Attempts to Push Sharia Law on America

[Backstop]

It's now, officially, here.

http://constitutionclub.org/2011/03/19/sharia-in-american-courts-again/

Sharia in American Courts. Again.
Posted on March 19, 2011 by Delta Whiskey

It wasn’t long ago that we were all assured that there is no future of Sharia being implemented in the United States. Groups like CAIR and ISNA work diligently to calm our fears and to ensure that we harbor no concern for what many have labeled creeping Sharia. There was a significant outcry against the recent ban of Sharia in Oklahoma, and other states have followed a similar path. Opponents of such ban claim it is simply “anti-Muslim,” and mock anyone who tries to express a concern that Sharia may take root in the United States.

Unfortunately, what happened in Europe is beginning to occur in the United States. Until recently, my favorite example of the implementation of Sharia was a court case in New Jersey. Judge Joseph Charles, denied a request for a restraining order on the basis of Islamic law. Because Sharia defines rape differently than United States law, Judge Charles ruled that a the plaintiff had not been raped and her assailant, her husband, was innocent of all charges. There is plenty of information about this case if you are inclined to do some research, but the long and short of it is that a sitting judge in a court that is charged with enforcing the laws of our country decided that Islamic law superseded the laws of our nation.

The biggest defense of this ruling is that Judge Charles did not apply Sharia law, but rather ruled based on the ignorance of the assailant.

Because he was relatively new to the United States, they claim, he was not responsible for his illegal actions. Apparently these icons of tolerance believe that ignorance justifies rape. These defenders of moral relativism argue that the ruling was based on cultural standards, rather than Islamic law. Unfortunately, Islamic law is a cultural standard, and was exactly the standard by which Judge Charles ruled. Fortunately, this ruling was later overturned by a higher court.

This is no longer an isolated incident. Florida has joined the march towards Sharia. On February 23 of this year, a court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit issued an order which included a phrase which sets precedent for future cases that involve Sharia law.

1. This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.

By entering this phrase into the official rolls of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Judge Richard Nielson has effectively acknowledged the validity of Islamic law as a factor in the American judicial system. Unless this court order is somehow overturned or stricken from the record, unlikely in the current political environment, this provides exactly what is needed for Sharia to take root.

Arguments could be made that this court order simply recognizes that the plaintiffs and the defendant have chosen to resolve their dispute amongst themselves. Such arguments ignore the fact that the court, by virtue of its involvement, is complicit in the verdict. Such arguments also ignore the fact that an official court order which states that a case will proceed “under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law” inherently legitimizes and recognizes a system of law other than those by which our country is ruled.

Later in the document it is stated that the case will be presented to an Islamic judge if the parties involved cannot reach a resolution. This further legitimizes a system of law other than United States law, and gives authority to an Islamic judge who is not a part of our judicial system. To say this is not furthering the establishment of Sharia law is ridiculous.

The final nail in this proverbial coffin is the last clause of the court order.

3. The remainder of the hearing will be to determine whether Islamic dispute resolution procedures have been followed in this matter.

In other words, the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit is now part of the mechanism of Sharia law in the United States. Not only will a sitting judge be ruling based on Sharia law as a defense, but he will be ruling on the proper application of Sharia law. He has effectively made the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit an extension of the system of Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.

[vector7]

Did Shariah Law Just Work Its Way Into a Florida Court?

• Posted on March 21, 2011 at 10:56am by Jonathon M. Seidl

A judge in Tampa, Florida is creating a buzz with a ruling some say shows that shariah law is creeping into America. One look at the alleged ruling shows it is suspicious. But is it really an example of shariah coming to America?

According to a document on the website Jihad Watch, Circuit Court Judge Richard A. Nielsen ordered earlier this month that a civil dispute between current and former leaders of a local mosque over who controls funds awarded during a 2008 eminent domain proceeding be decided under “Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.” Below is a copy of the relevant section:



Judge Richard A. Nielsen

Tom Tillison over at Red State explains the case via a post from Brigitte Gabriel:

The current mosque leaders want the case decided according to secular, Florida civil law, and their attorney has been vigorously arguing the case accordingly.

The former trustees of the mosque want the case decided according to sharia law.

Here’s the kicker.

The judge recently ruled “This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic law,” (sharia law), “pursuant to the Qur’an.” [Emphasis hers]

You can read the judge’s ruling here.

Now it’s not unusual for a dispute to arise within a religious institution and for a court to order a mediation or arbitration, in order to resolve this without the court having to render its own judgment.

But what makes this case unusual, and highly troubling, is that a group of Muslim leaders—the CURRENT mosque leaders—who do NOT want to be subject to sharia law, are being compelled to do so by an American judge!

“In effect, due process in an American court is being denied and Sharia law is being imposed on an unwilling participant,” Tillison writes. “Right here in Florida.”

But some commenters over at Jihad Watch don’t think this is a blatant example of creeping shariah. For example, commenter TheSSBlock explains that those involved in the case are simply asking the judge to be an arbitrator (something Tillison’s post recognizes), and that isn’t cause for alarm:

This isn’t the imposition of Islamic Law per se. Arbitration agreements (contracts) between parties are regularly taken to Civil Courts for enforcement in cases of dispute. Parties who agree to arbitrate have willingly chosen a method of dispute resolution outside of the court system. Arbitrators do not have to follow state or federal laws in making their decisions – or any recognized law at all.

Although not truly unlimited, if two parties agree to arbitrate their disputes, for all intents and purposes, they can bind themselves to an outcome under almost any system of law, of any religion, or any procedure. Unless a party can show fraud, duress, or coercion, an arbitration agreement functions like any contract which a court must uphold so long as it is clear, unambiguous, and freely negotiated. Consequently, a party may also have a cause of action in questioning the neutrality of the arbitrator or if no meaningful procedure was followed to guarantee a just result.

Upholding Islamic law agreed upon through arbitration is not really a problem. A problem would arise however, if, absent any agreement, the court attempted to invoke Islamic law on its own initiative, which of course it is not permitted to do.

TheSSBlock is correct to point out that the case is a civil, not a criminal, one. But there still seems to be a lot of questions. So we called the Circuit Court clerk in Hillsborough County, Florida. A representative there referred us to Judge Nielsen’s judicial assistant, so we called her, too. We did talk to that assistant, but she refused to comment on the case. Instead, she took our name and number and said she would try and have someone get back to us.

We’ll keep you updated.

