Shariah the Threat to America, The Team B II Report.
See on shariahinamericancourts.com
I wish to provide a few historical quotes from our Founding Era that lend credence to the supposition that we indeed were founded as a Christian nation.
Granted, God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but He is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution. For example, Connecticut is still known as the “Constitution State” because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: “For as much as it has pleased the almighty God by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence…”
Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: “…the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen”. Sounds Christian to me.
Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: “…God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”
John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; “The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were … the general principles of Christianity … I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: “…Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?” Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an “indissoluble” bond. The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged.
The intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep Government from establishing a ‘National Denomination” (like the Church of England). As early as 1799 a court declared: “By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing.” Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut (from which we derive the term “separation of Church and State”) he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government.
Even George Washington who certainly knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since he presided over their formation, said in his “Farewell Address”: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” Sure doesn’t sound like Washington was trying to separate religion and politics.
John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:
“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation.
This view, that we were a Christian nation, was hold for almost 150 years until the Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947. Before that momentous ruling, even the Supreme Court knew that we were a Christian nation. In 1892 the Court stated:
“No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people…This is a Christian nation.” There it is again! From the Supreme Court of the United States. This court went on to cite 87 precedents (prior actions, words, and rulings) to conclude that this was a “Christian nation”.
In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee said: “in this age, there is no substitute for Christianity…That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.’
It should be noted here that even as late as 1958 a dissenting judge warned in Baer v. Kolmorgen that if the court did not stop talking about the “separation of Church and State”, people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution.
It has been demonstrated in their own words: Ben Franklin, George Washington and John Adams, to the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court, how our founding fathers felt about the mix of politics and religion.
When we read articles such as “What’s God got to do with it?” (Primack, 5/4) and “The wall between state and church must not be breached” (Tager, 5/7) it just reaffirms how little, even intelligent people, understand about the founding of our great Republic. To say that this nation was not founded as a Christian nation or that the Constitution was not founded on Christian principles is totally at odds with the facts of history.
- Multiple Arabic Language Koran Versions Explained (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
- Debunking the Biggest Lie Palestinian (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
- Soviet Russia, the Creators of the Plo and the Palestinian People (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
- | Winds Of Jihad | Turkey: Parliament Speaker Warns Against Racism &”Islamophobia” In Europe (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
- | Creeping Sharia | FBI: Number of Michigan IP addresses on jihadi websites is “staggering” (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
Look at the Mayflower compact for starters.
In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620
I have one and only one comment and I will keep it simple.
The laws of the United States that are based on the US Constitution which itself is based on Judeo-Christian values is far superior that any other laws, including, but not limited to sharia law based on the imaginings of mohammad in the qu’ran, in hadiths and sunnah.
We, the free people of the United States and speaking for the rest of mankind, reject everything not based on Judeo-Christian laws as found in the Holy Bible, starting with the 10 commandments and ending with the last word on the last page of the Holy Bible.
Repost from a true American Patriot: Pamela Gellar
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
64 COMPANIES TO PULL ADS FROM ‘ALL-AMERICAN MUSLIM’
Every company is to free to choose where they put their ad dollars. 64 companies have now pulled their ads. And rightly so. It’s is not thatthe show about Muslims. It is that the show was predicated on a lie and the relentless propaganda of Islamic supremacists. Or perhaps advertisers don’t wish to advertise on a show whose ratings are in the toilet.
The fact is that the show specifically situates itself as a response to “Islamophobia” — this was clear from the opening moments of the first show. But it is severely misleading, because it doesn’t deal with the kind of Muslims who would ever have caused anyone any concern in the first place. And I have been saying that since the show premiered.
On page 75 of my book, Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance, I explain the sinister orgins of the thought-crushing device, “Islamophobia”:
The very word “Islamophobia” is a fictional construct, as journalist Claire Berlinski explains, “The neologism ‘Islamophobia’ did not simply emerge ex nihilo. It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia….Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the creation of the word. ‘This loathsome term,’ he writes, ‘is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.’”85
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” Adolf Hitler said that. Der fuhrer would be impressed.
We cannot expect advertisers to fund this “islamophobic” propaganda. And we can’t expect advertisers to insert themselves in political controversies.
Where is the television show, “All American Sikh,” “All American Hindu,” “All American Buddhist”? How about a reality show documenting the fight of counter jihadists in light of the over 18,000 Islamic attacks across the world since 911?
