Video yükleniyor...
Video Yüklenemedi
🚨 ALERT TELANGANA! Illegal immigrants( Rohingyas) entered pre-2014 without documents & settled across Hyderabad & every district. ✅ Land encroachments in Balapur, Royal Colony #CAA #NRC will identify & deport illegals **legally & fairly**—**no one above law! When Modi govt brings #CAA #NRC to DEPORT them, anti-national KhanGrace &... show more
95,314 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce •via X (Twitter)
0 Yorum
Yorum bulunmuyor
Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek
![🚨SHARIA WARNING TO SEN. TOMMY TUBERVILLE & ALL ALABAMIANS.... Sharia Over Alabama Law: Birmingham's Largest Mosque Has Bound Itself to Islamic Law and the Muslim Brotherhood Network The Birmingham Islamic Society (BIS) - one of Alabama's biggest and most influential mosques - doesn't operate like a normal American house of worship. Its own official Constitution declares: "ANY ACTIVITY CONTRARY TO OR IN CONFLICT WITH THE QUR'AN AND THE SUNNAH SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED… THE PRINCIPLE OF SHURA SHALL BE THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE." Every decision, membership rule, and activity must conform to SHARIA. 🔺 Men only for certain leadership roles. 🔺 Hijab required for sisters in an official capacity. 🔺 Aggressive dawah (proselytization) is a core mission. 🔺 Assets & Disputes Locked Into the Muslim Brotherhood System ❗️❗️❗️Upon dissolution, all assets go to NAIT (North American Islamic Trust) - the same Muslim Brotherhood-linked entity repeatedly tied in federal court records (including the Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial) to controlling mosque properties across America as a permanent waqf (Islamic endowment). 🔺 Internal disputes that can't be settled locally are routed to external Islamic arbitration, explicitly naming NAIT as an example. This creates a closed Sharia legal loop that bypasses Alabama courts. 🔺 Sharia Wills Override Alabama Law BIS promotes a standard Islamic Last Will and Testament tailored for Alabama Muslims. It explicitly states that Islamic rules supersede the writer's own wishes in any conflict, and is designed to impose Quranic inheritance and Sharia burial rules through a legally enforceable Alabama will. Inheritance follows Quran 4:11 (males get double the share of females). 🔺 Guardians for minor children must be Muslim and raise them as "practicing Sunni Muslims." 🔺 Burial rules are pure Sharia (no autopsy, no embalming, body in soil facing Kaaba, as soon as possible). 🔺 Disputes go to binding Islamic arbitration. 🔺 Unpaid zakat and other religious obligations must be settled first. This is not just "personal faith." This is a parallel legal system being normalized inside Alabama. 🚨Leadership History Raises Serious Red Flags - In Their Own Words This isn't guilt by association. It's what BIS's own leaders have said and done: 🔺 President emeritus Ashfaq Taufique openly called himself a "fundamentalist" and told his congregation that "Political Activism for Muslims is no longer an option; it is an obligation," urging Muslims to "shape our government." 🔺 A founder of the mosque's outreach program publicly spread antisemitic conspiracy theories - claiming as recently as 2026 that Jews, not Muslims, carried out 9/11. 🔺 BIS hired imams with documented Muslim Brotherhood ties, including one named in the Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial. 🚨 THE TEXAS CONNECTION - One Network, One Goal - BIS also brought in Imam Main Al-Qudah to teach its congregation "financial stability" - meaning Sharia-compliant finance, exactly as its constitution directs. But Al-Qudah is no ordinary lecturer. 👀In sworn testimony before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Al-Qudah admitted his father and uncle were members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The court summarized his own asylum claim in black and white: he "advocated the imposition of Islamic law [Sharia] instead of secular law." He was ordered deported in 2013. Today, that same man is building an $80 MILLION, 30-acre Islamic compound - the Al-Huda Islamic Center - in Katy, Texas: a self-contained "parallel society" insulated from American law. This is the point Alabamians must understand: Birmingham is not an isolated case. The SAME Muslim Brotherhood-linked network - the same NAIT endowment model, the same Al-Azhar-trained imams, the same MAS-tied operatives - is running the SAME playbook in Texas, Alabama, and states across the country. From a Birmingham mosque constitution to an $80 million compound in Texas, it is one coordinated effort to Islamize America, community by community. Recent Pushback in Hoover When BIS's affiliated Islamic Academy of Alabama tried to expand in Hoover, the community and Sen. Tommy Tuberville pushed back hard. The Planning Commission recommended denial. Good. But this is not the end. These organizations are patient. The infrastructure - constitutional Sharia supremacy, NAIT asset lock, Sharia wills, and Brotherhood-linked leadership - remains firmly in place. Senator Tuberville, you've already spoken clearly against Sharia and Islamic expansion in America. Alabama needs you to take the next step: Investigate the Birmingham Islamic Society's governing documents, its ties to NAIT, and the full scope of this parallel system - and how it connects to the same Brotherhood network operating in Texas and beyond. This is about whether American law or Sharia will ultimately govern parts of Alabama. SEE THE FULL REPORT HERE:](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2069529285367562272/amplify_video_thumb/2069529144740954112/img/U1UOhxKnwN5mz90j.jpg)