[vector7]

The Odyssey of Islamism in America

Sunday, 31 October 2010 06:47 Amil Imani

by Amil Imani, American Thinker

Islamism is a mutation of Islam and is rapidly advancing on two fronts. In every Islamic country, it is cowing the non-radicals while recruiting more and more radicals into its ranks. In non-Muslim lands, flush with petrodollars, Islamism is establishing itself as a formidable force by enlisting the disaffected and attracting the delusional liberals with its promises. For the faithful, there is the added incentive of Allah's heaven and its irresistible attractions.

Wherever Islam goes, so goes its ethos. Throwing acid in the face of women who fail to don the hijab (or who just go to school), flogging people for sporting non-Islamic haircuts, and stoning to death violators of sexual norms are only a few examples of a raft of daily barbaric acts of Islamists in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.





Other forms of Islamic brutalities such as honor killing have already found their way to America, Germany, and other European countries with ever-burgeoning Muslim populations.



Reading about these religiously mandated horrific acts and even seeing them on television or the internet may momentarily repulse, but the acts do not terribly concern many Americans on the whole. After all, those things are happening on the other side of the world, and those people deserve each other; we are safe in fortress America. So goes the thinking.

But "Fortress America" is a delusion that even the events of 9/11 seem to have failed to dispel. Many prefer to believe that the assault of 9/11 was an aberration, since nothing like it has happened since, and it is unlikely that anything of the sort will ever happen again. So goes the wishful thinking. The reality portrays a vastly different picture. America is far from a fortress, given its vast wide-open borders. It is a nation of laws where all forms of freedom are enshrined in its Constitution; it's where Americans live by a humane ethos diametrically different from Islamist savagery. Sadly, these differences confer a great advantage to the Islamists and place America in imminent danger.

The breach of "Fortress America" from the air on 9/11 is only the first installment of many more forthcoming heinous assaults -- unless we abandon our complacency, stop relying on the invincibility of the law enforcement people, and willingly make the sacrifices that will protect our way of life.

Knowing Islam intimately and having experienced its systemic savagery have compelled me to warn repeatedly of the deadly, imminent threat it poses to all non-Muslims ("Why Confront Islamism") attempting to present a comprehensive treatment of the evil precepts and practices of Islamism. I am listing a few facts that should be enough to alarm anyone who cherishes liberty and freedom and to awaken anyone who is comforted by the belief that all the Islamic mayhem is limited to an illiterate gang of primitive Middle-Easterners and has no implications for America. Sorry, bad news is here already.

• Some 26 percent of American Muslims aged 18-29 support suicide bombings "in defense of Islam," according to findings of a recent Pew poll.
  
  According to Pew, there are 2.35 million Muslims in America, 30 percent of whom are in the 18-29 age range. Some claim that the number of Muslims is in fact much larger. Even using the conservative Pew numbers, over 180,000 Muslims in America are bomb-approving. This is an alarmingly large number, given that Muslims, as an article of faith, practice dissimulation in dealing with infidels and under-report their true intentions. How many human bombs and bomb-approving people does it take to wreak havoc on our country?

• The 180,000 Muslims living among us don't define what "defense of Islam" is. It could be anything that they feel constitutes an attack on Islam and Islamic values, such as the reported flushing of the Quran down the toilet, the Danish cartoon, Rushdie's book, a newspaper article, an internet posting, or even women not donning the hijab.

When religious fanatics unreservedly advocate wanton acts of mass murder, they are not likely to shy from coercion and intimidation measures to impose their will on the larger society. In tandem with the cold murder of Theo Van Gough in Holland, for instance, Islamists had been striving to supplant civil laws with the Islamic Sharia in the country. In other lands such as France, England, and Canada, Muslims have also been waging serious campaigns for adoption of the Sharia or some of its provisions, just for starters.



In 2001, the Islamic Society of North America published a brochure that was sent to public school teachers and administrators. "You've Got a Muslim Child in Your School" spells out some of the basics of Islam and specifies some of the restrictions. One section reads:

On behalf of the Islamic Society of North America, the largest organization of Muslims in the United States and Canada, we would like to request that in view of the above teachings of Islam, Muslim students in your school system should not be required to:

1) Sit next to the opposite sex in the same classroom;

2) Participate in physical education, swimming or dancing classes. Alternative meaningful education activities should be arranged for them. We urge you to organize physical education and swimming classes separately for boys and girls in accordance with the following guidelines:

• Separate classes for boys and girls in a fully covered area

• Only male/female instructors for the respective group

• Special swimming suits that cover all the private parts of the body down to the knee

• Separate and covered shower facilities for each student

3) Participate in plays, proms, social parties, picnics, dating, etc. which require free mixing of the two sexes;

4) Participate in any event or activity related to Christmas, Easter, Halloween or Valentine's Day. All such occasions have religious and social connotations contrary to Islamic faith and teachings. We also urge you to ensure that the following facilities are available to Muslim students in your school:

1) They are excused from their classes to attend off-campus special prayers on Fridays (approximately 1:00 to 2:00 P.M.).

2) They are excused for 15 minutes in the afternoon to offer a special prayer in a designated area on the campus. The prayer is mandatory for all Muslims and often cannot be offered after the school hours.

3) All food items containing meat of a pig in any form or shape, as well as alcohol, should be clearly labeled in the cafeteria.

4) At least one properly covered toilet should be available in each men's and women's room.

5) Muslim students are excused, without penalty of absence, for the two most important festivals of Islam: Eid Al-Fitr and Edi Al-Adha, in accordance with the lunar calendar."

Ever since 9/11, and possibly before, America has been concerned about terrorists coming from Islamic lands. For this reason, some people advocated profiling as a safeguard against the 9/11-type mass murderers. But how do you profile hundreds of thousands of Muslim Americans who are already here and look and act like other Americans? How can an open, free society such as ours safeguard the individual freedom we so greatly value and protect the safety of its citizens?

The immensely difficult task of safeguarding our freedom while ensuring our safety is seriously and repeatedly undermined by Islamist apologists, pontificating academes, vote-hungry politicians, and the mainstream media, each for their own reasons.

Here are some of the comfort pills dispensed by the mainstream media's polls: "Most Muslims seek to adopt American lifestyle" (U.S. Today); "Muslims assimilate better in U.S. than Europe, poll finds" (New York Times); Poll: "US Muslims Feel Post-9/11 Backlash Despite Moderate Outlook" (Voice of America).

It is said that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. The mainstream media's manipulation of statistics goes beyond selective reporting and qualifies as outright disinformation. Is the U.S. Muslims' outlook moderate? All U.S.Muslims? What about the self-reported outlook of hundreds of thousands who support mass murder in the "defense of Islam"?

Even if most Muslims seek to adopt an American lifestyle, a great many Muslims are dead-set on using violence to make America conform to their barbaric way of life. Islamism is cancer. Cancer cells are always few at the beginning, and if they are left unchecked, they keep on multiplying, eventually devouring the non-cancerous.

