The Continued Islamization of America............

drip, drip, drip..................

Butterball is owned by factory food giant ConAgra....................

America Gives Butterball the Bird Over Halal Turkey Cover-Up


by Robert Spencer
11/29/2011


Comments

During Thanksgiving week, Americans were treated to a notable example of the effort by Muslims to assert Islamic law and practices over their American counterparts, when it was revealed that Butterball, the most popular supplier of Thanksgiving turkeys in the nation, was certifying all its turkeys halal—that is, slaughtered according to Islamic ritual requirements. And as in most cases where American businesses kowtow to Islamic supremacist demands, instead of owning up to what it was doing, under pressure Butterball obfuscated, denied, equivocated, and did its best to cover its tracks. This is how the stealth jihad advances.

It all began when my colleague Pamela Geller published an article on American Thinker titled “Happy Halal Thanksgiving,” in which she quoted a Butterball representative stating that not just some, but all whole Butterball turkeys were certified halal. Butterball was not offering consumers a choice. All were halal.

After Geller’s article appeared, however, Butterball began to be inundated with inquiries and complaints. Many were told that it was indeed true: All Butterball whole turkeys were halal. However, as the complaints continued to pour in, Butterball shifted its tactics, and the great halal turkey cover-up began. A Butterball representative told "The Rachel Maddow Show" that the whole controversy was based on false pretenses, and that its turkeys, at least for domestic consumption, were not certified halal after all. The inconvenient section of the Butterball website saying that their turkeys were indeed certified halal was hastily scrubbed not only from the main page but from the Google cache—a tricky procedure and a sure indication of a guilty conscience.

Butterball had every reason to be red-faced. While the mainstream media, with its characteristic leftist indulgence of all things Islamic supremacist, ridiculed Geller and portrayed the controversy as motivated by “anti-Muslim hate” or a hysterical fear of “jihad turkeys,” the substance of the controversy was actually not over the fact that Butterball offered halal turkeys, but that it offered only halal turkeys. The Islamic supremacist agenda that I dubbed the “stealth jihad” in my 2008 book of that name is not a terrorist initiative, but a cultural one. It centers upon the endeavor to bring Islamic law to the United States by nonviolent means, and to assert in every possible way the primacy of Islamic law and practice.

A captured internal document of the Muslim Brotherhood, detailing its strategy and goals for the United States, summarized that initiative as an attempt at “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house … so that Allah’s religion is victorious over other religions.” That may seem worlds apart from halal turkeys, but it is by means of such small advances that this attempt at elimination, destruction and sabotage proceeds. Whether it be the establishment of Muslim prayer rooms in public schools (from which Christian prayer was driven out decades ago), or the granting of special break times, which are unavailable to non-Muslim employees, for Muslim factory workers, or demands that businesses alter their long-standing dress codes for Muslims, even if those codes were established for health and safety reasons, the goal is the same: establishment of the precedent that American customs and mores must always give way to Islamic ones, and that Muslims must always be granted a special status that accords them rights and privileges that non-Muslims do not enjoy.

The goal is to establish Islamic law, Sharia, in America and the West—including its provisions that deny basic rights to non-Muslims, and that establish Muslims as precisely the special, protected class with special rights that these small initiatives grant them in various ways already.

And so in the Butterball turkey case, those who may not wish to eat halal food may take their business elsewhere, but Butterball has no accommodation for them. It is too busy accommodating Muslims. If the company had simply establish a halal line, and had other options available, there would have been no problem, but in all stealth jihad initiatives, the goal is not so much to win reasonable accommodation for Muslims, but to bring non-Muslim practices into conformity with Islamic law.

Butterball’s behavior when exposed shows that it knows it was not acting ethically. Americans were right to put pressure on the company, and should put pressure on all businesses that act in the same way. For ultimately, a great deal more is at stake than the Thanksgiving turkey.

I DID NOT NOTICE THIS STORY BEFORE....GOOD FIND....MUSLIMS ARE RELENTLESS....I WONDER IF THE LIBERALS KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THEM IF THEY DON'T RESPOND TO THE CALL FOR PRAYER.......