Support Lowes. They are taking heat for making the right call. Contact them and buy Lowes gift certificates, hang them on your tree.CONTACT Lowe’s at 1-800-445-6937, E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org, Robert.A.Niblock@lowes.com, Thomas.J.Lamb@lowes.com, email@example.com
The conservative Christian group that’s claiming responsibility for home improvement chain Lowe’s pulling their ads from the reality show “All American Muslim” says there are 64 other companies that have cancelled their ad buys for the show as a result of their e-mail campaign.
McDonalds, Amazon and Bank of America are among the companies the Florida Family Association (FFA) says they’ve targeted to get their commercials off the reality tv show “All American Muslim.” Lowe’s was the first to make headlines because they’re the only company to confirm they canceled ad buys as a result of the the conservative group’s campaign.
“While we continue to advertise on various cable networks, including TLC, there are certain programs that do not meet Lowe’s advertising guidelines, including the show you brought to our attention. Lowe’s will no longer be advertising on that program” a representative for Lowe’s wrote in a statement.
“The show profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish,” read one of FFA’s emails to it’s members that urged them to contact dozens of companies and ask them to “discontinue advertising on this show.”
According to the Muslim Public Affairs Council, FFA’s campaign against “All-American Muslim” stems from the work of two “infamous Islamophobes” writers Robert Spencer, author of “The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran,” and Pamela Geller, author of “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.”
“The main danger of All-American Muslim is that it’s misleading,” wrote Geller in an article reprinted by FFA. “The Muslims portrayed in the show are free to choose their path. That is the beauty of living in a free society. But so many aren’t. … Who speaks for Jessica Mokdad, who lived not far from where this show is taping, in Dearborn, Michigan? Mokdad was honor murdered by her stepfather, Rahim Alfetlawi, for ‘not following Islam.’”
There are, however, some sane voices jumping into this mind-boggling debate.
“Lowe’s should be ashamed for succumbing to this type of bigotry,” said Deana Nassar, Muslim Public Affairs Council’s Hollywood Liaison on the group’s website. “The show is an important effort to portray the everyday lives of a group of normal, mainstream Muslim Americans. Caving into the fear campaign initiated by thinly veiled hate groups sends the wrong message at the wrong time.”
Mia Farrow and Russell Simmons have called for a boycott of Lowe’s on Twitter, with Simmons promising to “sic every civil rights agency on (Lowe’s) until they straighten this out.” A representative for Simmons also confirmed to the Hollywood Reporter that he will buy any remaining ad space on the show to promote the RushCard, a prepaid Visa credit card.
THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BACK IN MARCH, before Pastor Jones decided to demonstrate in Dearborn, Michigan, yet the contents apply directly to the complete trampling of his Constitutional Rights of Free Speech and Free Assembly. He only said he was going to exercise these rights and he was arrested, went to court and ultimately put into jail WITHOUT EVER HAVING COMMITTED A CRIME! And the whole system KNEW he had committed no crime! This is the USA, not Stalin’s Soviet Union, Hitler’s Germany, any Islamic Government country. Here, we are SUPPOSE to be guaranteed the GOD GIVEN rights of Freedom. There is no footnote that says, “Except in Dearborn, Michigan”.
In one of the more memorable passages in Orwell’s 1984, Winston Smith contemplates the inevitable doom that will follow from the first entry which he is preparing to make in his diary. The act was not illegal, he reflected — there were no laws in Oceania — but its discovery would nevertheless result in ten years in a forced labor camp.
If your tastes tend more to the lowbrow, there’s that great line from National Lampoon’s “Vacation”: “It ain’t illegal. Hell, I oughta know — I’m the sheriff!”
We see an increasing number of instances in the United States and the “Free World” in which citizens can be punished without any specific legal pretext.
To take one example which has been around for a while, there is no written law against carrying large amounts of cash on one’s person, nor any specific statutory definition of the threshold at which the amount of money one carries becomes a criminal offense. Nevertheless, anyone stopped by a police officer and found to be carrying thousands of dollars in cash will be presumed a drug trafficker of some sort, and their money seized according to the usual procedure of “civil forfeiture.”
When ballot measures to decriminalize or liberalize marijuana laws clear all the hurdles and are voted into law, as often or not the cops just quietly ignore them. For example, last October Los Angeles County, California Sheriff Lee Baca baldly stated that he would continue to arrest pot users even if Proposition 19 (which would have legalized it) passed. Baca’s “argument” was that it is still criminalized by federal statute, and that federal law supersedes state law.