Why all the fuss about "moderate Islamism"? After all, mild Islamism is not all that bad, and they are coming to power through free elections, the leftists keep preaching. In reality, even coining the term "mild Islamism" is a clear instance of the leftists' treachery. Being mildly Islamist is as plausible as being mildly pregnant. There is no such a thing as mild Islamism. It only starts mildly, just the way Muhammad himself started it in Mecca. Then it builds momentum and settles for nothing less than the total imposition of its dogma and will. Being mildly Islamist is only the head of the camel poking into the tent. Wherever the head of the animal goes, if it is not chopped off, the body eventually follows. And Islam's is a disease-bearing body that will infect the healthy secular societies.

As is the case with cancer cells, it is the malignant minority that is death-bearing.

In the Germany of the 1930s, for instance, very few people were Nazis, and most Germans dismissed them as a bunch of hotheaded fools. Before long, the hotheaded few cowed the dismissive masses, and as a result, millions lost their lives.

Escalations of demands, intolerance of differences, and contempt for non-Muslims are hallmarks of Islam. The deluded liberals as well as the publishers among the leftists are destined to be among the very first victims of mild Islamism as it gathers power.

Mild Islamism may indeed be a minority in America. Yet this deadly cancer has metastasized throughout all fifty states and is attempting to devour Michigan, with Dearborn as its capital. Urgent confrontation of this advancing disease is imperative to stave it off. We must resist the intrusion of this seventh-century mentality into our country and our way of life. We must do all we can to protect our precious freedom. Here is the question: Do we, in America and the West, have the sense and the will to forestall mild Islamism from evolving into a real Islamism?



Just a sobering note: mild Islamism is already here in our country. The Muslim cab drivers of the Minneapolis Airport refusal to ferry passengers with alcohol or even those with seeing-eye dogs. Muslim inmates demand to be served only halal food.

Campbell's Soup caters to Islam, Muslim students badger universities for special facilities for their meetings, and the first-ever Muslim congressman assumed office by swearing on the Quran and not the Bible. A New Jersey school district recognizes Muslim holidays, and much more.

Along with Saudi Arabiaand the Islamic Republic of Iran-funded mosques, there are other infrastructures supporting sharia law:

Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America
Sharia Academy of America
Sharia Board of America
Islamic Supreme Council of America
Islamic American University

Government agencies at the city/state level have started abiding by sharia law:
Minneapolis Community Planning and Economic Development Department



The Alternative Financing program provides small Minneapolis businesses (neighborhood retail, service or light manufacturing) an alternative financing to the interest-based system that is in accordance with Islamic law, or Sharia.

"At the federal level, taxpayer dollars to bailout sharia-promoting AIG."

Further, the University of Wisconsin Law School published research that stated, "American judges have been judging Muslim divorces in state courts for years, creating a body of case law that...involves Islamic family law doctrines ..."

"And courts in Texas have referred cases to Texas Islamic Court are just a few examples for the lemmingswho are coming out in force to support Islamic sharia law."

Well, mild Islamism is not all that obtrusive, since it is similar to the early stages of cancer. Yet cancer it is. And before long, the full-blown cancer will develop. If we do not want to deal with that beast, we need to take drastic measures to eradicate the disease, no matter how unpleasant and unpopular they may be.

First published in American Thinker

Read more of Amil Imani's work on American Thinker and also visit his website.

He just wrote a fantastic book, and once you read it, you will understand!

Obama meets Ahmadinejad

[vector7]

Judge orders use of Islamic law in Tampa lawsuit over mosque leadership

By William R. Levesque, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Tuesday, March 22, 2011



TAMPA — The question of what law applies in any Florida courtroom usually comes down to two choices: federal or state.

But Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen is being attacked by conservative bloggers after he ruled in a lawsuit March 3 that, to resolve one crucial issue in the case, he will consult a different source.

"This case," the judge wrote, "will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law."

Nielsen said he will decide in a lawsuit against a local mosque, the Islamic Education Center of Tampa, whether the parties in the litigation properly followed the teachings of the Koran in obtaining an arbitration decision from an Islamic scholar.

The suit was filed by several men who say they were improperly ousted as trustees in 2002. The dispute may decide who controls $2.2 million the center received from the state after some of its land was used in a road project.

But attorney Paul Thanasides last week appealed Nielson's decision with the 2nd District Court of Appeal, saying religion has no place in a secular court.
His client: the mosque.

"The mosque believes wholeheartedly in the Koran and its teachings," Thanasides said Monday. "They certainly follow Islamic law in connection with their spiritual endeavors. But with respect to secular endeavors, they believe Florida law should apply in Florida courts."

The four ex-trustees suing the center did not return calls for comment. And attorneys representing them declined comment.

Nielsen, an appointee of Gov. Jeb Bush in 2000 who was subsequently elected, also did not return calls for comment.

The judge's ruling comes as conservative lawmakers in Florida and around the nation are increasingly discussing legislation to ban or curtail the use of Islamic law, sometimes called sharia law, in U.S. courts.

Two Florida Republicans, Sen. Alan Hays and Rep. Larry Metz, this month announced legislation to prevent Islamic law, or any foreign legal code, from being applied in state courts.

The Tampa case is drawing attention from some who cite it as proof judges are improperly using foreign law.

"Florida has joined the march towards Sharia," a writer on the Constitution Club blog said.

Markus Wagner, a professor of international law at the University of Miami School of Law, said it is not improper for a judge to use foreign law in an arbitration if all the parties agree to do so.

"If we both sign a contract agreeing to be governed by German law, then Florida courts will interpret German law," he said.

Others are less certain, including Neelofer Syed, a Tampa immigration lawyer who is a guest lecturer on Islamic law at Stetson University College of Law.

The mosque, she said, is incorporated under the laws of Florida and so is ruled by state law.

"I think the judge's ruling is flawed," Syed said. "If you live in a country, you are subject to that country's laws."

Just about everything involving the arbitration is in dispute.

An a'lim, a Muslim scholar trained in Islam and Islamic law, said the parties agreed to his arbitration if the lawsuit against individual trustees was dismissed. This occurred, though the ousted trustees then re-filed against the mosque itself.

Thanasides said the mosque's directors would have to appoint a representative to participate in any legally binding arbitration.
That, he said, didn't happen because the board was never notified of the arbitration.

Thanasides said the arbitration was not binding on the mosque for a litany of reasons. He said the mosque was not properly notified of the proceeding and did not participate. He questioned whether the a'lim had proper standing to decide anything.

He also questioned whether the arbitration actually took place, noting two participants the a'lim said were present were overseas at the time.

