New America in Poetry…

16 01 2013

 Ban the Gun! Ban Free Speech!
Ban the food kids like to Eat!

Ban the Car, then Ban the Boat!
Ban the peoples right to Vote!

Gather us up and Teach us All,
That Hell ain’t Hot and Rocks don’t Fall!

Then we’ll all be good ‘lil Sheep!
We’ll all bow down and Kiss your Feet!

Safety first and Damn the Gall
Of People who won’t stay inside the Wall!

By: DTN

Evil exists in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts.  We can not legislate evil into oblivion. Good people will abide by the law and defective people will always find a way around it.

Evil exists all around us. The largest mass killings of the 20th Century were committed by Governments against a previously unarmed public!  Therefore, the greatest human tragedies on record can be attributed to governments. Who do governments target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders … but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise.

Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to

Image

exterminate millions of them, and they will answer, “We were disarmed before it happened”.  Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust – confiscation of firearms from the people.

These tragedies are why the Second Amendment exists, and why we shouldn’t be in such a hurry to surrender our Right to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we have no right, and no means, to defend ourselves and our families.

Original Author Unknown-Edited by DTN


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : American Heritage/History, Political, Uncategorized

Death of a Nation

13 11 2012

Polarization

The United States  has, since it’s inception of a common government, hosted political views that weren’t always in unison.  The Founders were seldom in agreement about how and what type of government to establish, and the very fact that it took 6 years to ratify a Constitution following the 8 year War of Independence, is testimony to the process and debate between men who were independent thinkers.  While the Founders may have been polarized politically at times, they were mostly if not nearly unanimously in agreement that Mankind was beholden, and responsible, to a Creator God for his actions in this life.  They also understood the gravity of their moment in the history of Mankind and what it would mean to posterity.  They fully comprehended, as John Jay said, “The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon and choosing the forms of government under which they should live.”  

Noah Webster wrote, “When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.”  [Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, �49.] (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=80)

This was the regulating factor alleviating the political polarization of early America.  This concept is readily availed within the opening and closing paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence and in the numerous documents and letters forged by those that we call “The Founders“.

How to kill a Giant…

The United States of America has, without question, been the single most powerful Nation the world has ever seen.  No military force ever fielded could have successfully invaded and taken this country by armed conquest.  No philosophy or ideology conceived or contrived has been able to break this Union of States or the American Spirit, which has bound her people with one resolve.  The ability of her people to assimilate into the great American “melting pot”, each culture of origin of her immigrants brought a flavor of their homeland which served to enhance, but not overpower, the uniqueness of what the entire world has aspired to, and what we have known simply as “America”.

America is not an empire; the concept is not temporal but spiritual; its very essence of greatness has been borne by an idea which has become but a whisper for fear of it vanishing.  No nation, kingdom, or empire ever ascended to such heights of glory and power as the United States of America, and yet afforded or preserved her citizens such individual rights and liberties.  This is the beauty and singular ideal that has separated America from all other countries and empires and kingdoms of the world; yes even for all of human history!

Until now.

…Divide and Conquer

What has become of America? How have we become such a balkanized, polarized, divided population?  We are not even an “American people” any longer.  The great melting pot of assimilation has become a TV dinner, cold and segregated lest any segment of our society actually merge with another.  The push for “Multi-Culturalism” and “Pluralism” have resulted in the exact opposite of the promised outcome.  We are more racially divided, our immigrants do not seek to assimilate into American language or culture and pretty much demand that we allow them to retain a separate community, culture and language, and if we ask them to come join us we are labeled as racist, xenophobic, hateful bigots.

