The worst choice for US women happens to be a woman

Women against women's equality

Here's an other Saudi raised muslim, BBC's sharia presenter Mishal Husain, disguised as a Brit with "British values"* (or is she perhaps an apostate?!) seems to think that too few Jews have been murdered by muslim terrorists. Judge for yourself!

* Incl. not fasting during Ramadan but instead drinking alcohol etc.

These US women fought in vain against men and women who denied them full equality - as is customary in the civilized world after the 1948 Human Rights declaration against fascist segregation of people because of their sex etc.

No, it's not about 5-10% US muslims, NOI supporters, Christian and Jewish fundamentalists etc - it's about the threat it constitutes against US girls/women!
The equality amendment is still waiting to be passed. And Hillary seems to favor its very opposite, i.e. sharia islam.

Klevius wrote: There seems to be an almost total lack of sociologists challenging sex segregation. A possible exception is Pierre Bourdieu's cautious and defensive Masculine Domination which, by the way, may well be his thinnest book. Already the title seems to try avoiding a closer look on feminine domination (of females).

Muslim born (apostate?) and raised by his muslim adoptive father, Barrakeh Hussain Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever)  was (together with Michelle Obama) for some 20 years an eager admirer of one of US worst racist hate preachers. Hillary Clinton has for an equal long period befriended her personal aide, the Saudi raised muslim Huma Abedin with extremely suspicious connections.

Should a US president bee aided by Human Rights or Human Rights violating sharia?

M.G. Oprea: Last week, the Southern Poverty Law Center released a list of 15 anti-Muslim extremists, including writers, intellectuals, and activists. This “Field Guide” is meant to help journalists tell the “good guys” from the “bad guys” by providing them with ammunition against outspoken critics of Islam.

The people on this list are lambasted for talking about violence in Islam, unequal treatment of women, the increasing number of Islamist advisors to our government—including Muslim Brotherhood-backed groups like the Islamic Society of North America and the Center for American-Islamic Relations—and the growing treatment of Islam as a protected class, mostly at the behest of the aforementioned Islamist groups.

This guide called what these writers and thinkers produce “propaganda” that’s “baseless” and “exploitative” of terrorist attacks. It accuses them of “demoniz[ing] the entire Islamic faith” and “inspiring hate-based violence.” Importantly, the SPLC used the term “extremist” to describe the people on their list (that’s left-speak for “terrorist”).

One of the individuals they profiled is author and women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who works to end the cruel practice of female genital mutilation in the Muslim world. She’s also known for co-producing a short film on women’s rights with Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh. He was brutally beheaded by a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim, who also threatened Hirsi Ali’s life.
People Who Talk Are Bad, People Who Shoot Misunderstood

But if Hirsi Ali, who has called for an Islamic reformation, is tantamount to a terrorist, then what does that make the Orlando shooter or the San Bernardino attackers? We’ve reached a point of absurdity in our national conversation on Islam, where religious terrorists are just misunderstood or mentally ill, but activists working against the persistent problem of violence in Islam are terrorists.

The Left shies away from terms like “Islamic terrorist,” and “Muslim extremist,” opting instead for the uber-sensitive and inchoate “violent extremism,” as though one could be an extremist about nothing in particular. That’s because they reject any association between Muslims and violence, no matter how many terrorist attacks are carried out in the name of Allah. Because groups like the SPLC refuse to acknowledge this relationship, even in its weakest form, they consequently view any mention of it as anti-Muslim.


Sha'i ben-Tekoa: One candidate for most amazing video of the presidential race on the Net now is an anonymous 8-minute biography of Huma Abedin, former right-hand woman to American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and (until last Friday) her closest associate for twenty years.

See video here

Snippets of Abedin’s biography have floated through the blogosphere for years, but this is the first coherent exposé that tempts a reasonable person to consider the current crisis surrounding Hillary Clinton and emails as part of the greatest spying operation, the greatest secret agent story, in history.

Huma Abedin, though born in the States, grew up in Saudi Arabia, ages 2-18, in a family whose livelihood was provided by the same network of Saudi jihadis connected to Al-Qaida on September 11, 2001. Indeed, on that very day, Huma herself was a salaried employee of a Muslim think tank run by her mother, a major figure in the women’s section of the Muslim Brotherhood. Huma’s mother, completely enrobed, supports female genital mutilation, the world conquest of sharia, and other principles of the same version of Islam that Osama bin Ladin lived and died by. Huma’s brother also works for this Muslim Brotherhood-funded operation.

