Outrageous comments by the oafs warped DUD and ab ass led me

The Muslim Mission

In Washington, DC, there is a group known as As-Sabiqun, and it's leader is Imam Abdul Alim Musa.
His plans and goals are those of most Muslims living both here in the US and in Europe. Among the many plans of action they have, here are a few resolutions from their charter:

"We resolve to shape the ideas, beliefs, and moral viewpoints of the people into an Islamic mold. Toward this end we will, insha'Allah, develop the comprehensive educational system that is necessary to inform, inspire, and direct the society toward Islamic revolution (or evolution)."




"We resolve to utilize all the tools of Islam to develop an analysis and plan of action to totally and completely obliterate the hold of jahiliyyah and enable Islam to take complete control of our lives,
and ultimately, the lives of all human beings on Earth."

You can read the full Resolution on their website here, but please note the last sentence that I listed above - "and enable Islam to take control of...the lives of all human beings on Earth". This is
not an opinion shared by a "lone radical", but is the mainstream view of Muslims around the world.
The word "Islam" means submission, and Muslims see their that their mission is to make you submit
to Islam and Allah.

The Third Jihad

There is an excellent movie called "The Third Jihad" from Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim who is fighting
against the radical element, and it exposes the plan of radical Muslims who desire to take over the world. The movie opens with a discalimer that tells the viewer that "this is not a film about Islam, it
is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are "radical". And that's a true statement, if you recall I mentioned it at the start of this lesson. But
again, keep in mind the numbers. If only 1% of Muslims worldwide are "radical", then that is about 10,300,000 radical Muslim terrorist running around loose.(Take the koran seriously and youare radical)

Remember, in Nazi Germany, not all of the German people were actual Nazis, far from it. Most
Germans were just normal people, going about their daily lives, trying to get by. Only a fairly "small percentage" were the evil Nazis, killling over 11,000,000 Jews and non-Jews alike in gas showers and ovens. But the "small percentage" soon overtook the main population who refused to speak out against the leadership, and thus in effect made all of Germany Nazis. The same thing is happening today with the Muslims. Are all Muslims in favor of Jihad? No, they are not... but the actions and goals of the "smaller percentage" are dominating all of Muslim thought and theology around the world. And the more that anti-Jihad Muslims refuse to get involved and refuse to speak against terrorism, the further that they will cede control of their religion, Islam, to the ever-growing "radical" element."

If I told you that the soda I just handed you contained 99% pure cola refreshment, and only contained "1% cyanide", how much of that soda could you comfortably drink? Could you somehow drink around the poison? No, you could not, the poison would seep into the the entire drink and render it as undrinkable.

The reason why they say that "a few bad apples spoils the whole bunch" is because the "good apples" will rot as long as they stay in the barrel with the rotten apples. And so it is with the state
of Islam today. Until and unless non-violent, anti-Jihadi Muslims take a stand themelves against the terrorists, then all will have become terrorists, either by commission or ommission. People who watched a crime being committed and do nothing to stop it are usually called "accomplices", even though they did not actively take part in the crime themselves.

NN's GOP undercard debate, Rick Santorum offered up a partial defense of Donald Trump's comments about halting Muslim immigration, which only moments before Lindsey Graham had apologized for. Santorum stated that Trump has a legitimate point and added to it:

"He brings up a legitimate issue. The fact of the matter is not all Muslims are jihadists and no one, including I suspect Donald Trump, would say that. But the reality is, all jihadists are Muslims. That's a reality. And we have to stop worrying about offending some people and start defending all Americans. Because we're not, right now. "

Republican frontrunner Donald J. Trump has sometimes struggled on the GOP debate stage. On Tuesday night, he owned it.

Trump made few mistakes, despite efforts by the moderators and the other candidates to knock him out of the pole position. While Sens. 

He may not always have had the “right” answer, but he sounded more fluent with his own positions.

At one stage, he even felt confident enough to tangle with members of the audience–supporters, it seemed, of 

“I just can’t imagine somebody booing. These are people that want to kill us, folks, and you’re objecting to us infiltrating their conversations? I don’t think so.” (Such a straight forward answer not backing down to  a moments sillyness by the crowd but leading through intellect and wisdom)

Perhaps Trump’s rally on Monday evening was a useful warmup. There, Trump sparred jovially with left-wing hecklers and mocked the media for covering them.

Perhaps, too, grim events have conspired to affirm Trump’s “bombastic” (Carly Fiorina’s word) approach to national security: as he pointed out, both the Paris and San Bernardino terror attacks have happened since the last GOP debate.