![At a campaign rally in Hamilton, Ontario, Liberal leader Mark Carney unveiled what can only be described as a coordinated assault on digital freedom in Canada. Behind the slogans, applause lines, and empty rhetoric about unity, one portion of Carney’s remarks stood out for its implications: a bold, unapologetic commitment to controlling online speech under the guise of “safety” and “misinformation.” “We announced a series of measures with respect to online harm… a sea of misogyny, anti-Semitism, hatred, conspiracy theories—the sort of pollution that's online that washes over our virtual borders from the United States.” He then made clear his intention to act: “My government, if we are elected, will be taking action on those American giants who come across [our] border.” The former central banker, who now postures as a man of the people, made it clear that if the Liberals are re-elected, the federal government will intensify efforts to regulate what Canadians are allowed to see, say, and share online. His language was deliberate. Carney condemned what he called a “sea of misogyny, anti-Semitism, hatred, conspiracy theories” polluting Canada’s internet space—language borrowed directly from the Trudeau-era playbook. But this wasn’t just a moral denunciation. It was a legislative preview. Carney spoke of a future Liberal government taking “action on those American giants who come across our borders.” Translation: he wants to bring Big Tech platforms under federal control, or at least force them to play the role of speech enforcers for the Canadian state. He blamed the United States for exporting “hate” into Canada, reinforcing the bizarre Liberal narrative that the greatest threat to national unity isn’t foreign actors like the CCP or radical Islamists—it’s Facebook memes and American podcasts. But the most revealing moment came when Carney linked online speech directly to violence. He asserted that digital “pollution” affects how Canadians behave in real life, specifically pointing to conjugal violence, antisemitism, and drug abuse. This is how the ground is prepared for censorship: first by tying speech to harm, then by criminalizing what the state deems harmful. What Carney didn’t say is just as important. He made no distinction between actual criminal incitement and political dissent. He offered no assurance that free expression—a right enshrined in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms—would be respected. He provided no definition of what constitutes a “conspiracy theory” or who gets to make that determination. Under this framework, any criticism of government policy, of global institutions, or of the new technocratic order could be flagged, throttled, and punished. And that’s the point. Mark Carney isn’t interested in dialogue. He wants obedience. He doesn't trust Canadians to discern truth from fiction. He believes it’s the job of government—his government—to curate the national conversation, to protect citizens from wrongthink, to act as referee over what is and isn’t acceptable discourse. In short, he wants Ottawa to become the Ministry of Truth. Why They Don’t Actually Care About Antisemitism The Liberal establishment talks a big game about fighting hate—but when it comes to actual antisemitic violence, they’ve shown nothing but selective enforcement and political cowardice. Let’s look at the facts. In 2023, B’nai Brith Canada recorded nearly 6,000 antisemitic incidents, including 77 violent attacks—from firebombed synagogues to shots fired at Jewish schools in Montreal and Toronto. This wasn’t a marginal increase. It was a 208% spike in violent antisemitism in a single year. Statistics Canada echoed the same alarm bells. Jews—who make up just 1% of Canada’s population—were the victims of 70% of all religiously motivated hate crimes. That’s nearly 900 recorded incidents, up 71% from the previous year. Then came October 2023, when Hamas launched its attack on Israel—and the wave of hate turned into a tsunami: a 670% increase in antisemitic incidents across the country. Jewish schools, synagogues, and community centers were hit with bomb threats, arson attempts, and intimidation campaigns. This was a national security issue, not just a