There was a time, in fact up until recently, that immigrants to this country raised their children here to assimilate into American Society, insisting they learn the language and culture, and become American.  I personally know one such family who came here from Southeast Asia, narrowly escaping the Communist “cleansing” (genocide), which swept unbridled through the region post US/Vietnamese involvement, with the shirts on their backs and lost many family members on the way out.   These friends speak their language of origin in the home and as far as I know stick to a traditional diet in the home. (It is awesome Asian food!) I once asked the father why the elders of the family have Lao names and all the children have American names.  His answer was profound. “We were born in Laos. We have Lao names. Our children were born in America; they are Americans. They have American names.”  (Not once did he utter “Asian-American”.)  The children, all equally bilingual, are productive and vivacious young citizens who are happy to be Americans, cognizant of the American ideal, fully assimilated, yet retain a uniquely Laotian influence, while working hard to provide for themselves.  My friends do not demand that they be given special recognition, special rights, or that the rest of America make provision for them.

Modern America is the only nation in the world that acquiesces to, and encourages such nonsense, and our governmental policies ensure that these divisions are kept in place and those lines of separation remain clear. Why?

The answer is very simple: a divided people are much easier to control than a united one.  It’s classic Saul Alinskey- Create a state of chaos by overloading the system.  Use the politics of personal destruction to embarrass your enemy and exploit their own human faults.

If politicians can keep us labeled as “African-Americans, Native Americans, Mexican-Americans, Asian-American, and now even sexual preference merits the designation “Gay-Americans”.  (I remember when just about everyone I knew were “gay” because we were happy about most things in life.) Now I am hearing the term “Muslim-American” so now we can be further divided by our religion.  I have noticed, however, that when the media, or politicians, use these pandering terms it is never to integrate any people group with another, but to differentiate between people groups.  This type of labeling does nothing to unite or integrate society, but has a divisive connotation and serves to further fracture our society.  It is no accident.

I have no problem with people celebrating their heritage; I like to experience “cultural diversity” as well as the next person.  But while all people are created equal, and should be treated as equal, not all ideas are. This is why “Pluralism” is a failure.

Pluralism assumes that all religions are equal and that each is as valuable as the next.  The fact is, all religions, ideologies, cultures, and political systems are not equal.  Such equity would naturally require “Moral Relativism”. Moral Relativism which does not contrast by judgement of good and evil, also doesn’t differentiate between Adolph Hitler and Mother Theresa.   Definitively, (if that is “morally relatively” possible!) there is no absolute truth, no right or wrong, and we should all tolerate, if not embrace, any behavior of others no matter how destructive, even when we find it objectionable or wrong.  Oh, wait…hmm…sounds familiar doesn’t it?

The Last Great Virtue

“Tolerance” and apathy have been called “the last great virtues of a dying society”(Aristotle).  By tolerating evil whether it be in the form of “religion”, ideology, or culture, America has allowed it’s greatest legitimate virtue of a free and open society, to become the very avenue by which the enemy has gained access.  The cancers of tolerance and apathy have metastasized.

The very laws of nature demand and demonstrate truth.  An acorn always becomes an oak tree; it can’t decide it is going to be different than all the other acorns, and grow into a maple tree.  A stalk of wheat cannot bear a head of rice.  A kangaroo cannot eat a dingo, and a dingo cannot nest in a tree.  A bird cannot breathe water, and water always seeks its own level.  Failure of a wildebeest to exercise caution at the watering hole can result in being eaten by crocodile or lion.  Such are the laws of nature, set in place by nature’s God.

The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God have been a template for mankind since the beginning.  Unyielding and absolute truth tempered by the merciful character of God as set forth in the Bible, set the parameters for a civil and just human government, and when these boundaries are breached, chaos follows.  Thomas Jefferson referred to this template in The Declaration of Independence, and men like John Locke and William Blackstone, both scholars in law and Scripture, influenced the thinking of America’s founders, so much so, that the type of government created was so unique that it has been referred to as “The American Experiment” for nigh onto 250 years now.

This experiment commands the vigilance of an attentive people, so that “government of the People, by the People, and for the People, shall not perish from the Earth”.  That was the nature of the experiment, and a failure by the People to attend to those requirements has resulted in what seems to be impending doom.  When Benjamin Franklin was asked by a citizen just after the Constitution was ratified, “Well Doctor, what have we got; a Republic or a Monarchy?”  “A Republic,” answered Franklin, “If you can keep it.”

George Washington said, “Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.”  He also warned against government expansion, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Or in more contemporary language, “government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have.”