Even as explained by the state’s own pet jurists, of course, this was utter nonsense. The functionaries of a state are not bound to enforce federal law. The practical effect of a measure legalizing pot, had it passed, would simply have been to tell the feds to enforce their own law. It would have withdrawn California’s state and local cops from the enforcement effort and dismantled the whole apparatus of interjurisdictional drug task forces. But none of that matters. Because if a cop wants to enforce a “law” badly enough, he’ll make one up.
Just about every week, Radley Balko reports on someone being arrested for filming cops, on the pretext that they’re “hindering apprehension,” “interfering with police business,” or “violating the wiretap laws,” or some such bull-hockey. Never mind that there’s no actual law criminalizing the act of recording public functionaries performing public duties in a public place, or that there’s even a law on the books specifically exempting such activity from the wiretap statutes.
If you’re willing to fight it out before judges or police commissioners, for weeks or months, you may or may not get a decision overruling the cop’s actions. But in the meantime you’ve had your camera (and maybe your nose) smashed, spent time in a holding cell, had your name dragged through the dirt, and maybe lost your job. And meanwhile, the cops just keep on doing it anyway. I mean, seriously, they can kill innocent people and wind up on paid administrative leave pending a wrist-slap, so how worried do you think they are about breaking a camera and roughing up some dirty effing hippie?
As I write, functionaries within the US national security apparatus are busily looking for any pretext on which Julian Assange — an Australian citizen — can be extradited from the United Kingdom. All three are ostensibly countries which share the common law tradition’s procedural protections of the accused, and which pay a great deal of lip service to the “rule of law.”
Yet nobody can state, in anything resembling clear terms, a plausible explanation of just what law Assange is supposed to have violated. Treason? He’s not a U.S. citizen. Espionage? If publishing classified documents leaked by someone else is a crime, please explain the difference between Wikileaks’ publication of the leaked diplomatic cables and the New York Times’ publication of the Pentagon Papers. So far they’ve failed to torture Bradley Manning into testifying that Assange suborned the leaked documents from him.
But if one expedient doesn’t work, they’ll try something else. The law doesn’t really matter. If the spooks, cops and prosecutors want to get somebody bad enough, they’ll come up with a bespoke “law” tailored to their needs. The custom manufacture of pretexts is a cottage industry for them.
In practice, the law is whatever they say it is.
And these are supposedly the moderate Muslims. Imagine for a moment how much more dangerous if they weren’t supposedly moderate. There is no moderate Islam or Radical Islam. There is only Islam and non-practicing Islam. This is a photo of Islam.
ORIGINALLY POSTED AS COMMENT TO SON’S FACEBOOK POSTING
As a patriotic American concerned with the future of my country, I’m less worried about the idiots trying to get into office than where we are heading. The Chinese are lending us money to finance our debt we can’t pay so we can by more stuff from them and for oil, while the Islamic stealth jihad slowly gets Sharia Law replacing both our Constitutional freedoms and eliminating our freedoms. And our government, DEMS and REP both allowing these travesties.
Palin is mental inferior and not qualified for election for dog catcher. And before anyone starts screaming liberal, I’m not. I’m a thinking American. And, my choice for someone with the intelligence and integrity to be MY president, it is Mitt Romney.
If anyone REALLY wants to know where we are heading on the course George and Barack have set us on, watch the Glenn Beck show. He will tell you the truth and it will make you mad, especially if you are like most Americans, head firmly stuck in the sand (or some other place not polite to mention).
And if you really want some truth that will make you unhappy or enlightened, depending on how well you can handle reality, you are welcome to go to paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com
a large Muslim presence in the United States unnecessarily increases the danger of terrorist attacks on American soil or on American airplanes.
It should not really be necessary to talk about this, nor should we have to document it at length. Please, do not waste our time with talk of Timothy McVeigh. Muslim attacks have taken place or have been intercepted before taking place time and time again in recent years against American citizens on American soil or airplanes, from 9/11 to Nidal Hasan to the Christmas underwear bomber to the plot against the fuel lines at JFK to a plot to bomb the subways in D.C. to the New Jersey Muslims planning to train abroad to commit terrorism at home–the list goes on and on and on. The most recent as of this writing is, of course, Somali immigrant Mohamed Osman Mohamud, the would-be Christmas tree bomber, but he won’t be anywhere near the last. Jihad Watch, with typical dark humor, refers to such terrorists as “misunderstanders of Islam,” and googling that phrase at Jihad Watch turns up a huge number of highly informative posts, a compendium of the acts and plans of those “misunderstanders” of the Religion of Peace here and abroad.