Perhaps Trump simply knows he is sitting on a big lead.

Regardless, Trump won on Tuesday night–at times by fighting hard, at times by letting the stragglers squabble.

There were few personal attacks, no misstatements of his own policies. He faced repeated (and repetitive) attacks from Jeb Bush–often instigated by the moderators, as Trump pointed out–and simply pointed to his poll numbers. (Jeb is a damp squib)

He took a pass on Hugh Hewitt’s question about the nuclear triad. His opponents will remember. No one else will.

The CNN moderators pressed Trump early on his recent proposal to stop Muslims from immigrating or visiting the U.S. His answer was simple and stark: “We are not talking about isolation. We’re talking about security. We’re not talking about religion. We’re talking about security.”

No one–least of all Bush–laid a glove on him after that.

The vaunted Trump-vs.-Cruz fight failed to materialize. Cruz allowed himself to become entangled in arguments over foreign policy between the interventionist Rubio and the reticent Paul, who blasted Rubio on immigration.

Dr. Ben Carson and Fiorina had moments, and the other two governors onstage sounded clear themes–New Jersey’s Chris Christie attacking Washington, and Ohio’s John Kasich calling for less bickering.

But it was Trump’s night.

When Hewitt asked Trump to re-affirm his commitment to staying within the Republican Party, Trump said he would do so, prompting Hewitt himself to applaud.

“I feel honored to be the frontrunner,” Trump explained.

After winning the last debate of 2015, Trump is not just the frontrunner. He is the favorite to win the nomination.

hillary clink will be taken apart. The establishment will go into meltdown and try every dirty trick in the book - much like ou warped DUD and ab ass.

GREENVILLE, South Carolina — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97%smashed Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79%, one of his 2016 GOP presidential rivals, for breaking his promise to the voters who elected him that he would not support amnesty for illegal aliens. (Bye bye rubio!!)

The aggressive comments from Cruz about came during the last part of his lengthy exclusive interview with Breitbart News in his Greenville campaign office here last Monday.

They represent one of the most unreported stories in the 2016 presidential cycle: Rubio’s work on not just the “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill, but now the recently discovered unlimited mass Muslim-migration provisions in his so-called “I-Squared” bill recently uncovered by a Breitbart News investigation from reporter Julia Hahn.

“Border security is national security,” Cruz told Breitbart News in the interview when asked what separates him and Rubio when it comes to national security. “No candidate who has advocated amnesty, who has advocated leaving our border unsecured, who has advocated giving President [Barack] Obama the ability to bring in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees with no background checks can plausibly claim to be an effective leader on national security,” he said.

“An unsecured border and millions coming into this country illegally with the promise of amnesty—with no background checks whatsoever—is fundamentally inconsistent with keeping America safe,” he said. “Each of us in public office makes a choice, makes a choice of where you stand.” (EXACTLY SO)

It remains to be seen if CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, the moderator of Tuesday night’s debate in Las Vegas, will ask Rubio about his Gang of Eight amnesty bill.

Up until this time, not one debate moderator–from The Fox News Channel to CNN to CNBC to the Fox Business Channel–has asked Rubio about his only legislative accomplishment other than being the 60th vote for Obamatrade’s Trade Promotion Authority.

But Cruz, in this interview, noted that Rubio’s “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill—which divided the two presidential candidates back in 2013—was something Ronald Reagan, the former president of the United States, would have called a “time for choosing.”

“In 2013, the battle of the Gang of Eight was as Reagan would say a ‘time for choosing’ where every member of Congress had the ability to decide ‘who am I and what are my core principles?’” Cruz told Breitbart News. He continued:

A great many of us, including me and including Sen. Rubio, had promised the men and women who elected us that if you sent us to the Senate we would fight tooth and nail against amnesty. In 2013, I made the decision to honor that promise. Sen. Rubio made a different decision. He chose to stand with Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer and the establishment Republicans and push the most massive amnesty program in the history of our country—push legislation that would not secure the border, push legislation that would grant citizenship to over 12 million people here illegally, push legislation that would give President Obama a blank check for admitting Middle Eastern refugees with no background checks. I made a very different decision. I made a decision to stand with 

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)80%, with Rep. Steve King (R-IA)79% and with the American people against amnesty, against leaving our borders unsecured and against driving down the wages for millions of working men and women who have been trapped in economic stagnation for two decades now. That is one major divide.