Serious question. I don't know how halal turkeys are slaughtered. Does it make any difference in the cost or quality of the turkey? If it doesn't, as long as the thing is dead and has that nifty pop up timer, why does it matter how it was slaughtered?

Serious question. I don't know how halal turkeys are slaughtered. Does it make any difference in the cost or quality of the turkey? If it doesn't, as long as the thing is dead and has that nifty pop up timer, why does it matter how it was slaughtered?

IT IS YOUR "WHAT DOES IT MATTER" ATTITUDE THAT THEY COUNT ON TO GET THE BALL ROLLING TO THINGS THAT DO MATTER.....

I asked a question, dipshit. I want to know how killing a turkey is part of the conspiracy to impose sharia law on the US. That's why I asked. If it doesn't increase the price, or if the slaughter isn't done is a weird or cruel way, what difference does it make how the bird died? I'm reserving judgment until I know. It could be that I would be just as outraged as you, but right now, a tasty turkey is a tasty turkey.

I suppose kosher hot dogs are part of the international Jewish conspiracy as well.

I want to know how killing a turkey is part of the conspiracy to impose sharia law on the US. That's why I asked.

I ANSWERED THAT QUESTION CuteOldGay......THE ISLAMIC PLAYBOOK FOR TAKE OVER IS OUT THERE ON THE INTERNET FOR ALL TO SEE....THEY'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR OVER 1000 YEARS.....

ConAgra won't respond to consumer complaints of inhuman treatment of animals, over use of growth hormones, and antibiotics, and genetic engineering of our food, but they kow-tow to Sharia laws dictating halal?

Here you go COG:

In Arabic, the word halal means permitted or lawful. Halal foods are foods that are allowed under Islamic dietary guidelines. According to these guidelines gathered from the Qu'ran, Muslim followers cannot consume the following:

• pork or pork by products
  
• animals that were dead prior to slaughtering
  
• animals not slaughtered properly or not slaughtered in the name of Allah
  
• blood and blood by products
  
• alcohol
  
• carnivorous animals
  
• birds of prey
  
• land animals without external ears

These prohibited foods and ingredients are called haram, meaning forbidden in Arabic.
Halal is One of the Most Humane Methods of Animal Slaughter

Muslims are taught through the Qu'ran that all animals should be treated with respect and well cared for. The goal is to slaughter the animal, limiting the amount of pain the animal will endure.

When an animal is slaughtered, the jugular vein is cut and the blood is allowed to drain from the animal. Remember, Muslims are prohibited from consuming animal blood

WDF---> <---CuteOldGay

Serious question. I don't know how halal turkeys are slaughtered. Does it make any difference in the cost or quality of the turkey? If it doesn't, as long as the thing is dead and has that nifty pop up timer, why does it matter how it was slaughtered?

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm posting a link to a video that shows how animals are slaughtered in a Halal slaughterhouse.

I stopped eating at restaurants that use Halal meat after I saw the video. Muslims have no basic sense of decency because they have been indoctrinated into a twisted evil belief system.

Most of the western world has a value system grounded in Judeo-Christian standards; consequently, most westerners are shocked by what Muslims find acceptable, such as pedophilia and animal cruelty.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=703_1309045039

Jezzz...if having turkey on T-Day is part of the Muslim game plan to take over the world...does that mean the original Pilgrims were secret Islamic extremists, LOL

Boy there are some crazies out there....perhaps in this very thread alone

I'm posting a link to a video that shows how animals are slaughtered in a Halal slaughterhouse.

I stopped eating at restaurants that use Halal meat after I saw the video. Muslims have no basic sense of decency because they have been indoctrinated into a twisted evil belief system.