The a'lim ruled in a Dec. 28 decision that the ex-trustees were ousted improperly.

The ex-trustees then asked Judge Nielsen to enforce the arbitration award, which could wrest control of the money from the mosque's current leaders.
Thanasides said using Islamic law to decide the issue violates the U.S. Constitution. He said existing Florida law governs arbitration findings. At a hearing in January, Nielsen disagreed.

"It appears that the Koran provides that where two or more brothers have a dispute, they are first required to try to resolve the dispute among themselves," the judge told attorneys, according to a transcript of proceedings.

"If that does not occur, they can agree to present the dispute to the greater community of brothers within the mosque or the Muslim community. And if that is not done, or does not result in a resolution of the dispute, then it is to be presented to an Islamic judge …

"The next question is whether the proper procedures have occurred. … Did they properly invoke the use of … an Islamic judge or an Islamic A'lim?"

In an appeal of the judge's decision, Thanasides wrote, "The First Amendment restricts courts' authority to review, interpret and apply religious law because these actions interfere with a party's right to choose, free from state involvement, the religious dogma it will follow."

The judge said he would use Islamic law to decide only the legitimacy of arbitration.

"What law would we be applying (at) trial?" Thanasides asked.

"That trial would be civil law," the judge said. "Florida law."

[vector7]

Dick Durbin to look at civil rights of American Muslims

By Anonymous
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Posted Mar 23, 2011 @ 06:30 AM



WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin has announced plans to hold congressional hearings on the civil rights of American Muslims.

The assistant Senate majority leader said the hearings will be held Tuesday at the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington. The hearing will be held before the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights.

In announcing the hearing, the Illinois Democrat said the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion for all Americans. In noting a spike in anti-Muslim bigotry, Durbin added it is important for the current generation to renew the founding fathers' commitment to religious diversity.

Durbin's proposed hearing follows that earlier this month of New York Rep. Peter King of the House Homeland Security Committee, who said he was looking Muslim extremism in the U.S.

Copyright 2011 Rockford Register Star. Some rights reserved

[vector7]

Pakistan takes up Florida Quran desecration with UN

By ANI | ANI – Wed, Mar 23, 2011 12:46 PM SGT


United Nations, Mar 23(ANI): Pakistan has taken up the "despicable act" of desecration of the Holy Quran in Florida with the United Nations, and urged it to take urgent steps to promote inter-faith harmony in the wake of increasing acts of Islamophobia.

In a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Pakistan's Permanent Representative Ambassador Abdullah Hussain Haroon voiced his country's strong condemnation of the burning of the Islamic holy book, and expressed "profound regret and deep concern" at the growing trend of Islamophobia, intolerance and hatred towards Muslims as well as insults to their religious symbols and personalities.

Controversial American pastor Terry Jones, who last year cancelled a plan to burn copies of the Koran to mark the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States after international condemnation, oversaw the burning of a copy of the Quran at his small Florida church on Sunday after the Islamic revered book was put on trial.

"While this reprehensible act is the work of extremists and is evidently designed to provoke dissent and discord among communities and peoples across the world, such sacrilegious acts also go against the very concept of inter-faith harmony and threaten the multicultural fabric of the societies and the brotherhood of the United Nations," The Nation quoted Haroon's letter, as saying.

Pakistan believes that civilised people and societies must resist and oppose any tendency towards extremism of any kind, said Haroon, adding that Pakistan expects that the US administration and American people as well as all civilised societies will take due cognisance and express their revulsion against this sacrilegious act.

The Ambassador also urged the UN to play its important role in ensuring peace and harmony among people across the world, adding that Pakistan has full confidence in the UN leadership and hopes that it will take all steps to fight such tendencies and promote intercultural and inter-faith harmony.

Meanwhile, the US Embassy in Islamabad has condemned the burning of a copy of the Holy Quran in Florida, and said that it is an isolated act done by a small group of people that is contrary to American traditions.

"It does not reflect the general sentiment of respect toward Islam by the people of the United States," the embassy said in a press release.

"The deliberate destruction of a holy book is an abhorrent act," said Ambassador Cameron Munter, adding, "The US commitment to freedom of religion and freedom of expression goes back to the founding of our nation and is enshrined in the Constitution. We absolutely reject religious intolerance in any form." (ANI)

[vector7]

Herman Cain Digs Deeper On Fox: Many Muslims ‘Are Not Dedicated To This Country’

» 26 commentsby Matt Schneider | 5:34 pm, March 28th, 2011

Video


Potential Republican candidate for President Herman Cain wasted no time attempting to clarify his earlier statement regarding Muslims not being allowed in his administration. Appearing with Neil Cavuto, Cain backpedaled slightly from his prior position, but more eagerly stressed that “being politically correct isn’t something I’m going to spend a whole lot of my time worrying about.”

Cain admits he did say the controversial comments, yet hints that the reporter left out some potentially exculpatory details:

“The reporter didn’t tell you this, I would have to have people totally committed to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of this United States.

And many of the Muslims – they are not totally dedicated to this country, they are not dedicated to our Constitution. Many of them are trying to force Sharia law on the people of this country.”

It’s hard to tell what is stranger, that it seems Cain is digging himself into a deeper hole or that he somehow thought the statement that Muslims are not dedicated to this country would put his prior statement into a reasonable context?

But don’t worry, he’s not done digging. Cain also argues he would prefer not having Muslims on his cabinet because “I don’t have time to be watching someone on my administration if they’re not totally committed . . . to the laws of this country.”

And finally Cain says, “so far I have not come across or I don’t have acquaintances with people who have professed the Muslim religion that are on the list of people that I would consider” for a position.

As for the promised clarification, after Cavuto pressed further, Cain finally did admit that he is “not saying never, never, never” would he allow someone of Muslim faith to serve in his administration.

[American Patriot]

I like him. Good on him. He's got my vote so far.

[vector7]

Sen. Durbin’s Muslim Civil Rights Hearing

03-29-2011 by L. S. Carbonell


Senator Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois

Shortly after 9-11, a Sikh was shot down on an American street. He was killed because he was wearing a turban, something not normally worn by Muslims. Sikhs are not Muslims. They are Sikhs, a religion that originated in the Punjab region of India and whose followers believe in the equality of humankind, the universal brotherhood of man and One Supreme God.

This man died for the same reason a Russian-born shop keeper died in Vermont after the terrorist bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon – blind hatred.