Cruz is correct in his criticism that Rubio violated the promise he made to Floridians. In fact, back when he was running for Senate in 2010, he explicitly stated multiple times he wouldn’t back an amnesty.

“In fact, I’m strongly against amnesty… So I am not and I will never support –  never have and never will support — any effort to grant blanket, legalization amnesty to folks who have entered or stayed in this country illegally,” Rubio said in one such instance in the 2010 election against former Gov. Charlie Crist, who also flip-flopped on immigration.

Cruz added, when asked later in the interview with Breitbart News, that Rubio’s views on immigration and support for open borders are outside the mainstream views across the United States.

Rubio, who still supports everything that was in his amnesty bill with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)—the future Democratic leader of the U.S. Senate—backs massive increases in immigration levels to the United States, and still backs citizenship for illegal aliens.

Cruz, meanwhile, doesn’t back amnesty for illegal aliens—he refuses to have any establishment media created debate about what to do with illegal aliens until the border is finally secured, the immigration laws of the nation are enforced and the legal immigration system is back under control—and wants to look out for the average American citizen rather than foreigners when it comes to immigration policy and other policy matters like trade, traditional marriage and more.

“It is not a question of moderation. It is a question of whether you stand with the Washington elites or the working men and women of America,” OU WAPRED STANDS FOR THE ELITES AS DOES AB ASS AND BOTH WANT AS MANY JIHADISTS IN THE COUNTRYAS POSSIBLE) Cruz said. He continued:

So on the question of amnesty, Sen. Rubio stands with the Washington elites—I stand with the working men and women of America. On TPA and TPP, Sen. Rubio stands with the Washington elites—I stand with the working men and women of America. On marriage—and deeming the Supreme Court’s decision, as Sen. Rubio put it, ‘the law of the land,’—Sen. Rubio stands with the Washington elites and I stand with the men and women of America. I understand that five unelected lawyers have no authority whatsoever to tear down the marriage laws of the United States.

Cruz concluded by making the point that nominating a big government liberal Republican like Rubio is a surefire way for Republicans to lose general elections—just like they did with Bob Dole in 1996, 

“The Washington elites through the mouthpiece of the mainstream media that the only way to win the general election is to embrace the big money policies of Washington. We have tried that recipe,” Cruz said.

We tried it with Bob Dole, with John McCain, with Mitt Romney. And every time we follow that policy prescription, millions of working men and women stay home and we lose. The only way to beat Hillary Clinton is to run a populist campaign of working men and women who want to believe again in the promise of America and to run it against the bipartisan corruption of Washington that Hillary embodies.

“If we nominate a candidate who has stood with the Washington elites against the working men and women of America, we will not be able to win the general election,” Cruz said.

WELL SAID CRUZ!!!!

Trump for President and Cruz for Vice President! Wahta combo. This ticket will sweep poor wee hillary klink right into jail!

While luvvies such as Sherlock star Benedict Cumberbatch queue up to condemn David Cameron for not allowing more migrants into Britain, one major entertainment figure has bravely voiced an alternative view.

Art Garfunkel, who was one of the distinctive voices of the Sixties as part of the pop duo Simon & Garfunkel, has highlighted how an influx of Muslims from war-torn countries including Syria could change the nature of Europe for ever.

‘We are at a very interesting stage right now, where people are escaping from horrendous situations all over the world,’ the 73-year-old singer tells me. 

'There was a book I read recently, called Reflections Of The Revolution In Europe, where the author wants you to say: “Look at the shopkeepers, look at the dry cleaners, and it’s all turning Islamic.”

‘He is saying: “Look, I’m not going to make any judgments about this, but I want you Europeans to see that the changing face of Britain, of Germany and all over Europe is happening. It’s becoming much more Muslim. These are the facts.” ’

The 2009 book, by Christopher Caldwell, argues that mass immigration by Muslims is altering the culture of Europe because of their reluctance to join the culture of their new homelands. He claims Muslims do not so much enhance European culture as supplant it, and are ‘patiently conquering Europe’s cities, street by street’.

Caldwell says it’s ‘chilling’ that Europeans can’t have an open debate about the issue because any criticism of Islam is branded Islamophobic. He predicts that Britain is most susceptible to violence and political extremism.

The Bridge Over Troubled Water singer recently completed an epic walk around Europe, so feels he understands the migrants who make dangerous journeys in search of a better life.

‘The amount of movement and change is extraordinary,’ says Art, who performs at the Albert Hall tonight. ‘Taking those long walks around Europe, I get down into it — I’m engaged.’

I bet he is not the only one noticing the change!