It is folly to try to tell us that this has nothing to do with Islam. This is not a matter of abstract argument. Tell it to the perpetrators, and let us know how that’s working out for you after a few more plots and attacks. And tell it to all the air travelers and victims who have paid the price for multiculturalism in loss of time, loss of privacy, and loss of freedom, not to mention loss of life.
Really, point I is almost too easy to substantiate. It is so easy to substantiate that the really religiously committed multiculturalist tacitly acknowledges it when, as in the case of General Casey, he implies that the deaths of Americans really don’t matter all that much, that non-discrimination is more important than saving lives. We should be willing to die for the religion of non-discrimination–no airport profiling, no sacrificing of diversity in the military, no matter what the cost. One blogger has said as much, calling on the people of the West to be “brave” by refusing profiling on airlines, because “it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip.”
II. We should disinvite Islam because too many Muslims in the West stubbornly refuse to assimilate or to assimilate fully and, by their refusal, succeed in changing and interrupting Western life in unacceptable ways.
The only difficulty in discussing this point is one of organization of the wealth of material available. First, there are the many relatively small incidents of assimilation refusal and Muslim bullying, but those relatively small incidents may not be small to those directly affected. They also add up.
–A Muslim woman brings a complaint against a gymnasium for not taking her side when she was interrupted in prayer by another woman trying to get past her to a locker.
–Somali meat packing workers have caused enormous problems by demanding that they all receive the same time off for prayer day after day, resulting in unfair treatment of other workers and interruption of the plant’s work.
–At George Mason University, Muslims have taken over the supposedly non-denominational “prayer room” and on one occasion refused to allow a Christian to pray the rosary there.
–Muslims have received the privilege of special religious footbaths, installed in state facilities, so that they can wash for prayer.
Under “miscellaneous and disturbing” we can file…
–A Muslim woman refuses to allow her face to be seen when she testifies in court, challenging the centuries-old Anglo legal principle that seeing the face is important for evaluating testimony. She sued over the judge’s refusal to allow her to testify with her face covered.
–A Muslim woman demands that the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, make an exception for Muslim women to its standing security policy requiring that faces not be covered when traveling on public transportation. Grand Rapids caves and rescinds the rule.
–Muslim taxi drivers refuse to accept blind people with dogs.
–Muslim husbands in Western countries have put medical workers in intolerable positions by refusing to allow treatment of their wives by male doctors, even in emergency situations.
Under “serious problems” we can file…
–Medical workers demand that they be allowed to wear long sleeves, despite public health concerns.
–Muslims take over Paris streets during certain hours. A similar problem appears to be beginning in New York City now. Reportedly, the mayor of New York City has ordered that those clogging the streets with illegally parked vehicles for prayer not be ticketed.
–Attacks on Christian missionaries, preventing Christian missions work, that involve the police of a heavily Muslim town.
–Honor killings in the West (too many to list)
–Female genital mutilation in the West (many incidents)
–A fatwa against American citizen Molly Norris for angering Muslims, together with the presence of people in the U.S. who might carry it out, forcing her to go into hiding.
Americans have legitimate reasons not to want a population that brings these problems with it. There is nothing wrong with not wanting our streets clogged week after week with praying (not to mention belligerent) Muslims and their vehicles. There is nothing wrong with wanting Western rules of hygiene observed in hospitals. There is nothing wrong with wanting our factories to be able to continue to operate even when it is sundown during Ramadan. And there is certainly nothing wrong with not wanting our citizens forced into hiding by a murderous immigrant population.
Moreover, it is entirely legitimate for us to say that we simply do not want our police forces and our social workers to have to deal with problems so horrific and so alien as female genital mutilation and with cultural groups that carry out these mutilations in secret. Honor killings, too, ought to be something that “does not happen here.” The notion that our country should have a distinctive cultural quality and should be a haven from such practices is a good one and one of which we should not be ashamed.
But there is more than that. Last summer one author (Lydia) caused a great deal of shock by relating the issue of Muslim immigration to Christian parental rights. That post has been repeatedly denounced and even misunderstood. The point was not that liberals will come to like conservative Christians if we gang up on Muslims. The point was simply this: When one group of people abuses its freedoms, those freedoms become tenuous for other people. In our present, increasingly anti-Christian culture, the upside-down truth is that the people most likely to suffer are not those who are actually guilty of, say, threatening, abusing, and murdering their children for religious reasons but rather those who are entirely innocent, who adhere to a completely different religion that does not support such abuses, but who will be targets of opportunity for social workers once it becomes acceptable to say that our country has a growing problem with “religious fundamentalist” child abuse. Just as the refusal to profile in airlines and even ethnic quotas on stopping passengers mean that people who are extremely unlikely to be terrorists must submit tamely to humiliating and inappropriate pat-downs, body scans, and searches, so an increased awareness of Muslim abuse of parental authority, combined with a refusal actually to admit that Muslims are a special problem, is likely to result in increased persecution of innocent Christian families. The Melissa Busekros case in Germany illustrates this point quite well; German authorities specifically cited their interest in preventing the rise of “parallel societies” (a clear allusion to concerns about immigrant groups) as a reason for outlawing home schooling for everyone and for persecuting the completely German and mainstream Busekros family. Americans have a legitimate interest in not importing populations whose members are especially likely to abuse the freedoms that America offers. Doing so places those freedoms at risk.
The third type of objection to our importing these problems should be discussed as a partially independent point:
III. We should disinvite Islam because of the real danger that we will assimilate to Islam and change important things in our country that must not be changed. This will, among other things, make it difficult if not impossible to do any good for those who wish to leave Islam in the United States or who are victims within Muslim groups and families in the United States.
–I have already discussed above, as a very disturbing consequence of the development of unassimilated Muslim groups, the dangers to Christian freedom to evangelize. But it is especially important to emphasize the way in which the Dearborn police and mayor have become complicit in this problem. They have so internalized the norms of the Muslim populace that they consider the missionaries who simply engaged in peaceful conversations to be the problem, and they considered them to be the problem because the Muslims did not like their behavior. This means that, in effect, the City of Dearborn has assimilated to Islam in this area, not the other way around. What that means, in turn, is that it is now harder than it would otherwise be to evangelize the Muslims that do reside in Dearborn. Insofar as Muslim values are adopted by Western jurisdictions, our ability to help Muslims to (for example) leave Islam, understand the problems with Islam, and learn about Christianity is compromised. This is a point that too many Christians, concerned merely with reaching out to Muslims, do not understand. When too many Muslims are present, concentrated, and not well assimilated, you cannot help them. You will be stopped from doing so. Those who want to witness to or change Muslims have, therefore, an interest in limiting their numbers.
–This problem is particularly noticeable in the United Kingdom, where reports have surfaced of Muslims in the social work professions who betray women attempting to flee their abusive families. In a related and specific story, UK social workers attempted explicitly to dissuade a teenage girl from converting to Christianity, forbidding her to attend Christian activities, firing her Christian foster mother, and urging her to reconsider on the grounds of the danger to her from Muslims for converting. So much for the “helping professions.” It is obvious that the UK is losing its ability to help the victims of Islam in its midst and that it is losing this ability precisely because there are already so many Muslims in its midst! When you invite Muslims to your country and treat Islam as just another religion, this is an entirely natural and predictable result.
Repeatedly, in ostensibly Western countries, courts have either been asked or, even more disturbing, have agreed, to consider “cultural” excuses for outrageous Muslim behavior.
–In Canada, defense attorneys for a brother who murdered his sister and her fiance literally argued “provocation” in mitigation of his crime, attempting to reduce the crime to manslaughter. What was the provocation? The daughter’s bringing “dishonor” on the family by becoming engaged without the consent of her own male relatives and moving in with the family of her fiance. So the Western lawyers for a murderer in a Western country have deliberately attempted to get honor killings treated as mere manslaughter because they are honor killings.
–In Italy, a daughter was beaten by her parents and brother, but the sentence was struck down by the high court for “cultural” reasons on the grounds that the parents’ motivation had been for her own good and not out of anger.
–A German judge, later removed from the case, expressly relied on the Koran’s permission to beat wives in her denial of a fast-track divorce to an abused wife. It was the husband’s culture, you see, that he was permitted to beat his wife, and his wife was supposed to have taken that into account when she married him.
–In New Jersey, a judge refused to consider a husband guilty of spousal rape in a protective order case because his religion (Islam) teaches that he should have sexual access to his wife at all times. While the decision was struck down by a higher court, it is extremely disturbing that it should have been made at all.
