The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: rangerrebew on November 14, 2018, 03:16:16 pm
-
New Muslim Democratic Congresswoman Wants Israel Wiped Off the Map
Steven Ahle November 11, 2018
Rashida Tlaib, a Palestinian-American who was just elected to Congress to represent Michigan’s 13th District is a fervent anti-Semite, who supports the one-state solution by wiping Israel off the map and giving the country to Palestinians.
At her victory party, there was no American flag at all and she wrapped herself up in the Palestinian flag.
She has said that she plans on wearing the traditional clothing of the Palestinians and will be sworn in with a Koran. She is close friends with Linda Sansour, who supports terrorism and advocates for Sharia Law while at the same time billing herself as a feminist. She also fought to keep Rasmea Odeh from being deported just because she killed 2 Jewish American citizens with a bomb in a terror attack. Tlaib called Trump heartless for deporting the convicted terrorist.
https://steadfastandloyal.com/news-for-you/new-democratic-congresswoman-wants-wiped-off-the-map/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=subscriber_id:1431720&utm_campaign=Possible%20Confirmation%20That%20Hillary%20Clinton%20WILL%20Run%20Again%20in%202020
-
Surprising no one.
-
If we don't do something Permanent about keeping these troglodytes out of here we're gonna look like Sweden.
-
To Whose Benefit wrote:
"If we don't do something Permanent about keeping these troglodytes out of here we're gonna look like Sweden."
Fine. Bravo.
And now I'm gonna ask you to put your money where your mouth is.
Would you support changing this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
To this?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The followers of muhammed are specifically excluded and denied the protections of this amendment along with any and all other Constitutional protections. Neither the United States nor the Several States will offer such protections or liberties to the followers of muhammed."
(and yes, I would.)
-
To Whose Benefit wrote:
"If we don't do something Permanent about keeping these troglodytes out of here we're gonna look like Sweden."
Fine. Bravo.
And now I'm gonna ask you to put your money where your mouth is.
Would you support changing this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
To this?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The followers of muhammed are specifically excluded and denied the protections of this amendment along with any and all other Constitutional protections. Neither the United States nor the Several States will offer such protections or liberties to the followers of muhammed."
(and yes, I would.)
...and with Muslims in office and a DEM majority .... we're going to get that amendment changed how?
-
If we don't do something Permanent about keeping these troglodytes out of here we're gonna look like Sweden.
America?? Where is she going?? What are we going to do without her? :patriot: 8888crybaby
-
To Whose Benefit wrote:
"If we don't do something Permanent about keeping these troglodytes out of here we're gonna look like Sweden."
Fine. Bravo.
And now I'm gonna ask you to put your money where your mouth is.
Would you support changing this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
To this?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The followers of muhammed are specifically excluded and denied the protections of this amendment along with any and all other Constitutional protections. Neither the United States nor the Several States will offer such protections or liberties to the followers of muhammed."
(and yes, I would.)
The Founding Dads were referring to the various sects/denominations of Christianity and Judaism.
-
Giving Israel to the so called 'Palestinians'(which is a fictitious made-up nationality) would never work. As soon as the Arabs in Israel gained control, they would immediately be attacked by everyone else in the neighborhood, especially by Turkey, Iran, and others. There never can be a 'Palestinian State'. The other Islamic nations would seize it from them immediately, knowing that the Palestinians are no match for their forces. This idea would cause the biggest war ever seen in the Middle East, as all the Islamic nations on Earth converge in Israel and start fighting each other for control. The so called 'Palestinians' would wind up with nothing when the smoke clears, and would likely be serfs to whichever Islamic power gains control.
-
The Founding Dads were referring to the various sects/denominations of Christianity and Judaism.
Yes, they were. Muslims were causing trouble on the seas off Africa in the Founders' time. They had nothing to do with the founding of this country and their "religion"/political system is incompatible with the Constitution.
-
Yes, they were. Muslims were causing trouble on the seas off Africa in the Founders' time. They had nothing to do with the founding of this country and their "religion"/political system is incompatible with the Constitution.
The 'Dads' wouldn't have countenanced female genital mutilation as a 'Religious Freedom'
Islam is NOT a protected Right under the 1st and 4th Amendments in particular.
Then we got the Civil War Amendments guaranteeing Equal Protection of The Laws.
How the hell does anyone reconcile that with separate enclaves under Sharia? Where thieves have a hand cut off in the public square?
-
To Whose Benefit wrote:
"If we don't do something Permanent about keeping these troglodytes out of here we're gonna look like Sweden."
Fine. Bravo.
And now I'm gonna ask you to put your money where your mouth is.
Would you support changing this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
To this?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The followers of muhammed are specifically excluded and denied the protections of this amendment along with any and all other Constitutional protections. Neither the United States nor the Several States will offer such protections or liberties to the followers of muhammed."
(and yes, I would.)
Islam is a Theocratic movement (Rule by religious belief) and at complete odds with our constitution.
(It violates the 'Establishment Clause ' of the 1st amendment)