The sitting "president" (you can't be a US President if you are a Sharia following muslim or if you "respect" islam's disrespect for the US Constitution and Human Rights) welcomes Sharia but is silent about it (as is media) while the challenger (picked by Sharia supporting media) is - well, also silent.
In Klevius assessment it's just a minor concern about his extremely low and hypocritical moral that this Mr X "president" Barry Barakeh Hussain Obama Soetoro Dunham (or whatever) for some 20 years regularly visited a black religious supremacist movement and that he applauded its disgusting racist leader Jeremy Wright. What is much more serious is his connections throughout his life with some of the world's worst islamofascists and his relentless open (since at least his Cairo speech) pursuit for Sharia.
The spring of Sharia and fall of US
Islam is Sharia and Sharia is a legal system that covers all aspects of life and makes criticism of itself a crime - meaning Human Rights not accepted by islam may be criminalized as "denigrating" islam or being "blasphemic"!.
Muslim born (apostate?!) Mr X "president" supports Sharia but was truly confused when his Saudi master supported Mubarak
According to the Saudi state press agency Saudi "king" Abdullah supported Mubarak. Muslim born Mr X "president's" big idol and master reportedly said: "No Arab or muslim can bear that some people, in the name of freedom of expression, have infiltrated Egypt to destabilize its security. Saudi Arabia stands resolutely with the government and brotherly people of Egypt." Sheikh Khaled Al Khalifa (Bahrain) also agrees with Mubarak: “Egypt will settle and genuinely move forward. What will happen in the next few days will prove that everyone is serious about the stability of Egypt."
Some two years ago Klevius wrote:
The worst "president" ever. Good at selling himself, a disaster for USA and the free world.
Klevius comment: The main reason Muslim Brotherhood wants Mubarak to go is neither his for African leaders so typical corruption etc., nor his age, but rather the only good thing Mubarak stands for, namely not to let islam into politics. And the Saudi hate mongering Abdullah, the "guardian of islam", really shows off his sleezyness bigotry and hypocrisy, doesn't he! The last thing he wants to happen to Egypt is its takeover by pious muslim brothers. Getting too close to home, does it! Surrounded by muslim revolutionaries, who's next. And Mr X "president's" $60 Billion worth of weaponry hasn't been delivered as yet. Has the good old wahhabi caliph got smitten by some islamophobia! An echo of the origin of islam...
Religious persecution in Austria - and a really nutty judge
Auster: In October 2010 Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf of Austria was indicted for making the most generic sorts of criticisms of Islam that any Islam critic might make. In February 2011 she was convicted of “denigration” of Islam for having said that the Muhammad “had a thing for little girls.” Now her conviction has been upheld. On one hand, as I’ve argued before, it is silly for Islam critics to call Muhammad a “pedophile,” or say that he had a “thing” for little girls, because the context of his marriage to Aisha was entirely different from what those terms suggest to modern ears (Klevius comment: Quite the contrary! Historical facts combined with islamic teachings clearly shows that this type of sex-slavery laid at the base of islam for the same ultimate purpose as now, namely to satisfy muslim men and, through Sharia sex-apartheid, to spread islam faster than other systems). On the other hand, it is simply inevitable that modern people will object to the fact that this man—whose behavior is the model for all Muslims—married a nine year old girl, and it is inevitable that they will express their objections. And this normal expression of a normal opinion is now against the law in Europe.
As Diana West explains, Wolf has not been convicted for stating the fact (which is uncontested by the court ) that Muhammad had sexual relations with a girl; she has been convicted for disapproving of Muhammad for having such relations. The court found that it is wrong “to look down on sex with children if the alleged perp, centuries ago, was the Islamic prophet.” West continues: As Henrik Rader Clausen put it, live-blogging the proceedings for the blog Gates of Vienna, Elisabeth, in the court’s eyes, expressed “an excess of opinion that can not be tolerated. It is a ridiculing that cannot be justified.” Cannot be tolerated, cannot be justified by whom, by what? The answer is by Islamic law. It is literally against Islamic law to criticize or expose Islam or its prophet (Muhammad) in any adverse way. This prohibition against freedom of conscience is now part of Austrian law as well. That the verdict upheld against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff actually imperils the most innocent and vulnerable among us—little girls whose molestation the courts have implicitly excused as a religious rite—only underscores the depravity of the Vienna high court….