Most of the western world has a value system grounded in Judeo-Christian standards; consequently, most westerners are shocked by what Muslims find acceptable, such as pedophilia and animal cruelty.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=703_1309045039 Originally Posted by joe bloe

Joe Bloe read your Bible- the islamic way of slaughtering animals is very similar to the Judeo-Christian way- just read the Old Testament- when you eat livestock like lamb, cow, chicken- the traditional way is too cut the aimals carotid artery- basically according to old testament you are supposed the kill the animal while alive and you are supposed to drain as much blood from the animal as possible and the quickest and most inhumane way is to cut the carotid or jugular artery.
In fact the similarities between Islamic and Jewish dietary are very similar and both sects don't eat poke as well:
Shechita (Hebrew:שְׁחִיטָה; also transliterated shechitah, shehitah, shehita) is the ritual slaughter of mammals and birds according to Jewish dietary laws.[1] The act is performed by severing the trachea, oesophagus, carotid arteries and jugular veins using an extremely sharp blade ("chalef"), and allowing the blood to drain out.[2]


So I did not find these videos offensive at all- it's been done that way since the days of Moses.
Do you guys find it offensive if a pack of hyenas eats a buffaloe alive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdCC-XEYt-Q
traditionally animals like Tigers, cheetas, and lions normally suffocate their prey to death and once dead they began to feast- hyenas on the other hand are known to eat animals while they are still alive- basically putting their prey in a state of shock.
you guys must never watch National Geographic- shit like this happens much worst than this in nature- a hyena will eat a cow alive guts first- shocking but true: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeuN7..._order&list=UL

So your standard is if hyenas do it it must be ok for humans?

I take it all back. You've convinced me.

Well, who gives a rats if they are butchering the birds halal or not. It’s a humane way to slaughter animals. The way I see it there’s no there there on this issue. The Islamic radicals would have to claw their way over, under or around the religious right here in America to get their Sharia Law enacted into law here in the States.

drip...drip...drip....

New Jersey Judge Rules Islamic Sharia Law Trumps U.S. Law

Posted on August 7, 2010 by creeping
Fortunately, the ruling was overturned, but it’s obvious sharia is creeping.
A New Jersey family court judge’s decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him is sounding the alarm for advocates of laws designed to ban Shariah in America.
Judge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs — and that he did not have “criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault” his wife.
According to the court record, the man’s wife — a Moroccan woman who had recently immigrated to the U.S. at the time of the attacks — alleged:
“Defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her “this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.”
In considering the woman’s plea for a restraining order after the couple divorced, Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her, but “The court believes that [defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”
Charles’ ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey’s Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband’s religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, “was mistaken.”
The woman’s lawyer, Jennifer Donnelly of New Jersey Legal Services, told FoxNews.com that Charles’ ruling should add to the case for a proposed Oklahoma law, which will be on the ballot in November, which would ban judges from considering “international law or Shariah Law” in their rulings.
“Those who don’t want the bill to pass say, ‘there’s really no need for it because why would a judge walk down that road of religion?’” Donnelly said.
“Clearly here, this judge did walk down that road. He may not have said ‘Shariah law.’ But I think it’s indicative that, in trying to be respectful of religion, judges venture into a very slippery slope.”
Donnelly said she was surprised when Charles refused to issue a restraining order, adding that the only tipoffs that it might happen were questions he put to the husband’s imam when he testified in the case.
The Appeals Court ruling notes, “The imam testified regarding Islamic law as it relates to sexual behavior. The imam confirmed that a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands, because the husband is prohibited from obtaining sexual satisfaction elsewhere.
“However, a husband was forbidden to approach his wife ‘like any animal.’ … he acknowledged that New Jersey law considered coerced sex between married people to be rape.”
Charles, a former New Jersey state senator, declined to comment on his ruling. The husband, who represented himself in court, remains unnamed, as does his ex-wife.
While the judge in the case did not specifically mention Islamic or Shariah law, Robert Spencer, director of JihadWatch.com, said he might as well have.
“This is a ruling that is strictly in line with Islamic law, which does indeed declare that a wife may not refuse her husband sex under virtually any circumstances,” Spencer said. “The only legal framework that would not consider marital rape to be sexual assault is Shariah.”
The husband in the case has been indicted on criminal charges and is expected to face trial in the fall.
FOXNews.com – gave their obligatory opposing view to the terror-linked, pro-sharia, pro-jihad, unindicted co-conspirator, Saudi-funded (Fox is also Saudi-linked), CAIR.
The article also references a 2008 ruling in Texas which was one the topic of our first post ever here at Creeping Sharia – Sharia Law enforced in Texas!

drip...drip...drip....