We seem to have lost our Republic, Mr. Franklin.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : American Heritage/History, Political, Religious

The Grand Deception: Muslim Brotherhood in America

6 11 2012

I have written numerous articles here about the Islamic invasion of America and the major operative organization in that endeavor, the Muslim Brotherhood.  Furthermore I have published documents such as “The Strategic Goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America”, which was captured by FBI in Virginia and used as evidence in the “U. S Govt. vs Holy Land Foundation” trial of 2008, exposing numerous Islamic groups and organizationsin the USA as terrorist financiers around the world, and a few other articles that I have not authored.  The article below is one such piece from Investors Business Daily.

Steven Emerson

Steven Emerson is possibly the foremost authority on Islamic Jihad in America, and has been at the task of exposing the threat since his first documentary aired on PBS back in 1994.  His subsequent works such as American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us  have been a gold mine for “counter jihad”  patriots and curiosity seekers alike, who desire to learn more about the subject.  Emerson is the Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

This editorial was posted on Investors Business Daily website on November 1.  I have added the bold highlights.  H/T to IBD

Islamofascism: A new documentary exposes the Muslim Brotherhood as a “subversive menace” hiding in plain sight. Forget the Mideast; this group threatens us in our backyard.

In “The Grand Deception,” producer and award-winning journalist Steve Emerson spends 70 minutes documenting how the radical Brotherhood’s tentacles have reached deep inside the U.S. political system over the past few decades.

The footage Emerson obtained of these Islamists speaking candidly behind closed doors is stunning. They may mouth pleasantries to our face, but behind our backs they’re plotting our destruction.  Emerson showed them praying in Congress or breaking bread in the White House as “peace-loving moderates,” then revealed them just days later damning America and calling for violent jihad against us and our allies.

The treachery of Siraj Wahhaj, one of the Brotherhood’s celebrated imams, is most chilling.  At first, we see him humbly giving the invocation before Congress as the first Muslim clergyman to do so.  Within days of that prayer, he’s back at his Brooklyn mosque spewing venomous hatred about America and non-Muslims.

“You know what this country is? It’s a garbage can,” Wahhaj snarls in a sermon to his flock. “It’s filthy.” He prays America “crumbles” and is replaced by Islam. Then he calls for jihad. You see one clip, then the other, and the deceit and duplicity are just breathtaking.

We also see, in another scene, prominent Brotherhood leader Abdurahman Alamoudi — once a White House fixture and State Department goodwill ambassador — publicly denouncing terrorism. “We are against all forms of terrorism,” he claims. In another scene, we see the same man, now safely in front of a group of Muslims, exalting Hamas and Hezbollah.

Then he’s heard at a mosque exhorting the faithful to transform America into “a Muslim country, even if it takes 100 years.” Finally we overhear him grumbling in an FBI wiretap that al-Qaida didn’t kill enough Americans in the African embassy bombings.

Today, Alamoudi is behind bars for plotting terrorism. The U.S. learned he’d been secretly raising funds for al-Qaida only after he’d infiltrated the highest echelons of our government. And only after he’d created the Muslim chaplain corps for the Pentagon that’s still in use.

The documentary exposes a very clever — and insidious — enemy, more so than the communists. It operates, as one interviewed FBI agent describes it, a “tangled web” of front groups and mosques all hiding behind religion and the First Amendment, and all lavishly funded by the Saudi government.

Another agent interviewed on camera recounts how he saw a banner at an Islamic Society of North America event in the Midwest that read: “DEATH TO ISRAEL. DEATH TO AMERICA.” An ISNA official, Sayyid Syeed, is caught on tape saying, “Our job is to change the Constitution of America.”

Agents described the alphabet soup of Brotherhood fronts — including ISNA and CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) — as a “Trojan horse.” Indeed, these groups have been regular guests at the Obama White House, despite being named unindicted terrorist co-conspirators in 2008.

To eradicate this internal threat, a President Romney will have to clean house. He’d also be well-advised to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, then use RICO statutes to break up its subversive U.S. racket.