policing matter. And yet, the government's response? Virtually nonexistent. Case in point: the Montreal Riot, November 2024. A 600-person mob, waving anti-NATO and pro-Palestinian banners, turned violent—setting fires, smashing windows, and attacking police. Amid this chaos, a man was filmed screaming “Final Solution”—a direct reference to the Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews. It went viral. There was no ambiguity, no misunderstanding. It was a public call for genocide. So what happened? Three arrests. None for hate crimes. None related to antisemitism. Montreal Police Chief Fady Dagher insisted there were “no confirmed antisemitic acts,” and as of early 2025, no hate crime charges have been filed against the individual caught on camera. That man, as it turns out, owned a Second Cup franchise. His punishment? His café was shut down by the company. Not by law enforcement. Not by hate crime investigators. A corporate HR department showed more backbone than Canada’s justice system. And this is what reveals the truth: they don’t care. They’ll enforce hate speech laws when it’s politically convenient—when it can be used to silence critics, crush dissent, or placate woke constituencies. But when Jewish communities are being threatened, attacked, and terrorized? The same laws suddenly go limp. The same political class that claims to protect minorities becomes paralyzed. They won’t touch it. Because confronting real antisemitism would require standing up to their political allies in activist circles, university campuses, and radical protest movements. This isn't an accident. It's a pattern. The Liberals aren’t weak on antisemitism because they’re unaware of it. They’re weak on it because they don’t see political value in enforcing the law when it conflicts with their ideological allies. Their obsession isn’t with hate speech—it’s with controlling “wrong” speech. And what qualifies as “wrong” isn’t defined by law or principle. It’s defined by what the Liberal establishment deems unacceptable. Their target isn’t violent bigotry. It’s dissent. They’ll chase down citizens for questioning carbon taxes or criticizing globalist policy—but when Jewish schools get shot at, or someone calls for genocide in the street, they shrug. This isn’t leadership. It’s selective justice. And it proves, beyond any doubt, that their agenda was never about protecting Canadians. It was always about protecting control. The Online Harms Act: Carney’s Blueprint for Speech Control This isn’t hypothetical. Mark Carney’s remarks in Hamilton mirror the exact logic and intent behind the Online Harms Act (Bill C-63)—legislation drafted under the Liberal banner and introduced in 2024 that pushes Canada into territory no free society should accept. At its core, Bill C-63 hands the federal government sweeping powers to police digital speech. It creates a Digital Safety Commission, an unelected bureaucratic authority empowered to monitor, investigate, and punish online platforms and individuals for content deemed "harmful." That word—harmful—is never concretely defined. It includes things like “hate speech,” “conspiracy theories,” and vague notions of “harm to children,” but it’s written broadly enough to be used as a political weapon. The most chilling provision? Preemptive imprisonment. Under this law, Canadians could be jailed for up to a year—without having committed a crime—if a judge believes they might post something harmful in the future. This isn’t law enforcement. This is thought policing. Carney didn’t just echo this approach—he amplified it. In his Hamilton rally, he described the internet as being flooded with “misogyny, anti-Semitism, hatred, conspiracy theories,” and laid blame on foreign content “washing over our borders from the United States.” He didn’t argue for open debate or for empowering users to challenge dangerous ideas. He argued for the state to intervene and shut them down. He told Canadians that these ideas are “changing how people behave” and claimed his government will go after “those American giants” that allow this content to circulate. There’s no ambiguity here: this is a public declaration that a Liberal government under Mark Carney intends to censor, de-platform, and penalize dissenting views. Not illegal ones—just ones they don't like. And this isn’t new for him. Back in 2022, during the Freedom Convoy, Carney referred to protesters as committing “sedition” and demanded the government “thoroughly punish” them. These weren’t violent rioters or foreign agitators—these were working-class Canadians honking their horns and standing in the cold, protesting vaccine mandates. For Carney, their real crime was disobedience. Carney’s view of speech is simple: if it challenges the ruling order, it’s dangerous. And now, with Bill C-63 on the table and Carney at the helm, he’s building the legal infrastructure to lock down the digital public square—not to protect Canadians from