It is crimes like this, not ever directed at the actual group that might be blamed for attacks on Americans, that were the reason Illinois Senator Richard Durbin held hearings on Tuesday in his Judiciary subcommittee. The hearing was shorter, had less security and was less heated than the hearing held a few weeks ago by the House Homeland Security Committee, chaired by New York’s Rep. Peter King on the “epidemic” he sees in the radicalization of American Muslims by the “80%” of mosque imams King claims are “radicals.” Most of the subcommittee’s members passed on attending.

South Carolina’s Senator Lindsey Graham, the ranking Republican on the committee, said in his opening remarks, “This is a hearing that we need to have, quite frankly. It tackles “a difficult issue – what does it mean to practice religion in America?”

Graham went on to say that it means standing up for each other’s rights because “if I don’t stand up for yours, you won’t stand up for mine.” Graham is not particularly popular on the Tea Party/Christian right circuit.

Senate Minority Leader John Kyl of Arizona, who stands at the right hand of Mitch McConnell, preferred to echo Rep. Peter King, saying “If we’re concerned about the most egregious hate crimes…” we should concentrate on crimes against Jews and Christians which outnumber crimes against Muslims. “Political correctness cannot stand in the way of stopping those who would so us harm.” Maybe Kyl and King after subtracting the Muslims who died in the planes and on the ground. King criticized the Durbin hearings in a Washington Post interview last week, saying they “could perpetuate this myth of victimhood among the Muslim community. There are still nine times more attacks against Jews then there are against Muslims. We don’t live in a perfect country, but certainly Muslims aren’t the number-one victims in the country.” He failed to add that it isn’t Muslims who are attacking Jews on a nine-to-one ratio. It’s Christians who are being fed a bunch of bull about the New World Order.

Witness Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, testified that since 9-11, the Department of Justice has investigated over 800 incidents against persons believed to be Muslims. Of the 50 charged with these crimes in 37 incidents, 45 have been convicted.

Senator Graham complained that the Justice Department has “overreached” on some cases, particularly the case of a math teacher who was fired for going on Haj to Mecca, a once-in-a-lifetime obligation for Muslims. Graham did this in front of Kyl, who whined last December that he wasn’t being allowed to go home early for Christmas, one of the two most important events in the “Christian calendar.”

Graham claimed that the case will do more harm than good, without explaining how.

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, former archbishop of Washington, drew parallels between the situation for modern Muslims and the position of Irish Catholics in the past, a real slap shot at King, who openly supported the IRA and claims his support of terrorists isn’t in the same classification. McCarrick said that “Catholics have been explicit targets of the Ku Klux Klan and the Know Nothing Party. The very idea of a Catholic in the White House was questioned. Because of this history, we cannot help but be sensitive to the experiences of other religious groups who suffer prejudice, bias and discrimination.” It would probably take the Second Coming to get Peter King to see that.

Senator Kyl went after witness Farhana Khera, former counsel to this committe. He attacked her website, Muslim Advocates, for telling Muslims not to speak to law enforcement without a lawyer. Kyl read a list of American Muslims who are facing criminal charges, without saying if those charges were terror-related. Khera responded “I fully understand the threat that we are facing. Those who engage in criminal acts must be stopped and brought to justice and every American has a civic duty to report criminal activity to law enforcement.” But, she continued, “Every American has the right to seek legal advice.” The legal system is complex and immigrants always have a problem with it. Native born citizens have problems with it. Quick, run the Miranda warning in your head….you nailed it, didn’t you? Or do you not watch cop and detective shows on television? It’s that easy not to know the Miranda and what it means.

There is a reason the FBI needed an $8 million increase in their budget in 2009 and why the Southern Poverty Law Center reports that hate groups have spiked in the triple digits, and it isn’t what Peter King and John Kyl think – it has nothing to do with real attacks on Americans by Muslim extremists. The spike is caused by the hate and fear mongering in the right wing crazy-sphere.

Among the 80 or so people who lined up in the halls to fill the gallery was a student, Patricia Hsu, a human rights intern in Washington from Claremont McKenna College. She noted that while Americans are not imprisoned for their political beliefs, human rights is still an issue. “With ethnic and cultural minorities, it’s easy to be marginalized even fi the laws are there to protect you.” Also in line was an administration advisor, Rev. Welton Gaddy fo the Interfaith Alliance. He contrasted the Durbin hearing with the King hearing, which he called a “witch hunt.” While he believes that both hearings amounted to political posturing, he felt that the Durbin hearing was important.

Rep. Peter King is planning on a second hearing in June focusing on the issue of Islamic radicalization in the American prison system. As he did in the previous hearing, King can be counted on to choose his witnesses to reinforce his position.

Sen. Durbin has not said if he would call any more hearing. One might hope that he, and not King, would call hearings on the spread of hate speech and the growth of hate groups since the 2008 election. Senator Kyl might want to sit those out since it’s practically a straight line from the television and radio soapbox for Republicans and these groups and this speech. Didn’t Bill O’Reilly, who grew up in King’s district, say that “Muslims attacked us on 9-11,” not 19 men who were Muslim, like 1.3 billion Muslims around the world were flying those planes.

[vector7]

Sharia Jihad

Glenn Beck exposes Sharia Law creeping into America

Glenn Beck-04/01/11-A

Glenn Beck-04/01/11-B

Glenn Beck-04/01/11-C

[wallis]

Glenn Beck: oh, yeah! Now there's a credible source! Not!

I wonder how many other so-called groups are not really dedicated to this country?

I know that I can name or finger several, including some gun-toting communities that would love to get rid of the U.S. government.

People are people. We use the government, and then we blame the government for using us. Government is simply people using the authority and power to implement their will.

A group of people, be they peace-loving Amish or gun-toting White Supremacy groups who want to form their own little enclaves or anything in-between, who live under the protection of the U.S. government have the right NOT to be dedicated to the U.S. government.

We can rail against them, if we want to. That is our right as well. Not that it will do much good, in my book. The more you want to entrench beliefs the more you should rail and battle against those beliefs. Nothing more than a continued blast of cold air will ensure that the individual will hang onto his coat for dear life. Warmth, reason, and dialogue, and the coat just might come off.

Sharia law creeping into the U.S. Jimeny! As if we are to believe that the whole law system of the U.S. is going to change overnight. We do have separate law systems within the confines of the U.S. The Native Americans have been given the right of their own forms of government and own civil laws. A U.S. Marshal cannot just enter sovereign Native American soil without permission. I sincerely doubt that we will have enclaves of Muslims forming their own little reservations.

Glenn Beck as usual is trying to cry fire in a crowded theater. Unfortunately, the movie was so bad that no one is in the theater in the first place.

Europe has had a much longer "problem" with the influx of Islamic-believing people. While England's liberals have bent over backwards to recognize some Sharia customs and laws, I believe it is beginning to swing back more towards sanity.