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/110112-631838-agents-warn-of-muslim-brotherhood-trojan-horse.htm#ixzz2BPppmJIa


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Islam, Muslim Brotherhood, Political

Nancy Pelosi Fundraising with HAMAS tied CAIR for Democrats

3 11 2012

You won’t be seeing this “undercover” photo on mainstream media outlets like the one of Romney at an exclusive high dollar fundraiser.  This Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee event cost a minimum of $5000 per person up to and over $30,000 per couple.  (View the invitation here)

Visible in the photo are Nancy with Nihad Awad (foreground), the co-Founder of the HAMAS benefactor Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).  This Islamist and terrorist funding organization was named “unindicted co-conspirator” in the largest terrorist funding trial in American history.  Why are they still “unindicted”?  One Barak Hussein Obama became President of the United States and shut down the machine pursuing these terrorist affiliated groups in the United States.  In fact, by now, CAIR has been successful in re-defining the United States government policy in almost every facet of national security and policy.

They are quite effective at fundraising and funneling lots of money, so no surprise that CAIR plays a major part in campaign efforts by the Democratic National Committee and its subsidiaries.  It should also come as no surprise that these Islamist groups like CAIR, MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council), Muslim Students Association (MSA) and a plethora of other Muslim Brotherhood front groups have taken such an active role in the election of Democrat candidates all across America.  I have previously written about the like-minded philosophies between these Islamist groups and the DNC in my article “Social Justice”  .  Take a look at it to understand why Muslims vote Democrat!

In this article on The Daily Caller, Awad is quoted in an Arabic Al-Jazeera TV interview while discussing the Democratic Platform accepted at the 2012 DNC Convention as, “an indication that the Democratic Party’s political platform with regard to the Middle East is developing.” Particularly concerning the Party policy towards Israel.

The Fundraiser held last May, is one of many held to raise money to oppose such candidates as Rep. Col. Allen West and Rep. Michelle Bachman. The DNC, with the help of Muslim Brotherhood funding, have pumped millions into trying to unseat these good conservative Congressmen/women who understand the threat to National Security that these Islamist organizations pose.   Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/02/pelosi-holds-secret-fundraiser-with-islamists-hamas-linked-groups/#ixzz2BBqQX9Dv

The Obama Campaign recently lost its Muslim Outreach coordinator, Mazen Asbahi, who resigned under the cloud of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Not to worry though, as he is still working for the Obama camp and appeared at an American Muslim Democratic Caucus  (AMDC)luncheon to verify that he is still “110% ” behind Obama and is still actively serving in Muslim Outreach for the campaign.  The AMDC issued a press release saying the DNC has given its blessing to the Caucus which is devoted to bringing the Islamic community into political activism.  [Source: Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report]

Hat tip to The Daily Caller & Jihad Watch.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : General, Muslim Brotherhood, Political

Ever Get Lectured by a Teenager!??!

7 10 2012

Yes, there is hope for the Future of America!


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : American Heritage/History, Political, Videos

“The Future Must Not Belong to Those Who Would Slander the Prophet of Islam”

1 10 2012

“The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet of Islam.”

A friend had called and told me of this quote by the President of the United States and I must admit, I did not believe it.  This friend calls me often to discuss world events and usually has his facts right.  He is the only person I know who can read a newspaper, listen to the television, and carry on a coherent conversation all at the same time, and tell you detailed information from all three sources.  I am jealous!

I asked him to see if he could confirm that with another source while I began to research myself.  A news break confirmed it, and I still couldn’t believe it!  I began to text a few close and trusted friends who hadn’t yet heard it.  Then a while later they began texting back that “…Obama also spoke against violence against Christians.”  So I watched the entire speech at the UN myself. Then again.  And finally a third and fourth time, rewinding and replaying several key points.  So here is my analysis of Barack Obama’s speech before the UN General Assembly on Sept. 25, 2012.

