Author Archives: amyself313

The demise of masculinity

Aussie Nationalist's avatarAussie Nationalist Blog

Increasingly, the males of 2016 find themselves in a confused, bewildered state. Changed gender relations have improved much, but there have been plenty of negative consequences also.

“I Feel Sorry For Real Men In The Millennial Generation”, Right Wing News, October 13, 2015:

Men have it rougher in America than most people realize. In part, that’s because they’re one of the few groups (along with white people, conservatives and Christians) it’s cool to crap on at every opportunity. In case you haven’t noticed, there’s a non-stop assault on masculinity in America. Just to give you an idea of what I mean by that, here are articles written that show up on the first three pages of Google when you do a search for “masculinity.”

Mass Killings in the U.S.: Masculinity, Masculinity, Masculinity

Die Like a Man: The Toxic Masculinity of Breaking Bad

Why We Need to Reimagine Masculinity

Masculinity Is…

View original post 1,706 more words

Obama is a Jew-hater; Trump is our friend.

By Bruce Abramson and Jeff Ballabon
Saturday, 24 Dec 2016 12:08 PM

The gloves are off.
The United Nations, knowing full well it could pass anti-Israel resolutions designed to prolong the Arab-Israeli conflict only while President Obama still held office, moved forward with such a plan on Friday, December 23.

President Obama made it possible.
President-elect Trump had tried to take steps to forestall this blood libel.
He had coordinated a day earlier with President al-Sisi of Egypt to orchestrate a delay, and went public with his own view that the U.S. should maintain its standard practice of vetoing all such resolutions.

But it is the office of the president that possesses actual power; the office of president-elect has only the bully pulpit. And President Obama chose to wield that power in a way that will make another Arab-Israeli war more likely, create a diplomatic crisis for the United States, and operate to the detriment of traditional Arab allies like Egypt. Following on the heels of UNESCO’s decision, earlier this year, that the Jews lacked any historical connection to Israel — notwithstanding three thousand plus years of physical, archaeological, documentary, written, and oral evidence — the UN Security Council has now decided that Jewish settlement in the historic Jewish homeland is illegal.

Those who voice consistent, principled support for Israel are livid — but not remotely surprised. It has been clear for years that President Obama, Secretaries Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, and Ambassador Samantha Power were true, deep sonei Yisrael, an ancient religious term far older than “anti-Semite” that translates literally as “haters of Israel.” There has never been much hope that the lame duck Obama would leave office before inflicting further harm on the Jews and on the Jewish State — though the harm he has inflicted over the past eight years has already been considerable.
Nor are Trump supporters surprised by the president-elect’s extraordinary intervention.
We backed him — at no small risk to personal and professional relationships — because we saw a man far more interested in ensuring that the good guys win than in playing with a deck stacked to favor evil.

We hope that principled Israel supporters who opposed Trump’s candidacy can already see the folly of their ways — and set aside prejudice and ego to judge our incoming president by his actions, not the media’s slander.

There is a limit, of course, at the rage one can direct at Jew haters for acting like Jew haters. It’s expected. Israel’s false friends — Jews and non-Jews alike — have enabled and condoned their hateful behavior.
For years, Israel supporters have had to endure the obvious lies of American Jewish leaders that Obama was not only an excellent president, but a good friend to Israel. Even now they continue to insist that when it comes to Israel, there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Leading allegedly “pro-Israel” organizations made the case that even though the Obama-Iran deal was a clear existential threat to Israel, those who supported it showed just as much love for the Jewish State as those who opposed it.
That the empty platitudes of Sen. Chuck Schumer represent real advocacy or exertion then and now.
That Israel or Prime Minister Netanyahu bear the blame for angering Obama and making the Democratic Party and the left home to open anti-Semitism — by the crime of allowing Jews merely to live.

It would be preferable to think them fools rather than knaves, but it becomes harder to do so with each passing year. Genuinely pro-Israel voters and donors are misled by dismal political and organizational leadership either incapable of or unwilling to appreciate the difference between Israel’s true friends and genuine Jew haters.

They are reprehensible, and those who continue to fund them or follow them in any way share culpability in their crimes against Israel and against the Jews.