In a word, Huma was raised in a culture of Islam at its most barbaric and violent. It is now chilling to contemplate that for the four years of Hillary Clinton’s position of as Secretary of State, Abedin had access to everything Hillary did. And now the FBI has found 650,000 Hillary emails on her perverted husband’s computer.

Taqqiya is the Muslim “virtue” of lying to achieve your goal; of dissembling. And what better disguise for a female jihadi than to be married to a Jew?

And the deception in this spy story does not stop here. Consider Barack Obama’s first inaugural address (see 'The President’s First Insult”) in which he praised to the skies not America’s Judeo-Christian civilization but this country of “Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus,” and in the next sentence promised a new beginning with Islam. In the first case, he demoted the Jews from their traditional place as America’s second most important religion, displaced by Islam, and in the second, promised a new relationship with Islam that was deeply puzzling. Governments do not have relationships with religions but other governments. What did he have in mind?

Three months later, ironically on April Fool’s day, Obama crossed paths with the king of Saudi Arabia and bowed deeply to him, which was doubly an anti-American gesture. First, American presidents traditionally never bow to foreign kings because the American Revolution was not only about independence from England but a rejection of monarchy as a system of government.

Second, the king that Obama bowed to so obsequiously was not just any king but ruler of the country where fifteen of the nineteen Muslim sky devils on September 11, 2001 in those four hijacked airliners were raised in his religion and culture, as was their terror master Osama bin Ladin. The king of Saudi Arabia is also billed as the “Guardian of the Two Mosques,” the holiest in Islam in the birthplace of Islam, to this day a country where sharia law rules. What a truly America-identified, patriotic president, unlike Obama, might have done on meeting the king was demand that he bow down to him and beg forgiveness for what his fellow Arab-Muslims did to his fellow Americans.

Then came -- before Obama had been in office even a year -- the satanic massacre at Ft. Hood committed by a homicidal Muslim maniac shouting “Allahu Akbar!” After he murdered thirteen fellow American soldiers, Obama issued his fatwa that no one was to connect Islam to the massacre.

As president, he also ordered that all military texts be shredded if they contained language connecting Islam to terrorism and that new ones, without the offending passages, be printed, at taxpayer expense, of course. He had promised in his run for the presidency he was going “fundamentally change” America and surely this was part of it.

And when Muslims in the Middle East began to chop off American heads, Obama critiqued Christians for the Crusades.

He released important terror chieftains from Guantanamo who returned to terror in order to bring back one American traitor to Islam.

He toppled American ally Hosni Mubarak, which allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to come to power in Egypt after generations of Egyptian governments suppressing that cult.

Obama imported into the United States almost one million Muslims and virtually no Christians.

This list could go on with many more examples, including the alleged placement of suspected Muslim Brothers in U.S. government agencies. But as to the crisis at hand, viz. the crimes of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton: in earlier decades of the American Republic, a basic requirement for receiving a security clearance was the absence of any association with dubious characters. It was not enough for a person to be “innocent until proven guilty,” the standard for a civil court proceeding. A person had to be “above suspicion,” which he or she would not be if they associated with others who were not above suspicion. It was likely cowardice, fear of this difficult woman, that deterred government officials who hand out security clearances from telling Mrs. Clinton that Huma Abedin’s family connections were not above suspicion and so she would not be given a security clearance and could not work for her.

The future may uncover a real smoking gun or two as evidence of collusion between Obama, Abedin, and a Muslim Brotherhood that is publicly and shamelessly committed to destroying, or, in Obama’s words, “fundamentally changing” America.

But of more immediate concern, the Hillary Clinton-Huma Abedin relationship is enough to expose the former as either a jihadi herself, which is highly unlikely since she has no principles and believes in nothing but money and power; or, she is now exposed as utterly incompetent and incapable of functioning as president, whose first responsibility is Commander-in-Chief of the United States armed forces. The crime of having a private email, which likely was hacked by every hacker who wanted to, reveals less malevolence than gross insensitivity, indeed a colossal incompetence when it comes to the vital necessity of secure communications.

Hillary Clinton is not only, apparently, a major crook; she is a complete idiot in the field of national security, a fool who fell for Huma Abedin’s taqqiya. For this alone, her presidency would be a national disaster of unimaginable dimensions.