Sharia Law: Clear And Present Danger, U.S. Government Stockpiling Emergency Medical Supplies As Fears Escalate, Feds Ignored Islamic Threat While Focused On 'Right-Wing Radicals'

American Muslims are not the enemy, but Sharia Law is a Clear and Present Danger to America

In his article, It’s the ideology, Stupid, Australia’s Warner MacKenzie writes, “The West’s propensity for ignorance is nothing short of astounding … Never before have books on the subject of Islamic history and terrorism been so prolific, yet the same old opinions on the causes of Islamic violence remain as popular, uniformed and widespread as ever.”

With the recent Jihadist massacre in San Bernardino by domestic Islamic terrorists, followed by Presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proposal to put a moratorium on Islamic Immigration “until we find out what the hell is going on”, the debate about Islam in America has become heated. Despite condemnation from the mainstream media, Democratic leaders, as well as many in the Republican Party establishment, Trump’s poll number rose substantially in the days following his proposal.

First, too many Americans have not taken the time to learn about Sharia law, and distinguish the political ideology of Sharia law from a personal belief in God. This is surprising, considering we have been at war with those seeking to further Sharia law for decades. 

We’ve had plenty of time to learn in the decade and a half since the 9/11 attacks. Unfortunately, Americans have listened to both Muslim apologists and many American political leaders claiming that Sharia law is no different than U.S. law. The refusal to understand the distinction between a competing political ideology and religion has become dangerous. For those who can handle the truth: Sharia law is a political threat which could spell the doom of our constitutional republic and the end of Western civilization.

Islamic Sharia law includes a clear legal double standard for non-Muslims, violating our notions of equal protection and due process. Under Sharia, Muslims cannot change their religion. Other religions cannot proselytize Muslims. From the respected Hadiths, or sayings of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed, he told his followers (Bukhari): “If a Muslim changes religion, kill him.” This is backed up by similar mandates in the Qur’an.

Therefore, in most Islamic countries it is illegal (up to the death penalty in nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran and others) for a Muslim to change religion or to proselytize.

Islamic Scholar Brigitte Gabriel described the legal treatment of Christians and Jews under traditional Sharia Law in her book, They Must Be Stopped: “Christians and Jews were made to pay the jizyah (tax only paid by non-Muslims) at humiliating public ceremonies. … Christians and Jews were forbidden to construct new churches, temples or synagogues. They were also forbidden from ringing their church bells or blowing the shofar to begin services, just as they are forbidden today in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Dhimmi” (non-Muslims) were forced to wear distinctive clothing, including a yellow badge for Jews, which Hitler copied centuries later.”  

The letter of Sharia law is what we see in practice within the Islamic State (aka ISIS or Daesh), and why we see the horrific images of death and mutilation emanating under true Shariah law in Iraq and Syria.

The San Bernardino killers pledged allegiance to ISIS, and sought to bring Sharia law to the U.S. That is what is meant by “radical Islam” as distinguished from Muslims who only desire a personal belief in God.

In addition to the unequal treatment of non-Muslims, women face similar unequal treatment under Sharia law. For example, the Islamic Prophet Mohammed also is quoted as saying (Bukhari): “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind… I looked at hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants are women.’” Under traditional Sharia law, a woman’s testimony in court is only half that of a man.

Sharia law is incompatible with the U.S. constitution. Therefore, those seeking to further Sharia are a “political” threat we should not tolerate. We have every moral and legal right to prevent those holding this ideology from entering the U.S. as immigrants. In 1952, a critical time during the Cold War against the ideology of communism, Congress passed the Immigration and Naturalization Act, specifying that those seeking citizenship in the U.S. must be “attached to the principles of the Constitution.” Ensuring we allow no immigrants who desire to further Sharia law is fair, and allows for religious freedom by distinguishing faith in God from a political ideology. 

The war against radical Islam is worldwide and the goal of our enemy is establishment of Sharia law throughout the world. Americans need not give into discrimination against those who believe in their understanding of God as a personal matter. Let’s keep our religious freedom, but let’s also determine to keep Sharia law out of America.  

DHS Monitors Social Media Accounts But Not Visa Applicants

The Department of Homeland Security has operated a program to monitor ordinary Americans’ social media discussions about the agency’s policy directives, even though it had in place another policy prohibiting agents from checking visa applicants’ social media accounts for possible signs of terrorist leanings.

The agency’s policy against vetting visa applicants was revealed on Monday by John Cohen, a former DHS under-secretary for intelligence and analysis.

Now an intelligence analyst at ABC News, Cohen says that last year, DHS Sec. Jeh Johnson resisted changing the agency’s policy against viewing visa applicants’ social media accounts as part of the screening process to let them into the U.S.

Having such a policy in place may have prevented San Bernardino terrorist Tashfeen Malik from entering the country on a fiancee visa last year, Cohen asserted.

Malik, a Pakistani citizen, reportedly posted pro-jihad messages on her Facebook account while living overseas. But the posts were not discovered even though Malik underwent three separate screening procedures before being granted her green card.