To say that the vast majority of American Jews who not only voted against Donald Trump, but who spent months slandering him in the vilest of terms, owe him an apology is a vast understatement. What they need is a full program of self-reflection, a twelve-step program, and a full day of atonement.

Their behavior has been despicable and reprehensible, and we are tired of it.

We believe strongly in Jewish unity, but some things are more important than unity. Jewish survival is among them. Or rather there can be no real unity until there is clarity and a commitment to Jewish morality and survival at its core. It is far past time for America’s Jews to learn how to tell their friends from their enemies, and the friends of Israel from its enemies.

The gloves are off.
Barack Obama and Donald Trump have each removed any reasonable doubt that might have lingered.
Obama is a Jew-hater; Trump is our friend.
There is no longer room for reasonable people to disagree.

Bruce Abramson is the President of Informationism, Inc., Vice President and Director of Policy at the Iron Dome Alliance, and a Senior Fellow at the London Center for Policy Research.

Jeff Ballabon is CEO of B2 Strategic, Chairman of the Iron Dome Alliance, and a Senior Fellow at the American Conservative Union’s Center for Statesmanship and Diplomacy.

 

The silver lining to the UN’s act of infamy

 

traitor-promoter-of-islamAll credits to Arutz Sheva By: Jack Engelhard, 25/12/16 00:1

All bets are off now that the Security Council voted 14-0 to condemn Jewish settlement activity over Biblical Judea, Samaria, and even Jerusalem.
Israel now has the green light to build, baby, build and Trump will have all the incentive he needs to move the United States Embassy to Jerusalem.
All because that Security Council measure is so preposterous.

Coming as it does from the United Nations, which is in the hands of terrorists, mobsters and tyrants whose only business is to condemn Israel.
Blast and damn the gluttonous Liberals, here, there and everywhere who delivered Israel into the claws and arms of those jackals. Their names will be associated together with Haman.

As of that day, another date that will live in infamy, Friday, December 23, 2016, Israel owes nobody nothin’.  Annex Judea and Samaria. Forget the Oslo Accord. Forget 800 trucks a day plying food and supplies into Gaza. Forget the illusion of Abbas as a partner in peace. Declare him and his PA (Palestinian Authority) persona non grata.

From Donald Trump and US Congress, cease $600 million a year in direct funding for the PA and millions more through UNRWA and other false-front agencies.
Dismantle the PLO’s office in Washington, D.C.
Forget the mirage of a two state solution. For Kerry, Obama, and Samantha Power, the action was taken to “further peace.” Nothing can be further from the truth. This was an act of infamy against the Jewish State.

They say it was meant to advance a two state solution whereby two peoples live side by side in peace and security. Where do Arabs live in peace and security even among themselves – Syria, Iraq, Yemen?
The two state solution is a trap – a device to swarm Israel out of existence. That’s been the plan all along…to uproot the Jewish people from their ancestral homeland, by hook or by crook.

That the United States, under Obama, took part in this abomination, by letting it go through by the trick of abstaining, is an everlasting blight on our reputation.

Senators Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz say so. Here’s Cruz: “And for those who acquiesced or facilitated the UN resolution–especially President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and Ambassador Power–history will record your abiding and shameful legacy undermining our friend and ally Israel.”

How have the mighty fallen? This is President John F. Kennedy in 1961 at his inaugural address: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Instead, friends of liberty were blindsided by Obama’s farewell address of sorts, his parting shot to sock it to the Jews.

So now the table has been set for Donald Trump to do what’s right. As the news came in, in anger we wrote (on Facebook): “Donald Trump will have to DRAIN THAT SWAMP. “Immediately end all financing for the UN, consider all resolutions against Israel flagrant, nonsensical, bigoted and non-binding…dissolve diplomatic status and immunity across the board…give all members 48 hours to pack up and leave town…and then destroy the building to a heap of rubble.”

Now that we’ve had a chance to calm down, we say it again, exactly as is, but add – Build, Baby, Build.

New York-based bestselling American novelist Jack Engelhard writes a regular column for Arutz Sheva. New from the novelist: “News Anchor Sweetheart,” a novelist’s version of Fox News and Megyn Kelly. Engelhard is the author of the international bestseller “Indecent Proposal.” He is the recipient of the Ben Hecht Award for Literary Excellence. 