The day I believe America will have to worry is when all of Europe becomes Islamic, and I really doubt that will ever happen. Mohammed himself will have to make a physical presence before Christianity will even succumb.

Aren't there any real problems out there that we should be concerned with? Isn't there a bridge or a dam that is failing that could kill hundreds or thousands of people?

Isn't there an educational problem we should be dealing with so that we don't get a deluge of ignorant, selfish people who complain about the government not saving them and then turn their noses up when fed good MREs and demand McDonalds instead? When these same people allow people right next to them die from exposure because "it ain't my business"?

[American Patriot]

Glenn Beck: oh, yeah! Now there's a credible source! Not!

I wonder how many other so-called groups are not really dedicated to this country?

I know that I can name or finger several, including some gun-toting communities that would love to get rid of the U.S. government.

Which groups? We'd better report them right away!

People are people. We use the government, and then we blame the government for using us. Government is simply people using the authority and power to implement their will.

You're right here. I can name twenty, perhaps thirty people who are "using" the US Government for disability when none of them are actually disabled. I know one who is a transgendered person - who was a male, and was diagnosed by the Veterans Administration, then received 100% (or more) disability because gender dysphoria is a disease - and received a sex change operation.

Most of the people I know here around work were in the military and made claims against the government and they get paid because they were able to convince a board they had something wrong with them, and yet, they can still work 40 hours a week.

Yep, they are using the government.

I have a bad back, I get migraines, I've had several broken bones in the military, I've got hip and shoulder problems, hearing and eyesight issues. ALL RELATED to the jobs I've done for the government over the years.

I never applied for anything. People tell me I'm stupid if I don't.

Guess I'm stupid, cuz I'm not going to do those things.

Yeah, Wallis, people are people.

A group of people, be they peace-loving Amish or gun-toting White Supremacy groups who want to form their own little enclaves or anything in-between, who live under the protection of the U.S. government have the right NOT to be dedicated to the U.S. government.

"Gun toting white supremacy groups"? Is that what you consider me, Ryan, Mal and Backstop?

Because if you do, you're lumping us into a group of people that none of us agree with. I don't believe in that shit. As for "gun toting" you bet your ass I am. And I'll continue to do so until I die.

We can rail against them, if we want to. That is our right as well. Not that it will do much good, in my book. The more you want to entrench beliefs the more you should rail and battle against those beliefs. Nothing more than a continued blast of cold air will ensure that the individual will hang onto his coat for dear life. Warmth, reason, and dialogue, and the coat just might come off.

I don't know what you're on about here. America has certain beliefs. They do NOT include Sharia law. This is not Saudi Arabia. This is the United States. We don't beat our women and make them dress in tents. And I'll be damned if I will let some group cut the hands off of "thieves" - when they haven't had a fair trial.

Yeah, I don't like theives either. I don't like murderers, and I don't like wife beaters. I don't like liars. Islamic law calls for lying to get their way. So get off your high horse Wallis, you don't even LIVE in the US these days.

Sharia law creeping into the U.S. Jimeny! As if we are to believe that the whole law system of the U.S. is going to change overnight. We do have separate law systems within the confines of the U.S. The Native Americans have been given the right of their own forms of government and own civil laws. A U.S. Marshal cannot just enter sovereign Native American soil without permission. I sincerely doubt that we will have enclaves of Muslims forming their own little reservations.

It's not "creep", it's an out and out attempt to institute it in this country.

It's not part of OUR law and it won't be a part of our law. If it continues, there WILL be armed conflict in this country. And it won't be "white supremacists" doing the fighting either.

Glenn Beck as usual is trying to cry fire in a crowded theater. Unfortunately, the movie was so bad that no one is in the theater in the first place.

You know, I don't pay a lot of attention to Glenn. However, I think you're still doing the same old shit you used to do, try to discredit someone without any facts.

Thing is, Glenn is loaded with facts, and the material he presents is all verifiable. So, you know before you open your mouth and spew shit you ought to think a little a more.

When was the last time you actually WATCHED something he said? Seriously. Don't lie about it, I hate liars too.

Europe has had a much longer "problem" with the influx of Islamic-believing people. While England's liberals have bent over backwards to recognize some Sharia customs and laws, I believe it is beginning to swing back more towards sanity.

This is a GOOD thing. It's better to not swing to insanity before you have to force an over conservitive swing back to the right. Wouldn't you agree?

This country has the same problem. People bending over backward since the 1960s to "include" everyone. Fuck that. I've worked my life away trying to make things just better for my community and my kids. I'm tired of people giving my country away for a song and a stoning.

I don't want to see something go so left that right has to go overboard to compensate.

I'm tired of the swinging pendulum. Stop it NOW before we have to fight back harder.

The day I believe America will have to worry is when all of Europe becomes Islamic, and I really doubt that will ever happen. Mohammed himself will have to make a physical presence before Christianity will even succumb.

That's now. France is finally fighting back. England will fall before they fight back.

Aren't there any real problems out there that we should be concerned with? Isn't there a bridge or a dam that is failing that could kill hundreds or thousands of people?

No, there really aren't any problems out there other than people not getting along because their personal politics are SO VASTLY different. A dam? Hell, that will only kill a few thousand people. Sharia? That will destroy millions.

Isn't there an educational problem we should be dealing with so that we don't get a deluge of ignorant, selfish people who complain about the government not saving them and then turn their noses up when fed good MREs and demand McDonalds instead? When these same people allow people right next to them die from exposure because "it ain't my business"?

There's a huge educational problem. It's all liberal and it's teaching our kids to accept Sharia.

So you're right here.

[Ryan Ruck]

Is it really so far fetched when you have US Senators publicly stating their desire to violate Constitutional rights for the sake of appeasing an insecure bunch of Turd Worlders?

Lindsey Graham On Koran-Burning: “Free Speech Is A Great Idea, But We’re In A War”

April 3, 2011

Skip ahead to 2:05, bearing in mind that this guy might have ended up as Attorney General under President McCain. A few minutes earlier, Harry Reid told Schieffer that Congress will “take a look” at Jones’s act and the ensuing “protests” in Afghanistan, so at a minimum there’ll probably be some sort of congressional resolution of disapproval. Maybe hearings too: Reid wouldn’t commit to that, but he didn’t rule it out. As for Graham, “I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable,” he laments, clearly deflated by the thought that the First Amendment applies even while we’re “at war.” And if you’re not sure what he means by “at war” — well, I’m not either. Are we “at war” only if troops are in the field? No Koran-burning, in other words, until the last U.S. serviceman has left Iraq and Afghanistan (and Libya)? Or are we “at war” as long as Al Qaeda and other anti-American jihadist movements exist, ready and willing to demagogue acts like Jones’s for their own uses? Even if all Islamist outfits in the world were eliminated, wouldn’t Graham want to continue the ban on Koran-burning lest it inspire new jihadist outfits to spring up? There’s no limiting principle to this idea, realistically. It’d end up being his own version of an “emergency law.”

