Libs: 'Jihad Protected Free Speech'

At least these moonbats are being honest. They embrace calls to destroy the United States, murder her citizens, and kill her soldiers as the free exercise of speech and religion.

From the Washington Times:

Democratic strategist and former Michael Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich, and the former American Civil Liberties Union president in Massachusetts, Harvey Silvergate, recently joined the attorneys representing two alleged Boston al Qaeda funders.
Estrich (flattering picture here) and her co-conspirators don't mean just talking about jihad either. They want their clients to be free to actively support it through funding [emphasis added]:
In their motion, attorneys Mrs. Estrich, Malick Ghachem, Norman Zalkind and Elizabeth Lunt, argue that the defendants merely exercised their religious freedom and obligation to give "zakat" (Islamic charity).
Their motion cites Chapter 9, verse 60 of the Koran, which describes "those entitled to receive zakat." According to the definition of zakat in The Encyclopedia of Islam, "category 7" of eligible recipients are "volunteers engaged in jihad" for whom the zakat cover "living expenses and the expenses of their military service (animals, weapons)."
Oh, just to rub a little salt in, they also say that contributions to brave jihadi babyhunters should be tax exempt, as well.

On the seventh level of Hell, Vidkun Quisling is laughing at us.

Via Stop the ACLU.

Posted by: Bluto at 11:20 AM


1 My first Comment troll had this to say about Iran Contra Reagan and my use of a semi-colon

lol Reagan gives arms to ***Iran*** while circumventing the laws of congress in order to save some south american shithole from the republican communist bogeyman and he is a hero. Good thing that his VP didn’t go on to arm osama bin ladin or we would be really fucked! oh wait…
As your only reader I have to point out that your title “Iran Contra; A Failed Dem Policy” not only incorrectly uses the semi-colon, but also goes on to imply that the Iran Contra arms deal was a Dem policy when in fact that was Reagan and McFarlane’s secret deal”. You are probably trying to reference the Boland Amendments which comprised the legislation prohibiting the very acts that the president illegaly chose to engage in.
Typical republican propaganda. Factually innacurate Reagan dick sucking.
I’ll end this visit by saying “OOOOOOH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO communists at our backdoor! Venezuela is coming in their pickup truck army to kill us with communism!!”
I agree 100% with you fellow PATRIOT!!! Here is the plan. Let’s secretly give Iran MORE weapons in exchange for something that will somehow help us kill those commie bastards in Venezuela. If we don’t Venezuela will ATTACK US AT ANY MOMENT using a flotilla of dinghys, john boats, and old bath tubs.
Did I spell dinghys right?

I don't hink he spelled dingy right. But I didn't point it out.

Iran Contra was a Dem failure because they cut Reagan off after we gave Costa Rica our word.

Posted by: SeeMonk at October 16, 2006 01:08 PM

2 Last time I checked,
"Chapter 9, verse 60 of the Koran" wasn't part of the constitution nor is it cited in any of our laws.

Posted by: Oyster at October 16, 2006 06:16 PM

3 Furthermore, you think Susan Estrich will go to bat for me when I poke
out someone's eye and cite the Bible's telling me that an eye for an
eye is the right way to handle things?


SeeMonk, the care and feeding of trolls is far too time consuming and
an exercize in futility. Just ban the asshole. And when he
tells all his little troll friends you'll get even more traffic and
move up in the ecosystem.

Posted by: Oyster at October 16, 2006 06:25 PM

4 I would ban him if I thought anyone else would show up to notice LOL

Posted by: SeeMonk at October 16, 2006 07:25 PM

5 Jihadi=TARGET. Reference Cromwell, you know, the man that brought down Charles 1 of England. If you have to think, go the library.

Posted by: Glenn M. Cassel, AMH1(AW), USN,RETIRED at October 16, 2006 11:12 PM

6 The fact that the lefturds are now coming forward and openly endorsing
support for the enemy bears me out to be correct in say that they are
also our enemies and should be killed down to the last one. We will be
forced to sooner or later, so we might as well get started ASAP.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 17, 2006 02:36 AM

7 Here's a good example of free speech, not banned yet. Warning: extreme profanity:

Posted by: newyank at October 17, 2006 08:16 AM

Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0062 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0047 seconds, 15 records returned.
Page size 10 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.