US helped craft anti-Israel Security Council resolution

 

back-stabbing-by-obama

By Gary Willig, 25/12/16 20:19

PM spokesman says Israel has “ironclad information” Obama Administration helped craft anti-Israel UN resolution.

The Israeli government has publicly accused the Obama Administration of having helped develop and push for the UN Security Council resolution condemning any and all Jewish presence over the 1949 armistice lines.

David Keyes, the spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, made the accusation on Fox News’ “America’s News HQ” program, claiming that Israel had “ironclad information” that the Obama Administration not only allowed the resolution to pass by going against the longtime US policy of vetoing one-sided resolutions against Israel, but took part in crafting the resolution and pushed for its passage.

“We have rather ironclad information from sources in both the Arab world and internationally that this was a deliberate push by the United States and in fact they helped create the resolution in the first place.” Keyes said.

The Prime Minister warned government ministers earlier that President Obama could cause further harm to Israel before he leaves office on January 20.

Army Radio broadcaster Erel Segal today reminded listeners that Obama began his presidency with a visit to Cairo, avoiding a stop in nearby Israel. While in Cairo, he spoke of Israel’s existence being a result of WWII’s genocide of the Jews, exactly as the Arab world does, thereby making the Jewish state an alien entity with no roots in the Holy Land.

 

 

 

Disgraceful Anti-Israel UN Security Council Vote

 

 

disband-the-unTrump Was Right to Try and Stop Obama From Tying His Hands on Israel

by Alan Dershowitz

The Egyptian decision to withdraw the one-sided anti-Israel United Nations Security Council resolution should not mask the sad reality that it is the Obama administration that has been pushing for the resolution to be enacted. The United States was trying to hide its active behind-the-scenes role in the matter by preparing to abstain rather than voting for the resolution. But in the context of a Security Council where only an American veto can prevent anti-Israel resolutions from automatically passing, an abstention is a vote for the resolution. And because of this automatic majority, an anti-Israel resolution like this one cannot be reversed by a future American president. A veto cannot be cast retroactively.

The effect, therefore of the Obama decision to push for, and abstain from, a vote on this resolution is to deliberately tie the hands of the president’s successors, in particular President-elect Trump. That is why Trump did the right thing in reaction to Obama’s provocation. Had the lame-duck president not tried to tie the incoming president’s hands, Trump would not have intervened at this time. But if Trump had not urged the Egyptians to withdraw the resolution, he would have made it far more difficult for himself to try to bring about a negotiated resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The reason for this is that a Security Council resolution declaring the 1967 border to be sacrosanct, and any building behind those boarders to be illegal, would make it impossible for Palestinian leaders to accept less in a negotiation. Moreover, the passage of such a resolution would disincentivize the Palestinians from accepting Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu’s invitation to sit down and negotiate with no preconditions. Any such negotiations would require painful sacrifices on both sides if a resolution were to be reached. And a Security Council resolution siding with the Palestinians would give the Palestinians the false hope that they could get a state through the United Nations without having to make painful sacrifices.

President Obama’s lame duck attempt to tie the hands of his successor is both counterproductive to peace and undemocratic in nature. The lame-duck period of an outgoing president is a time when our system of checks and balances is effectively suspended. The outgoing president does not have to listen to Congress or the people. He can selfishly try to burnish his personal legacy at the expense of our national and international interests. He can even try to settle personal scores and act on pique, which is what seems to be happening here. Congress does not support this resolution; the American people do not support this resolution; no Israeli leader – from the Left, to the center, to the Right – supports this resolution. Even some members of Obama’s own administration do not support this resolution. But Obama is determined – after 8 years of frustration and failure in bringing together the Israelis and Palestinians – to leave his mark on the Mid-East peace process. But if he manages to push this resolution through, his mark may well be the end of any realistic prospect for a negotiated peace.

One would think that Obama would have learned from his past mistakes in the Mid-East. He has alienated the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Emirates and other allies by his actions and inactions with regard to Iran, Syria, Egypt and Iraq. Everything he has touched has turned to sand.

Now, in his waning days, he wants to make trouble for his successor. He should be stopped in the name of peace, democracy and basic decency.

But it appears that Obama will not be stopped. Four temporary Security Council members have decided to push the resolution to a vote now, today. It is difficult to believe that they would have done so without the implicit support of the United States.

