Much has been made about the Islamification of Europe over the last several years, and with good reason. Virtually every major European city has entire neighborhoods where Jews and Christians dare not enter. These neighborhoods are essentially run under Sharia Law, as even the police are too afraid to patrol there.
If you are a regular reader of Truth and Action, you are well aware of the unprecedented breakout of sexual assaults in Germany and across the European continent on New Years Eve. While New Years was the most widespread and well-known report of sexual assaults, it is far from an isolated incident, and it is not the only example of the Islamification of Europe.
The major city of Bristol, England recently canceled St. George’s day and banned the English flag, believing that both could be offensive to Muslims. Now, England is set to go one step further.
This Thursday, Londoners will vote for a new mayor, and if the polls are correct, they are set to elect a Muslim with a history of anti-Semitic support — and who defended a 9/11 terrorist!
To read more about Thursday’s election and its top candidate’s shady past, continue reading on the next page:
Smh! Why not? We have a Muslim president with extremist ties. And it’s just lovely! Wake up Britain!
In countries with the freedom of religion, this is impossible. And how do you determine if they are Muslim? Can’t the pretend to be Christians to stay? Republicans pretend all the time.
I never voted for him either!
He should be water boarded ! Why do they let this terrorist even walk around freely ? It’s insane !
You all a freaking nuts!
America will be a moron if we elect Hillary. All the people around her are Muslim.
No, no religion has ever been banned. Ever. In fact, there’s a mountain of case law protecting Muslims:
Hijab in the work place
A: Many cases have demonstrated an employee’s legal right to reasonable accommodation in matters of faith. Examples:
1) The failure of other Muslim employees to wear headscarves is legally irrelevant. The employee need only show sincerely-held religious beliefs. (E.E.O.C. v. Reads, Inc., 1991)
2) There are no health or safety concerns at issue. (Cf. E.E.O.C. Dec. No. 82-1, 1982, also E.E.O.C. Dec. No. 81-20, 1981) 3) Companies cannot give effect to private biases. In other words, just because an employer believes customers will be prejudiced against a woman in a scarf, that does not mean the employee can be fired. (Palmer v. Sidoti, 1984, also Cf. Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., 1971)
4) An employer must demonstrate “undue hardship” caused by the wearing of religious attire. (TWA v. Hardison, 1977) Hardships recognized by the courts include cost to the employer or effect on co-workers.
5) Dress codes can have disproportionate impact on certain faiths. (E.E.O.C. Dec. No. 71-2620, 1971, also E.E.O.C. Dec. No. 71-779, 1970)
probably sent by oscum@$$ @ his secret service
Yep! Thats right just give up without a fight!Women will be wearing burkas and nonconverts will have their heads lopped off!England will deserve every bit of their insane beliefs forced on them because they would not stand up for their freedoms!
Are you kidding me. …this is how it starts….check out cities on Michigan. …..