violence, but to protect the Liberal establishment from criticism. That law is real. Carney’s agenda is real. And if he wins, enforcement is coming. Final thoughts This is the Canada Mark Carney envisions—one where citizens can’t speak freely online without first checking their views against government guidelines. A country where speech is no longer a right but a privilege granted by bureaucrats. A country where opposition isn’t argued with, it’s labeled harmful and erased. There was a time when Liberals championed civil liberties. That era is over. The new Liberalism is authoritarian—cloaked in the language of safety and inclusion, but animated by control. Carney’s rally in Hamilton wasn’t a policy rollout. It was a warning to anyone who still thinks they live in a country where dissent is allowed. They don’t want to fight hate. They want to define “wrong” speech—and then eliminate it. And by “wrong,” they mean anything the Liberal establishment disapproves of. Criticize the government, question the orthodoxy, challenge the state’s narrative, and you’ll be branded a threat. Not a citizen. Not a participant. A threat. So here we are. The speech laws are written. The censors are waiting. And Mark Carney is ready to pull the trigger. This election isn’t about tax credits or campaign slogans. It’s about whether Canada remains a free country or slides deeper into soft tyranny, one regulation, one commission, one silenced voice at a time. There is a choice. And the choice is this: bring it home—restore freedom, restore sanity, restore this country. Or: hand the keys to the same people who think you’re the problem for having the nerve to think for yourself.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1911016400912859219/amplify_video_thumb/1911015612068839424/img/frTZBF9wAo75ED79.jpg)
![Everybody needs a digital ID, say heads of state and high-tech leaders. They give many reasons: it will stop illegal migration; it will increase efficiency; it will protect privacy; and it will prevent online fraud and data ransoming. But we don’t need digital IDs for any of those things. The US just stopped illegal migration without digital IDs. Our online activities are more efficient than ever and it’s hard to see how they could get more efficient without sacrificing privacy and safety. And centralizing data through digital IDs, which could link social media, vaccine, and banking information, in ways that allow government control, would undermine cybersecurity because having separate log-ins for our financial, health, shopping, banking, credit card, and other data makes sure that if one is hacked they aren’t all hacked. “All your information in one place is a hacker’s dream,” said an Oxford University IT expert. “We already have countless ways we can provide our identity – passports, driving licences, and so on.” Many Americans likely think that digital IDs are only something people in Britain have to worry about. Prime Minister Keir Starmer last week declared that every working person there must have digital ID, or “BritCard”. The U.S. should never allow such a thing. A digital ID that linked our social media, vaccine records, and bank accounts could allow governments to censor and control the population, violating our free speech and privacy rights. Those Americans should think again. We are rapidly moving to the exact same digital ID surveillance and control system as the British. Real IDs contain embedded microchips that bring us one step closer to digital IDs. State governors are pushing it. Gavin Newsom last year allowed drivers licenses onto Apple and Google wallets. This “mobile drivers license,” or mDL, is a digital ID, and one more link in the chain. And it is Americans, including Bill Gates and the controlling owner of Oracle, Larry Ellison, who are financing the digital ID push. “ The NHS [National Health Service] in the UK has an incredible amount of population data, but it’s fragmented,” he told Blair in February of this year. “It’s not easily accessible by these AI models. We have to take all of this data we have in our country and move it into a single, if you will, unified data platform… The secret is to get all of that data in one place.” In September, Ellison made clear that he viewed the power of data centralization in behavior change. “Citizens will be on their best behavior because we’re constantly watching and recording everything that’s going on.” Ellison’s Oracle is an AI database cloud computing company and he is its best salesman. Ellison, the second richest man in the world, and owner of CBS and CNN, has “donated or pledged at least £257m to the Tony Blair Institute,” reportedthe New Statesman last week. “Ellison donations have helped it grow to more than 900 staff, working in at least 45 countries.” The nightmare scenario for mass, constant spying on citizens is not theoretical. China in 2019 created a social credit system with rewards that include better employment, school