March 18, 2019

Brenda Arthur from West Virginia was paid a visit by West Virginia State Police for her freedom of information act request regarding a mosque.

Arthur 66, is the leader of the West Virginia of Act For America. Their mission is to educate Americans about the spread of Islamic principles in western societies.

Arthur a Jewish American, became worried about the major expansion of Islamic Association of West Virginia in her hometown of Charlestown.  The recently built mosque hosted an openly anti-Semitic preacher in the past. Determined, she went to the town office and requested construction permits and site plans, which is every American's right to do.

Officer Workman who knocked on her door stated he worked for West Virginia Intelligence Exchange, a secretive outfit that works closely with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s “intelligence fusion center” in West Virginia.


It appears in states where millions of dollars are given to take in these "refugees", the authorities will trample the rights of its citizens to protect and scare away any accountability or spotlight on their un-American profit schemes.

Video below shows how state officials have pushed local black and white poor people into sub-standard housing while building a state of the art housing for non-Americans. Muslim refugees are also given three times the amount of welfare per child compared to American poor families.  This effectively creates and promotes sharia law zones where non-muslims are attacked and pushed out. Similar to towns in France, England, and Germany, locals are muzzled and threatened with being labeled and jailed for merely standing up for their rights and land.





In the name of protecting people from being offended, New Zealand police are now rounding up its citizens who dare to own, watch or give away copies of the mosque shooter's video.  Under New Zealand’s Films Videos and Publications Classification Act, which makes it an offense to possess “an objectionable publication.”  1984 anyone?

Objectionable? Who decides that? What is the definition that applies broadly? Or is it's enforcement determined by those who have an agenda?


Currently, all videos depicting Muslims, shooting, burning, running over and exploding their prisoners is widely available in NZ, with no legal threats to those who own and watch them. Again, it seems the Muslims are the darlings of the progressive/communist movement. They can kill all they want and the media won't even waste a second of airtime on it.


"In the last 30 days, there were 106 Islamic attacks in 21 countries, in which 707 people were killed and 745 injured. "



“We would like to remind people that it is an offence to distribute or possess an objectionable publication … which carries a penalty of imprisonment,” police said in a statement on Sunday." 

It's also worth noting, New Zealand's prime minister is currently calling for gun bans. It seems the shooter's manifesto (which is also banned) is coming to reality. Sadly, if some of the Muslims had firearms, the shooting would have been stopped. Those who have watched the video could see how just one person with a firearm could have ended the attack swiftly.

After all, it only took 30 minutes for the government to stop the shooter. So why would a citizen need a firearm in the first place?

It's easy to see that media, world governments and certain segments of society are protecting the "religion of peace" from scrutiny and viciously attack those who call out the truth of what they really are.  It appears the old saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is alive and well.

Subscribe to RSS Feed Follow me on Twitter!