The underlying theme of the entire speech was “Tolerance”.  This should not surprise anyone, anywhere, as it is the prevailing theme of Leftist/Progressive/Socialist ideology around the world, particularly in the West.  The only problem with those who preach tolerance, is they aren’t.  Most of the time when someone demands your tolerance of something be it speech, morality, or behavior, is not asking for your mere “tolerance” of them, but demand your codification of whatever it is. But I digress!

While the “overt” theme was tolerance and “mutual respect”, the main subject matter related directly to the stupid little Youtube video which made fun of Muhammad and Islam.  It looked like something high school kids might come up with. Very poorly done and amateurish.  I question not only the source of production, but also the fact that United States Government officials are bending over backwards to disavow the stupid thing.  As Shakespeare would say, “Methinks he doth protest too much”.

The President did the right thing by formally paying tribute to Ambassador Chris Stevens killed by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya.  Next he posed a valiant effort in standing up for freedom of speech, especially as we know and understand it in America, while recognizing that “not all countries” share our belief in free speech.

Mr. Obama then addressed the violent reactions to the video, blaming the actions of a few backward extremists for the attacks and calling them to leave the cause of violence  and politics of destruction behind and join with us to create a better future….Kumbayah!  Oh, I have no problem with what he said, and he said it well, but either his naivety or his chronic narcissism has clouded his view of the real world.  Especially, the Islamic world.  You see, these “extremist impulses” which “divide the world into us and them”, are part and parcel of the Sharia which all Muslims are obligated to establish so that there is no more “us and them”; that is Dar al-Harb (“House of War”-anywhere that is not under Islamic control) has been absorbed by Dar al-Islam  (“House of Submission”) and “Allah’s religion shall reign supreme!” (Quran 8:36)

No Mr. President, this violent Islamic extremist activity has been going on now for over 14 centuries, and will not ever cease until the 2nd Coming of Christ!  It is not the result of the infidel Americans casting aspersions upon the “prophet”, nor the result of American or even Western intervention in Islamic lands or Colonialism of 3 centuries gone by.  It has been going on since the “Prophet” was exiled from Mecca in 623 AD!

Back to the speech.  Nearly 20 minutes into the speech, Mr. Obama began a series of comments about “the future”.   Now, lest I be accused of taking the lead quotation out of context, I will include the whole of these comments here in block quotes and follow each phrase with commentary in [brackets].

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt, it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted ‘Muslims/Christians, We are One!’.

[I have no problem with this statement and commend the President for drawing attention to the Coptic's plight at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood.]

The future must not belong to those who bully women, it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.  [Again, the words of the President are spot on.]

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources, it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who see a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stand with. Theirs is the vision we will support.  [Not quite sure what Mr. Obama is driving at here but will assume that he is speaking to historic European Colonialism.]

The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet of Islam. But, to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated,  or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.  [I want to come back to this!]

Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shia Pilgrims.  [Let's do that!]

It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi, “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” [Gandhi also said, "A religion which takes no account of practical affairs and does not help to solve them is no religion."]

In analyzing this portion of the speech, which in my opinion was the most interesting, I consulted with an attorney friend of mine.  As we went through the points about “The future must not belong to _____”, she brought to my attention that each of the crimes pointed out; violence/assault/murder (specifically here against the Copts) against any  people, beating/bullying women, stealing, these are all crimes recognized quite objectively by any legal system.

Slander on the other hand, i.e. “The future must not belong to those who would slander the Prophet of Islam.”, is quite subjective and as Muhammad has been dead for, well a long time, a dead man cannot be slandered or defamed.  Especially under American jurisdiction, where an opinion is freely expressed about anything or anyone.  Free Speech according to our First Amendment of the Constitution.  Legally, a plaintiff charging slander must prove in court that he/she has been defamed by the defendant at a personal cost, be it economic or social.  Muhammad cannot do that and since no one is alive who actually knew him to speak on his behalf, the charge is not provable.  If I call Muhammad a pedophile I am not slandering, because he actually had sexual intercourse with a 9 year old girl, molesting her much earlier at the age of 6.  If I call him a robber and a thief, I am not slandering because his raids of caravans are documented.  If I call him demon possessed, I am not slandering because Muhammad himself thought he was demon possessed and contemplated suicide.  If I call him an idiot, that is my opinion, and as such that is all it is worth.  Sharia cannot stand either historical fact or the opinion of a dissident!