Some would try to say that these courts or judges are just being “bad judges” or “jerks” or “insensitive to domestic violence,” and are not really enforcing sharia, as though it is illicit for Islam critics to mention sharia in these contexts at all. But these decisions expressly cite the religious beliefs of the Muslims involved, which are, like it or not, beliefs fostered by sharia. By deferring to these cultural beliefs and expectations, the courts are deferring to sharia whether they call it that or not. In America, it is entirely unacceptable that this should happen in any shape or form. It should not even need to be said, but laws against raping and beating wives and beating daughters, much less killing sisters, are good laws, and it should not make the slightest difference in a legal context to charges, sentencing, or other legal matters such as protective orders or divorce law if someone’s “culture” tells him that such behaviors are permitted. Western laws should not budge on these matters, yet they are budging.
The very existence of large populations or heavy concentrations that hold these cultural views exerts a tacit pressure on the legal system of a region to accommodate it. The mechanisms for this pressure are multiple. There is, of course, sheer fear and intimidation, but that is only the beginning. Mayors, police, prosecutors, judges, and social workers want to be perceived as culturally sensitive. Those tasked with enforcing laws rejected by a resistant immigrant population are likely to suffer from sheer fatigue and frustration. And ultimately, democracy takes over. Today’s immigrants are tomorrow’s citizens, and their children, born on American soil, are today’s citizens.
Muslim populations that do not assimilate produce members of the voting public who elect people who represent or at least defer to their values and who will appoint others who do the same. Where those values are destructive of important aspects of the American way of life, the result is disastrous.
This quoted summary is neither my opinion, nor do I necessarily agree wit all points OR the author’s proposed “solution”, but it does list a very accurate set of examples of Islam’s implementation of Sharia Law in the US and the West.
Let it be known that we, the people of the United States of America, stand in recognition of the true principle that whenever a government abandons the purpose for which we have created it and even becomes hostile towards that which it was once a defender of, it is no longer a fit steward of the political power that is inherent in the people and lent to this government with strict conditions. These conditions are clearly defined in the United States Constitution and understood by the common man. Furthermore, to the extent that our government violates these conditions, they nullify their own authority, at which point it is our right and duty, not as subjects but as sovereign Americans, to entrust this power to new stewards who will not depart from the laws we have given them.
This being the case, let it be known that should our government seek to further tax, restrict infringe on or impose on the rights given by God and the US Constitution, that the duty of us good and faithful people will not be to obey them but to alter or abolish them and institute new government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to us shall seem most likely to effect our safety and happiness.
The Big Ideas Presented:
All power rests inherently with the people so logically as a government moves further and further away from the people their power is subsequently diminished. This would mean that the federal government, being the furthest away from the people would also be the least powerful. This is recognized by the 9th and 10th amendments. However, the “totem pole” of power, which is supposed to have the people on top, gets inverted when the federal government controls all the money. This is why the Federal Reserve is so bad for America. They print trillions of new dollars causing the money you have to become worth less, and you feel this in rising prices. So, you are broke and the federal government has all the power. At this point they treat our rights as privileges that they can revoke. Article One, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution addresses this problem and offers the solution (gold backed currency). If we are going to successfully defend our rights, we must understand how the federal government became so powerful that they are now a threat to us.
ADAPTED FROM the “Second Ammendment Task Force” of Fairbanks, Alaska
My son posted the following on his Facebook page:
Honesty: my definition of a free society, is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.
Unfortunately, we are quickly and definitively becoming a non-free society because it is NOT safe to be unpopular in America. Daily, the unpopular because of religion, sexual orientation, criminal record, race or ethnic background, are assaulted, discriminated against and even murdered. I fear for our Republic as more and more we lose the rights and freedoms given by God and the US Constitution.
- Admonish One Another
- Comment on Son’s Facebook regarding ObamaCare
- Can We Stop This Creeping Jihad?
- Terrorism in Egypt under Muslim Brotherhood is being rejected
- Baby Jihad or Jihad by birth rate
- Our Wives Are In Charge HVAC Service
- The Arab World Fears the ‘Safavid’ | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com
- Report: EU Backing Away from Blacklisting Hezbollah | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com
- The not defendable borders of lesser Israel
- Allah and Muhammad quote Babylonian Talmud instead of Hebrew Scriptures
- Prominent U.S. Imam: New Caliphate Should Wage Jihad
- Yes, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a Muslim Terrorist
- Business Services – Temporary Posts
- Christianity / God
- Daily Gospel
- Just Because :-)
- Pending Classification
- Societal / Cultural Issues
- Understanding Islam