indeed, 13-year-old Aisha* certainly won't do it!
* It's a deep & tragic irony that Aisha ("mother of the Believers") got her name from Mohammed's child bride (abused in the first mosque -see Origin of mosque) & most of the stoners their names from her abuser! It also reflects, in a flash from a tiny single individual fate, the historical whole of the worst crime ever against humanity! Oh thou who believe, why don't thou believe in reality?!
Islam is long since theoretically dead & cannot be reformed because it's "stuck with the Koran" (as the Pope said) and the Koran is simply an after construction of a successful system of slave parasitism built on a loose framework of Jewish & Christian scriptures.
By necessity life itself is made up of challenges & it's therefore an illusion that it could be totally controlled (islam rules "every aspect of life"). However, whereas islam tries to cover up or plainly neglect/deny the suffering it causes (compare "the forgotten suffering" on the title page of Klevius 1992 book Demand for Resources) Klevius has a better solution. It's called a negative human rights approach that, instead of some totalitarian religious fascist Sharia etc, should strive for the deliberate & enhanced defense of "a bubble of freedom" for every individual in accordance with the original human rights declaration from 1948, and in sharp contrast to B. Hussein Obama's preaching of intervenistic positive "rights" (i.e. what has also been called "Stalin rights"). The power of negative human rights lies in its theoretical implications for the production of laws & their enforcement.
For an informed, non-religious & advanced discussion abt "illegitimate children" see the most important sociological paper (Angels of Antichrist) from the last century!
For more on sex segregation, the underlying cause so far seriously addressed only by Klevius see What is sex segregation? & Human rights from Klevius without love!
Also see the origin of Vikings & their connection with the origin of islam!
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Saudi islamofascist "king" Abdullah & one of the many victims for his & his associates hate crime mongering
The one candidate the media forgot
Abdelbari Atwan (3 Nov 2008, in Al Quds Al Arabi): If Obama wins and “if these resources (oil) are properly harnessed, we could impose our point of view (on the world) and serve our cause…” Klevius comment: This "view" btw, is historically proven to be, by far, the worst crime ever against humanity. And everyone supporting it contributes to the prolonging of its death struggle!
Blacks get humiliated once again by their islamic masters in Arabia!
Islam enslaved Africa (although not only Africa) for 1400 years with human suffering at a scale that is, together with similar islamic atrocities in Asia & Europe) beyond anything on the planet Earth! This inescapable historical fact together with the fact that islam just not "happened" to be the "faith" of the criminals but was the very source racist/sexist ideology that made it possible until today! However, the historical slavery economy that we now call islam was seldom seen in its entirity by occasional travellers precisely because what they saw was only the basement of this evil ideology (also see Origin of mosque). Why is it that so many blacks rather segregate than open up? And why do so many blacks prefer their slave masters instead of their liberators? Is it the same (il)logic which makes so many blacks prefer "whiteys" BMW instead of superior non-"white" Japanese tech? A strange form of inferiority complex indeed?!
A one-party future USA that is submitting itself under Saudi (oil)funded totalitarian islamofascism
Shawn Hannity: “2008 is the year that journalism died.”
Klevius comment: Ignorance abt islam is the main reason why US voters didn’t take warnings seriously – together with the fact that most Americans want to defend “freedom of religion”. However, when the “religion” that demands “protection” is a disguise for a deliberate effort to oppose that very freedom, this is hardly in line with the aims of the U.S. constitution.
A crypto-muslim president - & Sharia next?
"…and Allah is the greatest of all deceivers". (Sura 3:54)
"…Take not the Christians and Jews for friends…" (Sura 5:51)
According to islam Koran is the Constitution, Allah is the author of law and the State is its enforcements (Sura 4:105 and 12:40).
Resisting Islam means punishment by death, crucifixion, or the cutting of the hands and feet (Sura 5:33).
The "better" muslim you are the less are you in accordance with the US constitution. Endorsing islam equals abandoning the US constitution. No, a muslim who fully adhere to islam can’t be a politician but rather a traitor under the present U.S. constitution. As a racist constitutional lawyer B. Hussein Obama is certainly keen to alter it towards islamic Sharia.
Klevius comment: Americans and others clearly need to be educated abt true islam. In the best interest of themselves, and certainly not by imams. Try e.g. Origin of islam!
Because of political correctness & for the purpose of not offending the most offending "religion" ever the word islam can't even be uttered in negtive contexts. John P. Avlon: How is the next leader of the free world going to solve a problem he can't even name?
