Views: 695

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Halting Muslims for entering this country is not racism because Islam (Muslim) is not a race.

Q: Is Halting Muslims from U.S. Entry Racist?

A: Nope!

This  Man is right on 100% their is no such thing as a moderate Muslim or a Islamic they all want and believe the same thing !!! they just come at it different ways same goal !!!!!

Their is no such thing as a moderate Muslim-

Hank you are dead bang right on !  great pic. what do you truly think he was thinking at this moment? !.

 Banning Muslims does NOT constitute being RASCIST !!!! Being RASCIST is usually applied to those who are hateful of people of another color.  

By banning ALL MUSLIMS, is not unto itself a WRONG THING, it s a NECESSARY action taken against SOME MUSLIMS who are in fact MUSLIM TERRORISTS and those who are not. Since NO TERRORIST MUSLIMS will admit to being a TERRORIST it has to be assuumed they are. So until this situation is worked out that will make our NATION SAFE from MUSLIMS who are TERRORISTS, unfortunately ALL MUSLIMS must be considered TERRORISTS and refused entry. Better that SOME MUSLIMS BE DISAPPOINTED, than MANY AMERICAN CITIZENS might be MURDERED at the hands of MUSLIM TERRORISTS in our own COUNTRY !!!! It's as simple as that !!!! 

The Koran and its proponents are incompatible... with our Constitutional Republic and should not be permitted to immigrate... Islam is fundamentally a seditionist theology... it has to be their way or the highway. 

Deception and dissimilation go hand in hand with Islam's desire to expand its influence... until it becomes the supreme power in the Earth.  Western Cultures are simply not ideologically capable or prepared to deal with Islam as equal partners in any negotiation...  Islam sees us as infidels and tools of the great Satan... not as neighbors or responsible partners working for world peace. 

Western Cultures are tolerant of opposing views ... while Islam goes beyond the realm of simple opposition, crossing the line, their ideology demands the total destruction or conversion of non-believers tooIslam. Tolerance for others in Islam is temporary, a tool to confuse their enemies, as they work to achieve world dominance and the annihilation of all opposing religions, cultures, and governments.

UK Schools To Begin Teaching ‘If You’re White, You’re Racist’

halting muslims or anyone is not racist we are supposed to be sovereign we do not have to let in anyone

Islam requires submission in all things:

government: laws, judgements, punishments
marriage: she has no rights and is property
children: subject to use as jihadis, propagandized
culture: as islam is islam does: rape of infidels is ok. rape of babies is ok. rape of boys and girls is ok. Stoning is ok. Beheading is ok. Lying is compelled.
Jews: kill them
Infidels: convert, own, tax or die

Just what we want and need here in America.




Reporter Kicked Out Of Michelle Obama
Conference For Violating ‘Black Girl Code’

The Black Entertainment Television channel recently hosted a conference in south Florida for black women known as “Leading Women Defined,” which featured a casual conversation between former first lady Michelle Obama and former senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

But according to the New York Post’s Page Six, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who was in attendance was booted from the remainder of the conference after she wrote an article about some of the comments Obama had made during the discussion.

Robin Givhan, a fashion critic and staff writer for The Washington Post, documented the highlights of the friendly chat between Obama and Jarrett.

Some of the highlights of the conversation included the former first lady’s thoughts on President Donald Trump’s inauguration as the Obamas prepared to leave the White House, the role she played during the 2008 election, her difficulty settling in as “the spouse” to the president, how she described her White House garden as a “subversive act” to garner trust with the public and her upcoming memoir. Of course Givhan also wrote about what Obama was wearing … after all, she is a fashion critic.

But following the publication of the article, according to Page Six, BET demanded Givhan leave the conference early amid claims that she had violated a “sacred space” by publishing the content of the conversation.

They also canceled a panel discussion that Givhan initially had been asked to moderate.

However, Page Six noted that BET’s claim that Obama’s discussion was “private” and not intended to be shared with anyone else outside the small gathering in attendance didn’t hold up to scrutiny given the fact that BET itself posted clips from the discussion on its site.

Furthermore, Jarrett also posted those clips on social media and told everyone to “tune in” to the network so they could hear what Obama had to say.

Shortly thereafter, the dispute descended into a sharp back-and-forth on social media between Givhan and others who were irked at what she had done, as can be seen on Givhan’s Twitter feed.

Several of her critics asserted that the conversation had been “off-the-record” — an assertion Givhan flatly denied — and one user claimed the reporter had “violated a sacred trust” between black women.

Another said what she had done was a “complete violation of journalistic ethics and Black girl code, all at once,” while still another asserted through a hashtag that Givhan was “#notoneofus,” as if she were being banished from the exclusive realm of accepted professional black women.

For their part, a BET representative told Page Six that Givhan had been “invited as a guest (not working press) to moderate a fashion panel,” and noted that her travel and lodging expenses had been paid for by the network.

“She was made aware that it was an intimate conversation in a sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship,” the rep added.

Neither Givhan nor representatives for Obama responded to requests for comment on the report from Page Six.

If the WaPo reporter really was instructed ahead of time that the conversation between Obama and Jarrett was “off the record” and a private affair, but published anyway, then BET was justified in booting her from the remainder of the conference — though the mean-spirited commentary she received on social media still crossed the line.

But if Givhan received no prior warning on the matter — and given the fact that BET itself published the conversation later — then this is just a major display of hypocrisy and unnecessary infighting.

What do you think?


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service