Stay tuned.

Addendum

As predicted, the United States allowed the anti-Israel resolution to be approved by the United Nations Security Council.  Votes in favor were cast by Russia, which has occupied Kornengsberg since 1945, after capturing that ancient German city, ethnically cleansing its population and bringing in hundreds of thousands of Russian settlers;  China, which has occupied Tibet and brought in thousands of Chinese settlers; France who occupied and settled Algeria for many years; Great Britain which has occupied and colonized a significant portion of the globe; and assorted other countries, several of which have horrendous human rights records.

Israel on the other hand, offered to end the occupation and settlements in 2000-2001 and again in 2008 only to be rebuffed by the Palestinian leadership. But Israel is the only country to have been condemned by the Security Council for an occupation and settlement.  This hypocrisy is typical of the United Nations as even our representative acknowledged when she explained why the United States abstained.

Now peace will be more difficult to achieve, as the Palestinians become further convinced that they do not have to accept Netanyahu’s offer to negotiate without preconditions.

Thank you, President Obama for completing your 8 years of failed foreign policy with a final blow against, peace, stability and decency.

Congress can ameliorate the impact of this destructive resolution by enacting a statute declaring that the resolution does not represent the United States’ policy, which is that peace will not come through the United Nations but only by direct negations between the parties.  The law should also prohibit any United States funds to be spent directly or indirectly in support of this Security Council resolution. I suspect that the incoming president will be willing to sign such a law.

Alan M. Dershowitz is Professor Emeritus at the Harvard Law School and author of Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law  and Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter.

Obama Tried To RUIN Trump Presidency

BOOM! Obama Tried To RUIN Trump Presidency – Judge Jeanine Just Knocked Him Senseless!

The most popular topic these days is whether or not Russia was in close relation with Donald Trump and his administration. Above all, the mainstream media bombed with fake news and various stupid accusations such as: Carlson Tucker is russian spy. Ha-ha-ha!

Is this the last spin of the wealthy evil snakes that want to destroy the USA? How is it possible, one strong Christian country, that was BEGGING Obama, in a way, to join forces with America against ISIS- to be our enemy?

The proxy cold war and the 90’s destruction of Russian economy was nothing but successful attempt by George Soros, Rhothshield and Rockfeler to establish total world domination. These people funded Hilary Clinton’s campaign. The same ones completely controlled Obama’s rule and created ISIS. These wealthy bankers are now, major enemies to every patriot in the World and of course Donald Trump.

Our brave elect-president confronted these sick pscychopats as he announced war alliance with Russia against the islamic terrorism. Donald Trump is strong and intelligent man, and first of all- a real patriot. On the other hand, Vladimir Putin is big patriot and conservative, who made rebirth of Russia ( after Soros attempt to destroy Russia) – so why these two leaders of the strongest nation do not join forces and destroy every terrorist in the world.

Well, it is against the globalization policy and the super rich banks and corporations that make the biggest profits from WAR! ISIS are nothing but dogs of war, tool in the hand of Illuminati. Just as same as the mainstream media is… But look how Jeannine Pirro confronted this sick idiots!

Great speech! This little piece of dumb Obama knows very well what he did. He refused the friendship with Russia to make himself rich beyond imaginable and satisfy his donors. If Hilary came to power, we would have been in third world war with hiroshimas and nagasakis all around the world. Shame on you Democrats! You should have cleaned your party from these snakes.

All credit to endingthefed.com

REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY

All credits to: https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm


I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

SUMMARY
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. “Republic” is the proper description of our government, not “democracy.” I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word “people” may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]


The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to “liberty and justice for all.” Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People’s rights vs Citizens’ rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution’s first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONSGovernment. ….the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ….In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, “the government objects to the witness.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

Note: Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.

EXAMPLE
Democratic Form of Government: An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual’s household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.

The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, “It is for the common good!” The other side rebuttals, “This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!” Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority is ignored. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, every individual must reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has mandatory powers in a democracy. Those who wish to go against the collective (whole body politic) will be punished accordingly. The minority has neither voice nor rights to refuse to accept the dictatorial majority. Everything is mandatory in a democracy. This brings dictatorship and lividity to the realm.