Eli Lake proposes "islamic supremacists" to describe eager muslims.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: "The presidential candidates are focused on military and intelligence positions, but I patiently wait for them to define the ideology they are going up against - because it's also a war of ideas. . . The collectivist Islamist system is not just wrong, but opposed to the American way of life."
At first women abandoned Hillary and now Sarah
Lainie Dowell on “silly white women” & race: "...wishful thinking on the part of those silly white women and all the rest of the supporters of Obama from every sector of society who would choose a black man who not only is not qualified but he is also not qualifiable over a well-qualified white woman, Gov. Palin, to be in a better position to lead this nation. So much for women’s lib and feminist banter! And ff anybody really believes that Race is not an issue in this 2008 election, then they are grossly deceived, because that denial is being used as a shield to deflect criticism from the Obamaniacs when they spew out their accusations of racism against whites and anybody else who won’t go along with their predominantly black agendas, which many have yet to understand their agendas have been in place for decades. And they have made no secret that those plans are in place to the exclusion of everybody else except the blacks and all those whom they now call “people of color.” But, is that what the majority of Americans want for America? At the height of the civil rights era, the symbols of the black movement for black manhood at that time were a mile-high afro, a “piece” at the ready somewhere on their person, a loud in-your-face style of intimidation, and a white woman on both arms while the “sisters” stood silently nearby and watched all of them as the “brothers” turned around and terrorized them and took out their abusive and abrasive hits against their black womanhood whenever they felt like it. Somewhere in the mix, on one end was Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. with both his detractors and supporters following behind, and on the other end were Min. Louis Farrakhan, Malcolm X, and the Nation of Islam. In between were the Black Panthers, the Black Nationalists, and the Black Muslims."
B. Hussein Obama & islamic law
Eidelberg: "There has been much confusion and misinformation in the American press about this. The facts are that Obama is a Muslim under Islamic law because his father was a Muslim, for descent in Islam is patrilineal and he was also enrolled in elementary school as a Muslim. While Obama may think that he converted to Christianity that is not the way Islamic law sees things. And even if his conversion were to be acknowledged by Islamic law, he would be in serious trouble because Islamic law dictates that those who leave the faith and convert to another religion are to be considered a "murtadd" or apostate and be subject to the death penalty."
Klevius comment: Yes,Obama could be even a double muslim according to islamofascist law. But this notwithstanding a more fundamental issue is his ties to islamists. A U.S. president who, as a politician, has been breastfed with Saudi/wahhabi funds & who openly opposes the U.S. constitution, is certinly to be seen as a “change” of USA.
Eidelberg: "By lineage and school registration, Barack Obama was clearly a Muslim young man. If he renounced that and converted to Christianity as a young man he is an apostate and in trouble with the Muslim world. If he never renounced his Muslim upbringing he will likely be in trouble with American voters whom he has been telling that he is a Christian. Barack Obama is America's quintessential media candidate, an image candidate - like Jimmy Carter, a billboard candidate, all surface and no depth.
Klevius comment: Moreover, islam is a totalitarian ideology that is based on parasitism (slavery/rapetivism) & the social imprisonment (sex apartheid) of girls/women. Not to address this main component dismisses every such analysis of islam.
Saudi wahhabi islamofascism taking over the political scene in the US
When Republican Alan Fine “decried” Ellison’s ((Nation of Islam activist & first islamofascist in US congress) past associations with the Nation of Islam, it is described as “a claim chiefly based on Ellison's role in organizing a local coalition to attend the Million Man march in Washington DC in 1995” (sic). So obviously Fine would have had a point if Ellison had been associated with NOI!? And in fact, & contrary to this, Ellison was previously deeply involved with NOI! This same type of rhetoric, however, when been used by the opponent camp has been strongly condemned.
Keith Ellison: “The people who want to perpetuate fear don't really comprehend how freedom to practice religious faith is ingrained in American culture”
Klevius comment: The people who want to perpetuate islam don't really comprehend how unfreedom is ingrained in islam. When islamofascist Ellison at his inauguration chose to be sworn in on the Quran he, in fact, committed treason against his homeland. A gesture more obscene than anything else againt the constitution! Even more so than the fact that he tried to lie abt the background of the Koran that Jefferson (the author of the Declaration of Independence) had used, not for religious study, but for the purpose of knowing his islamist enemies!
From this perspective one shouldn’t be surprised when Ellison asks: "A lot of us are waiting for Obama to say that there's nothing wrong with being a Muslim,"
R.I.P. USA until someone digs you up again!