Judge Leo Levnaic-Iwanski upheld the verdict of the lower court, which convicted Elisabeth on the charge of “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion” (Klevius comment: Why didn't her defense make a case of the fact that islam isn't a religion in any conventional meaning - at least not the islam that she criticized?!) The lower court matter was instigated by a reporter from leftist Austrian Magazine, NEWS, concerning Wolff’s remarks at a public lecture about Mohammed’s pedophilia, “having a thing about young girls." That was a reference to the Sunnah’s account of Mohammed’s consummation of a marriage with Aisha at age nine, one of his nine wives. When the trial resumed on February 15, 2011, Sabaditsch-Wolff was exonerated of the first charge of "incitement" because the court found that here statements were not made in a "provocative" manner. But Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted of the second charge against her, namely "denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion," according to Section 188 of the Austrian Criminal Code. The judge ruled that Sabaditsch-Wolff committed a crime by stating in her seminars about Islam that the Islamic prophet Mohammed was a pedophile (Sabaditsch-Wolff's actual words were "Mohammed had a thing for little girls.")
Talking about sexist hypocrisy boosted by Western oil money via evil racist and sexist backward islam
The judge rationalized that Mohammed's sexual contact with nine-year-old Aisha could not be considered pedophilia because Mohammed continued his marriage to Aisha until his death. According to this line of thinking, Mohammed had no exclusive desire for underage girls; he was also attracted to older females because Aisha was 18 years old when Mohammed died.
Klevius comment: This is why Klevius describes one of BBC's top sex groomers, Sir Jimmy Savile, 'pedophile/sex offender'!
Vienna (the city of lunatic Freud - see Klevius psychosocial Freud timeline) in Austria is now Europe's center for Saudi Wahhabi islamofascism against Human Rights
derStandard.at: Nevertheless, the Saudi Abdullah center will be financed by the Saudi Arabian government.
Rabbi David Rosen: Yes, the institute’s building belongs to the Saudis and the center has been named after King Abdullah. However, that is something we are all in favor of, also the Christian representatives and myself, simply because it is definitely a positive development for Saudi Arabia to stand up for religious tolerance and dialogue (no, it's definitely not according to Sharia!). Saudi Arabia is the bedrock state of Islam, so to speak. So if that state shows commitment to the process of religious freedom, we would be stupid not to encourage that development. For the Jewish community it is of crucial importance to reduce biases and prejudices. We are the eternal minority and will always be a minority. Therefore, interreligious understanding is absolutely vital for our wellbeing.
derStandard.at: Will women’s rights be one of the topics you will address?
Rabbi David Rosen: I very much hope so. We have discussed this and I haven’t seen any negative reactions. At least one woman will be on the board – the representative of the Buddhist community. Of course there are striking differences in opinion on this. But I think you could not be a credible institution of interreligious dialogue if you ignored women’s rights in particular and human rights in general.
Klevius clarification to this ignorant (?!) misinformation: In islam women are robbed of Human Rights and hence not equal to muslim men.This is because THERE ARE NO HUMAN RIGHTS IN ISLAM, only Sharia! This undeniable fact isn't altered by the cosmetic "human rights in islam" which actually means the opposite, i.e. Sharia.
The FPÖ (Austrian Freedom Party) and the Greens voted against it. They argued that there’s no religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. The former justice minister Bandion-Ortner is supposed to be the deputy general secretary. The “King Abdullah Center” for interreligious and intercultural dialogue” is welcomed in Austria. The national assembly reached an agreement on Friday afternoon against the negative votes of the FPÖ and the Greens to provide this center with the status of legal personality, which is to be established in Vienna. This is controversial mainly because it is financed by Saudi Arabia. The FPÖ wants among others the renaming of the center, which is to be named after the saudi king, for the nature of the regime in Saudi Arabia is not compatible with an institution for religious dialogue. The FPÖ also considers that this institution is financilly not sustainable on the long term. However. they spoke in favor of the centrum while being in the committee. The Greens had been always against it, with their representative Alev Korun saying that it would be to put the fox in charge of the henhouse, if one sees how human rights and freedom of religion are trodded upon The SPÖ and the ÖVP defend the decision The ÖVP (Austrian People’s Party) defended (the plan for) the centrum and rebuked these arguments saying that dialogue is indispensable, and Vienna should remain a city of dialogue. Representative Reinhold Lopatka said that the wahhabis (the leading group in Saudi Arabia) should also not be excluded. The SPÖ (Austrian Socialist Party) representative Hannes Weninger understood concerns that the center could be used as a cover for the regime in Riyad, but the general declaration of human rights and freedom of religion in the preamble of the institute’s declaration is also to be taken into consideration.
Klevius clarification: Would you believe you really red this utter nonsense. Again, Saudi based OIC's Cairo declaration (Sharia) clearly states that no Human Right that conflicts Sharia is acceptable. This means that the Austrian based Saudi islamofascist dictator "king's" Vienna center is nothing else than an other tool for protecting islam's growth in Europe until it can practice its Sharia openly and in full.