admissions, and shorter wait times in hospitals, and punishments including denial of access to public services and social events, denial of train and air tickets, and public shaming. One study found that at least one-third of total “offenses” were not actually against the law and thus expanded “local government authority into moral and social domains beyond the law,” found researchers. UK’s Big Brother Watched recently warned that a digital ID system, even if initially limited, could be a gateway to more invasive government surveillance and intrusion. Why would any liberal and democratic Western government like Britain want such a thing? Money is no doubt a big part of it. Oracle and other high tech companies stand to make billions taking bits of our money here and there for every transaction. Governments like Keir Starmer’s also seem eager to give them billions in contracts to monitor and analyze the population. We found no evidence Starmer would personally benefit financially from digital IDs, however, and as a political leader, he must consider whether his actions are popular, and digital IDs are not. A YouGov poll released yesterday found UK opinion toward digital IDs was 42 percent in favor and 45 percent against. And given the negative reaction to them online, popular opposition will likely rise. Tony Blair Institute’s (TBI) polling may have misled Starmer. TBI’s first question primed people to think about how inconvenienced they’ve felt without a digital ID, a blatantly manipulative form of polling. No honest pollster seeking to give a client a realistic understanding of how the public thought about digital IDs would have started with that question, because they know the importance of framing. The second question was equally biased. “Some are suggesting the government should introduce a new app, allowing instant access to a range of public services.” The framing suggests awareness on the part of the pollster that the public had a negative view of “digital ID,” hence the use of the “app” euphemism. The third question was “Do you think there is digital technology that could help tackle these issues... Processing asylum seekers and managing the UK’s borders.” One reason to think Starmer relied on the TBI’s biased polling is that Starmer pitched the digital ID as necessary to stop mass migration. “I know working people are worried about the level of illegal migration into this country,” said Starmer. “Digital ID… will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.” The notion is absurd. Nations have maintained borders for hundreds of years without the need for digital IDs. Given how badly the Starmer government’s digital ID roll out appears to have backfired, why did Starmer and Blair push it? One possibility is that they really believe in the mission of improving people’s lives. That is already how they justify it. Said Starmer, “it will also offer ordinary citizens countless benefits, like being able to prove your identity to access key services swiftly - rather than hunting around for an old utility bill.” But it is hard to believe Starmer and Blair really viewed the difficulty of finding where you left your utility bill as a high-priority social problem. It appears more likely that they are hiding their reasons and that the real motivation is the same as the Chinese government: to control the population. Gates last year released a Netflix documentary calling for sweeping AI-powered censorship of people he disagrees with on vaccines and other issues. The Starmer government’s digital IDs should be a wake-up call to all of us. For years, various people have been raising concerns about digital IDs but free speech and privacy advocates have clearly not done enough to stop them. That needs to change. The good news is that the backlash to the digital IDs appears strong and growing. And anyone can see that, when they spoke, Blair was taking instructions from Ellison. “You can pipe this data from these three thousand separate data sources into a single unified database,” said Ellison, “and that’s what we need to do.” The episode should wake us Americans up to the continuing threat of total surveillance and censorship. Powerful American high-tech elites see dollar signs in controlling our data — and our behavior. As such, this episode has motivated my colleagues and me to do more on this issue, including making grants to people doing investigative reporting, research, documentary filmmaking, policy development and policy advocacy on digital IDs. Please email info@civilizationworks.org to get involved, and consider making a tax-deductible donation. And if you’re not already a subscriber, please subscribe now to support our award-winning investigative journalism, which is essential to revealing the truth about censorship and digital IDs.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1972057739615703182/amplify_video_thumb/1972056204710166528/img/qv0NmF8nl8F1kOJK.jpg)