Ironically, though, the more attention Congress devotes to this, the worse they’ll make it. If Reid and Graham were stupid enough to hold hearings (which they almost certainly aren’t), it’d be a galactic clusterfark — a spotlight for Jones, a red alert for civil libertarians, and an offense to a public that’s tired of double standards for religious insults. If nothing else good comes from this incident, though, it’s at least been useful as a window into the mindset of our trusted “ally” Hamid Karzai, who did his level best to earn brownie points with the fanatics among his constituents by demagoging this to the hilt. As voters get set for another debate this summer about whether we should draw down in Afghanistan, make sure that isn’t forgotten.

I wonder why we haven't seen Lindsey standing against flag burning since that could be demoralizing to the troops and the nation thus hindering the war effort?

[American Patriot]

I was going to ask... where are these asses at when it comes to burning the flag? How about burning the Bible? What about having a chat with those who are constantly attacking Christians for their beliefs?

I saw a bumper sticker a few days ago (several on this car, a man that works for the Missile Defense Agency) that said "Only sheep need a shepard".

He had another one that said "Stop War Now".

That man should not have a security clearance, should not work for the Missile Defense Agency and should actually stick to joining groups like Greenpeace because that's all he's good for.

This is the sort of person that ends up sabotaging things. And he works in my building.

And yet, he has a RIGHT to spew this shit out of his mouth and his bumper stickers - and I've defended that man's right to say those things.

But does MY opinion, my rights matter a bit when I say "We need to KILL Gadaffi"? No, I'm a "war monger".

If I say, "China is bad, Russia is evil" I'm a hate monger.

What the fuck is wrong with this world?

[vector7]

GLOBAL JIHAD
CAIR chief's designs to 'run' U.S. revealed
'Who better than Muslims,' Awad asks, to lead 'Christian-Judeo-Islamic' nation?

---

Posted: April 03, 2011
11:03 pm Eastern
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad

The same national Muslim leader who's launched an "education campaign" to quell American fears over Shariah law once gave a full-throated speech to Muslims advocating an Islamic rise to power in America.

In a newly surfaced video of a 2000 speech to the Islamic Society of North America, Council on American-Islamic Relations Executive Director Nihad Awad told his Muslim audience: "Muslims in America are in the best position to show Islam and to show action and to show vision – not only for a Muslim school, how it should be run, but for an entire society, how it should be run. Who better can lead America than Muslims?"

The Justice Department named both ISNA and CAIR unindicted co-conspirators in a criminal scheme to funnel millions of dollars to Hamas suicide bombers and their families.

In the same speech, "Participating in Public Affairs: Strategies for the Year 2000," Awad encouraged Muslim-Americans to be more assertive with U.S. politicians.

"They should be a servant to our issues," he said. "We should be respected."
Get "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America," autographed, from WND's Superstore.
Specifically, Awad advised that Muslim-Americans demand politicians include in their national speeches and party platforms that America is also an "Islamic society."

"This is no longer a Christian-Judeo society," Awad maintained. "It is a Christian-Judeo-and-Islamic society."

At the same time, Awad reminded Muslim-Americans that they are still, first and foremost, citizens of the global Islamic nation and should do everything in their power to help their Muslim brothers fighting in Kashmir against Indian Hindus and in the Palestinian territories against Israelis.

He suggested they demand U.S. leaders in Washington cut aid to both Israel and India.

"We belong to the ummah, and we are an extension of the Muslim world," he said. "We should talk about Kashmir, and we should talk about Palestine."

Islamic law in America
CAIR is suing the state of Oklahoma to block a state constitutional measure banning Shariah law, which was approved by more than 70 percent of Oklahoma voters.

In a press release released last November applauding a Clinton-appointed federal judge's decision to temporarily bar certification of the popular law, Awad announced CAIR was launching an "education campaign" to inform Oklahomans they have nothing to fear from Shariah law.

Awad said voters were confused by "misinformation about Islam" promulgated by "Islamophobes."

He added: "CAIR plans an education campaign in Oklahoma to offer state residents accurate and balanced information about Islamic beliefs and practices and about the American Muslim community."

Critics say CAIR's leaders are worried about the passage of state constitutional bans on Shariah law, because they have a secret agenda to institutionalize Shariah law in America.

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper told a Minneapolis Star-Tribune reporter in 1993, before CAIR was formed.

CAIR's founding chairman, Omar Ahmad

CAIR's founding chairman, Omar Ahmad, moreover, has flatly argued Shariah law should replace the Constitution.

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant," he told a Muslim audience in Fremont, Calif., in 1998. "The Quran should be the highest authority in America."

FBI Director Robert Mueller recently confirmed in congressional testimony that his agency has cut off ties to Washington-based CAIR, citing terror concerns with its national leaders – including Awad.

"We have no formal relationship with CAIR because of concerns with regard to the national leadership," Mueller testified.

Wiretap evidence from the Holy Land Foundation terror-finance case put Awad at a Philadelpia meeting of Hamas leaders that was secretly recorded by the FBI. Participants hatched a plot to disguise payments to Hamas terrorists as charity. Wiretaps also record them stating the need to deceive Americans about their true aims.

The secret meeting, held in the 1990s at a Courtyard by Marriott hotel, was called to order by CAIR founding Chairman Ahmad. Both he and Awad launched CAIR not long after the meeting.

Mueller confirmed the wiretap evidence during a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing.

The Justice Department also designated Ahmad as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land trial, the largest terror-finance case in U.S. history. A federal jury convicted Holy Land's leaders on all 108 counts.
Ahmad stepped down from CAIR's board of directors shortly after his federal designation.

Among other evidence collected by the FBI, the names of both Ahmad and Awad – who remains at CAIR's helm and regularly appears unopposed on Fox News – appear in a secret phone book alongside key Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzouk, whom the government says directed and coordinated Hamas terrorist attacks on civilians in Israel. Hamas has also murdered 17 Americans and has been listed as a U.S.-designated terror group since the 1990s.

During the Holy Land trial, U.S. prosecutors alleged that CAIR's ties to Hamas are "ongoing." In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, assistant FBI Director Richard Power suggested both Ahmad and Awad remain under federal scrutiny.

[wallis]

I don't lump you guys here with the "gun-toting" chumps that want to overthrow the "govmint." Sheesh! Feeling a little paranoid, are we?

