"As long as radical Muslims are willing to make common cause with other Democratic identity groups -- LGBT, black, female, Hispanic -- then Democrats are willing to overlook their more dangerous aspects." Ben Sapiro, The Jihad-Loving Left Loves Linda Sarsour
January 10, 2018
By: Linda Case Gibbons
If you can't trust Hollywood, who can you trust?
This week actress Alyssa Milano teamed up with Islamic/Palestinian/Sharia law activist Linda Sarsour.
This strange twosome joined in a protest outside Sen. Feinstein's office, with United We Dream, a Soros-funded pro-amnesty group, advocating for the rights of illegal youths.
"Let illegal immigrants stay," is their mantra. "Send us more. Come, and bring your families!"
.
What could be cooler than joining this cause?
Alyssa Milano and Liberals love protesting and hash-tagging. Linda Sarsour does, too. It makes it easier for her to move ahead with her Islamic agenda. And don't be fooled, this verbal terrorist is a dangerous woman.
Her Caliphate Goal is to replace our Constitution with Sharia law. And, hiding in plain sight as she does, no one in any Liberal group has asked her:
"Why did you call for jihad against our president at the Islamic Society of North America?"
"Is Sharia law user-friendly for women?"
And, "Why did you tweet that Hirsi Ali, an Islamic activist against female mutilation, doesn't deserve to be a woman and should 'have her vagina removed'?"
Alyssa never asked her. Neither did Madonna. Or Ashley Judd.
It could be because Glamour chose Sarsour as Woman of the Year, celebrating her co-chairing the 2017 Women's March.
Or maybe it was because no Liberal will ever criticize a woman in a hajib.
Bleeding Heart Liberals are heavy on protests and hash-tagging, but light on results.
Milano and Michelle Obama hash-tagged their little hearts out when 200-plus Nigerian girls were kidnapped by the Islamic terrorist group, Boko Haram.
It was back in 2014, but it would be hard to forget Michelle's sad face as she held up a hand-penciled sign, at the White House, #BringBackOurGirls.
In the end, the U.S. president and FOTUS didn't do anything for the girls.
And during her term in office, the then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused to place Boko Haram on the U.S. terrorist list, despite urging from the Department of Justice, Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
Later she did hash-tag her concern...after the girls were kidnapped...By Boko Haram.
Some said the presidential hopeful, who branded herself a "Defender of Women," was a hypocrite. But the real issue is, what do Liberals want for America? Why do they mindlessly support people like Barack Obama, Hillary,
Bernie Sanders, Bill DeBlasio and Linda Sarsour?
What do Liberals think it means when a candidate calls himself a "Progressive?"
Obama was mentored by Communist Frank Marshall Davis, Hillary by Saul Alinsky. Bernie honeymooned in Russia. DeBlasio in Castro's Cuba. And both of them called themselves progressives. Do Liberals think this is okay?
Linda Sarsour has ties to terrorism, befriending Islamist terrorist Rasmeah Odeh, and Siraj Wajjah, a witness on behalf of the Blind Sheikh terrorist, and a supporter of violent jihad.
What I can't help wondering is what did Milano and Sarsour find to talk about over their coffee and bagels? That is, if the anti-Zionist Sarsour eats bagels.
Certainly not Islamic terrorism...Probably politics and women's rights. Both hate Trump and both claim to defend women.
Milano and her Hollywood pals threw a bunch of money at the Georgia special election, hoping to buy a Democrat a seat. And Sarsour tells us there couldn't be a better advocate for women than herself.
It's hard to ignore that the self-appointed Defenders of Women aren't for women at all. Like Democrats. Like Liberals at the Golden Globes.
Unable to lecture to us after Harvey Weinstein was "exposed," they fought sexual abuse in their industry by wearing black, like children playing dress-up. And then by hash-tagging #MeToo.
But no one at the event admitted that people could have spoken up about the abuse years ago, but didn't.
Including Oprah. The woman they've nominated to run for president.
It was clear these people think being president is a walk in the park, probably because Martin Sheen played one on the West Wing. Maybe Meryl Streep should run for Prime Minister. She played Margaret Thatcher in a movie.
And Oprah should run. She's an exact replacement for Obama.
She attended the same church Obama attended, and listened to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, same as Obama.
They both like to give away things. Oprah gives cars, Obama Obamaphones.
Both left Chicago and never looked back, never helped the crime-ridden residents of the city, something Chicagoans never forgot.
And both were close friends with Harvey Weinstein. Both took his money and didn't object -- until now.
However, there are a few glitches in Oprah's resume. The school she founded for girls in Africa had a staff member who abused the girls. And while Oprah tells women to be their authentic selves, she expects them to ignore her air-brushed-thinner-than-real-life appearance on the covers of her magazine.
Which actually probably makes her the perfect candidate for Hollywood.
They loved her "performance," in "Oprah's Speech Defending Women at the Golden Globes," because for Hollywood, and for Liberals, words, not deeds, are all that's really important to them in a president. Yes, she's the perfect replacement for Obama.
Hold the line, America.