Only under Islamic Law, ala the Sharia, can someone be charged with slander by criticizing Muhammad, or Islam, or even Muslims.  In America you can criticize any religious figure, book, government official, teacher, neighbor, or family member without fear of retribution.  It is an essential and inherent right, and the Founders understood freedom of speech to be so, in order to arrive at the truth of any matter and specifically to maintain personal liberty without fear of an oppressive governmental authority.  In Islam, Sharia is the government.

The other thing about this sentence in Mr. Obama’s speech is this.  This is a stand alone statement.  Anything that he adds afterward is merely window dressing, but taken at face value, all he is saying here is “if you condemn the slander of Muhammad you must also condemn hate.”  Hate, which presumably results in actions of desecration of icons, destruction of churches, or denying the Holocaust.  So are we to simply condemn the hate and not the action, or should we include hate as a crime, or what about prosecuting those who actually committed the crimes of destruction of property or causing personal injury?

Sometimes I wonder what planet these ideologues come from where they deny basic human instinct and behavior!  They never consider that aspect of human nature which, as fallen from the original state of Creation, is selfish, driven by his own lusts, and violent.  In the Psalms, King David writes the rhetorical question, “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?”  The answer of course is “Because they are heathen and people are vain!”   But David says it better, “The kings of the Earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, ‘Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.’”  Rebellion against God always results in destruction, whether personal, or national, or cultural.  Islam has chosen another god from the God of the Bible and the result is darkness, blood and pain, not only for those who are in it, but now it has come to all the world.

Barack Obama’s eloquent speech was just so much white noise in the chambers of the UN General Assembly.  Immediately following Obama, Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari demanded insults to religion be criminalized.  Over a dozen people were killed there in protests against the film, while they burned President Obama in effigy.  ”The international community must not become silent observers and should criminalize such acts that destroy the peace of the world and endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression,” he said.

Mohamed Mursi, the new Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt echoed that sentiment on Wednesday.  ”Egypt respects freedom of expression, freedom of expression that is not used to incite hatred against anyone,” he said. “We expect from others, as they expect from us, that they respect our cultural specifics and religious references, and not impose concepts or cultures that are unacceptable to us.”

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said it was time to put an end to the protection of Islamophobia masquerading as the freedom to speak freely.

Outside the United Nations in New York, about 150 protesters demanded “justice” and chanted “there is no god but Allah” outside the U.N. building on Thursday. One placard read: “Blaspheming my Prophet must be made a crime at the U.N.“

Islamic leaders in Dearborn, MI, held a protest on Friday, Sept 28, protesting freedom of speech, demanding laws that criminalize hurting the feelings of Muslims.

Yeah, me too…


Comments : 7 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Uncategorized

Kansas District Court Cites “American Laws for American Courts,” Rejects Sharia

23 09 2012

Reblogged from Creeping Sharia:

via Kansas District Court First to Apply “American Laws for American Courts” | Blog – American Freedom Law Center. h/t @CausingFitna

A Kansas district court is the first to recognize the possible application of the American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) law in a case where a party sought to enforce a sharia-law based contract.  ALAC was adopted in Kansas earlier this year and it is based upon the model legislation drafted by AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi.

Read more… 1,355 more words

I had to 'reblog' this post from Creeping Sharia. I was honored and humbled over the last two years to be a part of the team responsible for passage of ALAC in Kansas. As far as I know this is the first case to cite "American Laws for American and Kansas Courts". While one may "feel" the woman in this case was treated unfairly by the court in light of her abusive marriage, keep in mind that the court correctly applied and cited the law as intended, placing Kansas law over the authority of Sharia in the courtroom. Just the fact that the divorce had already been done according to Kansas Law, and this woman lives in Kansas, USA, instead of Iran under Sharia, makes her the huge "winner"! H/T to Creeping Sharia!

Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Uncategorized

« Previous Entries Next Entries »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,556 other followers

%d bloggers like this: