Muslim REFUSES To Remove Niqab During New Job Training – Judge Does THIS To Her WELFARE BENEFITS ..

It is not secret that Muslim women are often forced to live in horrific standards, being oppressed under a misogynist way of life that was invented by a genocidal warlord who in no doubt learned his ways from Satan himself. Now even in more developed countries, women are still being forced to suffer when they’re given orders to live under Sharia law. For example, this woman in the Netherlands just received a very unpleasant surprise when she went to court wearing a niqab.

She was making her court appearance in the Netherlands and she entered the courtroom wearing a niqab. For those that are unsure what a niqab is, it is a veil worn over a woman’s face that obscures everything except her eyes. You cannot identify a woman who is wearing this, as only her eyes are showing, and she was in a court of law refusing to take it off. Do you see the conflict here?

She allegedly had been told to take the veil off during a new job training she enrolled in, and there too had refused. So the matter was taken to court.

Once she was standing before the judge, the woman carried on with her refusal to remove the niqab, and so the court had no other choice but to rule that her welfare benefits would be slashed.

“The Central Appeals ruled that the Utrecht municipality could reduce Social Security benefits because the person concerned had refused repeatedly during a job training to take off her niqab,” the ruling read. “The chance that they will find work quickly, is very small as they continue to wear a niqab. This causes undue pressure being placed on the public purse.”

Now, the woman’s benefits were not completely removed, but they were however reduced by 30%. The council was able to come to an agreement that under the Freedom of Religion legislation, she did have the right to wear a niqab. However, the catch is she evidently cannot wear one and also get a job – or receive welfare.

Since this, the woman has left the Netherlands, and is now reportedly living in the United Kingdom. It is not clear if she is receiving welfare benefits there or not. Unfortunately for her, she’s unlikely to find a friendlier environment in the United Kingdom where the majority of the population is actually in favor of enforcing a ban on Islamic veils.

“18-24 year olds were the only age group to oppose a ban; all others were in favor, with the oldest 65+ group backing the prohibition by a startling 78 per cent to 12,” the U.K. Independent reported.  READ MORE

HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. . . Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. . . Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” . . Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. . . Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. . . “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” . . Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. . . The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” . . But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? . . At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. . . “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: . . For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. . . However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. . . A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” . . However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . . -Obama’s Iran nuke deal -Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server -Obama IRS targets conservatives -Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters -Obamacare & Obama’s false promises -Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order -Benghazi-gate -Operation Fast & Furious -5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl -Extortion 17 -‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session -Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval -Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law -Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act -Illegally conducting war against Libya -NSA: Spying on Americans -Muslim Brotherhood ties -Miriam Carey -Birth certificate -Executive orders -Solyndra and the lost $535 million -Egypt -Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress -Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers -Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’