Cohen blamed the failure to fully screen visa applicants like Malik on DHS’ fear of being accused of trampling immigrants’ rights.

Compare that hands-off policy to one that the agency has approved for monitoring open source social media activity of regular Americans.

In its “National Operations Center Media Monitoring Capability Desktop Reference Binder,” published in 2011, DHS encouraged agents to compile reports based upon a list of items of interest (IOI) which included discussions on sites like Twitter and Facebook about “policy directives, debates and implementations related to DHS.”

Ginger McCall, whose group, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, obtained the manual through a Freedom of Information Act request, told The New York Times in 2012 said that DHS was essentially monitoring the Internet “for criticism of the government.”

She argued that the activity amounted to a “suspicionless, overbroad monitoring” that “quells legitimate First Amendment activity and exceeds the agency’s legal authority.”

US government stockpiling emergency medical supplies as fears of global nuclear war escalate

Wars and rumors of wars have prompted the federal occupying powers of the United States of America to begin doing what these rapacious entities have repeatedly commanded everyday citizens not to do: they're now stockpiling food, medicine and other emergency supplies in one massive, nuclear anticipatory horde to maintain continuity in the event of a nuclear holocaust.

A recent announcement from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the agency responsible for groping and molesting you and your grandmother as you travel through U.S. airports, says it needs to add four additional preparedness tools to the "Strategic National Stockpile," each dealing with having to treat severe burns on human bodies in a post-nuclear disaster event.

Included among these four products is Silverlon, a silver-impregnated nylon bandage that will be used to treat first- and second-degree thermal burns. The other three products will be in the same vein, though apparently these are currently "being developed," and clinical studies are underway to gain their approval through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

In addition to the Silverlon bandage, the HHS also plans to procure:

• NexoBrid, a topical gel to be manufactured by the Israeli-based MediWound company. This pineapple-based enzyme solution will quickly dissolve damaged or dead skin tissue to create a clean wound-bed for grafting in new skin.

• StrataGraft, a cell-based skin substitute to be manufactured by Wisconsin-based Stratatech Corporation. This product will take the place of actual human skin when surgically implanting new skin over burned skin.

• ReCell, a topical spray to be developed by California-based Avita medical Americas, LLC. This product will help enhance skin growth, allowing burn surgeons to use less donor skin in repairing skin burns.

As you can see, the federal government is actively investing tens of millions of dollars in novel medical products, all of which are designed to treat major skin burns resulting from a nuclear disaster. What do the powers that be know that the rest of us don't?

There's clearly something sinister at work here with all these urgent purchases of medical supplies, not to mention all that ammunition that the DHS bought up back in 2012. If, at this point, you still can't see the writing on the wall, I'm afraid it willl be too late by the time you do.

The federal government has also been purchasing massive stocks of "emergency" vaccines as well, according to CNSNews.com. BARDA, the HHS entity responsible for creating the government's emergency stockpile, has been buying up jabs by the tens of millions, as well as other emergency supplies for treating anthrax, smallpox and botulism.

"Welcome to the New World Order, where deceit and corruption are the order of the day," writes one commenter on CNSNews.com about the brewing calamity taking place before our very eyes.

"[The government uses] racism, terrorism, fascism and many other 'isms' to strip us of our constitutional protections and keep us distracted from seeing the truth ... All these things are simply Biblical prophecy coming to pass and are merely the beginning of sorrows," states Prophecy.news.

Feds Ignored Islamic Terror Threat Before San Bernardino to Focus on ‘Right-Wing Radicals’

The federal government deliberately downplayed the threat posed by Islamic terrorism immediately before the recent spate of Islamist terror attacks, ignoring Muslim extremists in favor of hyping the threat posed by radical right-wingers.

In the years leading up to the Boston bombings, the Garland shooting, the Chattanooga attack and the San Bernardino massacre, the FBI, Homeland Security and the Obama White House emphasized the narrative that white supremacists and anti-government Americans were of more concern than Muslim jihadists.

In a similar vein, the FBI’s August 2014 national terror threat assessment list completely omitted Islamic terrorists, instead focusing on sovereign citizens and the militia movement.

The University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) also said that sovereign citizens were the “top concern of law enforcement.”

In 2012 that same department released a study which characterized Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

The study, which was funded by the DHS to the tune of $12 million dollars, largely ignored Islamic extremism and instead focused on Americans who hold beliefs shared by the vast majority of conservatives and libertarians and put them in the context of radical extremism.

In August last year, over 12 months after the Boston bombings, the Department of Homeland Security listed sovereign citizens as a more deadly potential terror threat than Islamic extremists, placing sovereign citizens number one on the list despite the fact that individuals who identify as such have only been involved in minor and sporadic attacks.

Articles: Muslims! Don't Become the Little Darlings of the Liberals!


The Unexpected Explanation How "That Ford Truck" Ended Up In ISIS Hands | Zero Hedge