Republican Form of Government: An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual’s household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.

The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, “It is for the common good!” The other side rebuttals, “This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!” Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority may have lost, but not all is gone. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, it is advisory that every individual reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has advisory powers in a republic. Bearing in mind that each individual is equally sovereign in a republic, he is free to reject the majority. He may choose to follow the majority and subject himself to the rule, or he may choose not to follow the majority and not subject himself to the rule. The minority has a voice and rights to refuse to accept the majority. Everything is advisory in a republic. This brings liberty and peace to the realm.

COMMENTSNotice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government’s only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.

The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people —> government agencies —> and citizens.

The people did “ordain and establish this Constitution,” not for themselves, but “for the United States of America.” In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the “Great Experiment in self government.” The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, “Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?”

The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.

Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).

There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.” The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.

It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.

Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.* Will you help to preserve minority rights by fulfilling the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance to support the Republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the Republic and a democracy?

Anything less than intolerance of Islam is cowardice and treason

Infidel Manifesto

We do not vandalize. We do not engage in hate speech. We have respect for the law. We do not harm our fellow citizens. We are slow to anger and when we finally get angry, we express that anger in a civilized way. UNDER THAT BANNER, I WILL STATE THE FOLLOWING:

Promoter of Islam, I do not tolerate you. Your feigned or willful ignorance, about Islam, is no longer an excuse. I hold you personally accountable.

I am offended by you. I cannot and will not tolerate a person, who advances an ideology, which teaches the inferiority of women, the killing and hatred of Jews, the execution of homosexuals, the silencing of free speech, forced amputations, the stoning of rape victims, genital mutilation, and the violent overthrow of all non-Islamic governments and civilizations.

Islam is Nazism with a god. And I cannot and will not “coexist” with Nazis. I will not patronize your places of business. I will not hire you. I will not buy your products. I will not support politicians who support you. I will not be your friend. And if I am your neighbor, I will always be suspicious of you and cautious. I want you to feel so uncomfortable in my free country, in my civilized country, that you renounce your allegiance to this savage and fascist ideology or leave.

ISLAM IS THE ENEMY of free speech, of human rights and of Liberty. If you follow Islam, you are my enemy. I encourage you now to leave Islam and take your place among the civilized people of this world. But if you insist on remaining loyal to the brutal savagery of Islam, your enemies will grow faster than can be contained, by an Islamic lobbyist group or the media or any government agency. This is a zero sum game and the Civilized World will win.

ISLAM HAS BEEN AT WAR FOR 1,400 YEARS with freedom and all that is good. But my head is no longer hidden in the sand. I am at war with you. All people who value human rights, freedom and Liberty should be at war with you. And they will be soon enough, because the enemy of Islam is information and we are spreading information faster than you can keep up with. There is no way to put this genie back in the bottle now. The information age will be the death of Islam.

Your 1,400 year reign of terror is coming to an end. And you, promoter of Islam, are on the wrong side of history.
It is time for all civilized people to find the moral clarity and the courage to GET ANGRY and to BECOME INTOLERANT.
You have the ability to do this in a civilized way.

We must not become like the savages whom we oppose – otherwise they win.

Islam is Nazism with a god. Islam must be stopped. When you support those who advance Islam, you support an ideology that promotes genocide against the unbeliever – as clearly outlined in the Quran.

THE TIME HAS COME TO BOYCOTT THOSE WHO ADVANCE ISLAM. PROMOTER OF ISLAM, I PERSONALLY HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE FOR SUPPORTING THIS FASCIST IDEOLOGY.

Tolerance is overrated. If you promote the Quran, you are the enemy of freedom. And you are my enemy. And any Infidel reading this should know that Islam is your enemy too.

Anything less than intolerance – is cowardice and treason. Intolerance, for those who promote Islam is your moral and patriotic duty – and it is your right.

The enemy of Islam is information. Spread this information. Spread it far. Spread it wide – and spread it like Napalm. The Information Age will be the death of Islam.

Those who love Liberty must rise up in a spirit of intolerance and remove from our free society those who wish to promote Islam. Because the future and Islam simply cannot coexist. For Liberty to remain alive, Islam must die.

– Eric Allen Bell

~ PLEASE SHARE ~

http://www.EricAllenBell.com