Yep. I have watched a lot of Beck. Done some research on the fellow, too. He twists facts better than most and makes a lot of mountains out of molehills.

I live outside of the U.S. out of choice. First, I can still work and be a productive person, even at my age. Second, I can channel my meager income into a decent way of living. But that does not mean that I have less loyalties to the U.S. or the citizens thereof.

I must be doing a fairly good job. I challenge the logic and the Pavlov response initiated by Beck and a several other nuts of all political flavors, and you guys turn werewolfish with the thought of some other opinion and open-mindedness.

You guys crack me up.

Other groups? Okay, let's look at the inner cities. Tell me which 'hood or gang controlling parts of the streets are dedicated to the good ol' USA. Tell me which biker group--which started out with people who were turned out by society from the Vietnam war--is dedicated to the U.S. Will you tell me that every corporation is dedicated to the U.S. government? That's a laugh. Use the government, change the government to suit their purposes. But dedicated?

The swining of the pendulum. Now, we have something on which we all agree. The prevaling insanity has got to stop. From what I am hearing and reading, it seems not to be in a hurry to stop. We absolutely need to start thinking and acting sane.

But I have to be honest with you. Where are you going to find sanity in this generation? Take that farmer compensation bill that handed out $50 grand to farmers: all you had to do was show intent that you were a farmer and you got a check. And then this very same lawyer is now going to pursue compensation for women and other minority groups from the government????

I don't believe that Sharia law will ever become a part of the American law. The hype of this "evil" monster sounds to me to be more of a smoke screen for something more hideous (or odious). Perhaps as a move to foment a hatred against all people who profess to be Muslim.

People are evil. That is equivalent to people being people. If I can achieve and advantage and have a good chance at getting away with it, I'm going to do it. Why? Because I am a human animal. And that humaness makes me evil in the sight of everyone around me. It takes a great deal of cerebral will and activity to attempt to do good things.

There is nothing wrong with you stating that China or Russia or Iran or whatever nation you have a problem with as "evil." I just feel that stating such is over-simplifying the problem. China buys our debt to keep us afloat. That is evil? Of course, over time, should China be able to use that to wield some kind of hegemony over us, then we certainly will feel that China is evil. But what if when we get over this economic crisis and we look back at how China "helped" us, will we thank them? Will we think of them as less "evil"? I think not.

Declaring something or someone as evil, IMO, makes it a hell of a lot easier to "kill." And, I'm sorry, but I do not believe that reactively reaching out and killing something is the right way of doing things in global politics and economic undertakings. That is not being liberal; that is a culmination of study (International Relations/Strategic Studies) over several decades. Such attitudes fomented both World Wars and a number of conflicts since.

That fellow with the bumper sticker? Now there is a prime example of not being dedicated to the U.S. He takes home a hefty pay check but will be the first to scream bloody murder when it is taken away from him.

[American Patriot]

I don't lump you guys here with the "gun-toting" chumps that want to overthrow the "govmint." Sheesh! Feeling a little paranoid, are we?

No, not paranoid, I just know you well enough to know you love to push buttons and you have this very, very BAD habit of collectively placing lots of people into the same group, and then implying without stating that many of us belong to anything from the Reptiles to the "Bushies" or the "Tea Baggers". You know it, I know it and everyone else here knows it.

Yep. I have watched a lot of Beck. Done some research on the fellow, too. He twists facts better than most and makes a lot of mountains out of molehills.

For the record, I don't have cable television. I can see Fox news here at work because it's on a news feed on my computer. That's the only thing I see. I don't watch Beck, though I do hear him on the radio sometimes.

He doesn't twist facts, that's an OPINION on your part and the part of the Left Wing Media. In fact, I've looked up a LOT of the facts he has stated and they are DEAD ON, accurate and VERIFIABLE unlike some of your facts, or those of say ACORN or the President of the United States.

I live outside of the U.S. out of choice. First, I can still work and be a productive person, even at my age. Second, I can channel my meager income into a decent way of living. But that does not mean that I have less loyalties to the U.S. or the citizens thereof.

I don't fault you for that, wallis. I'm about to do the same thing. Except I'm not going to light in some fucking socialist/Muslim country and society like the Philippines. Matter of fact, I'm about to keep moving.

Less loyalties? All you DO and have done for as many years as I've known you is bitch about the government, especially when it was a Republican government. Now that the socialists are in charge I don't see you whining about them! Living outside the country as an ex-pat doesn't give you more right to whine, it gives you much less.

The difference between you and I will be pretty obvious in a year or so. I won't be "bitching about it" and when the shit hits the fan, I WILL COME BACK AND FIGHT FOR MY COUNTRY.

I must be doing a fairly good job. I challenge the logic and the Pavlov response initiated by Beck and a several other nuts of all political flavors, and you guys turn werewolfish with the thought of some other opinion and open-mindedness.

Again, you attempt to deride and criticize people you don't even know. You like so many others, have this innate built-in dislike for anyone who puts things together and then lays it out carefully for people to be able to understand.

You try instead to call them names, or simple discredit them in some manner (i.e. "gun-toting groups" and a sentence later "White Supremacists" in an attempt to LINK the two groups.) Beck doesn't elicit Pavlovian responses, he elicits THINKING and people taking the time to LOOK UP.

The only Pavlovian response here, was your instant drooling to attack him as "not creditable".

You guys crack me up.

Well, we can pretty much say the same for you. You're ignorant of the realities around you, and regardless of how you paint yourself, you're still a Liberal, you hate the Right Wing (and I don't care what you say, you're constantly showing your stripes here, and formerly at Anomalies).

Other groups? Okay, let's look at the inner cities. Tell me which 'hood or gang controlling parts of the streets are dedicated to the good ol' USA. Tell me which biker group--which started out with people who were turned out by society from the Vietnam war--is dedicated to the U.S. Will you tell me that every corporation is dedicated to the U.S. government? That's a laugh. Use the government, change the government to suit their purposes. But dedicated?

Good question. Why didn't you paint that picture instead of "White Supremacists" who "tote guns"? It's the same bullshit our good old Left Wing RADICAL racist Attorney General touts. Same BULLSHIT. White men with guns, who are right wing are not right... he said it. I didn't and you IMPLIED IT.

Every corporation is dedicated to making MONEY. That's what this country IS about. Getting ahead, making money, capitalism. YOU yourself are "working for a living in a foreign country" - why? to SURVIVE.

Companies, corporations work to make money, and by doing so create JOBS. The Government does NOT create JOBS. The government takes money out of your pocket and mine. By the way, how much US Taxes do YOU pay per year? Don't fucking bitch when you're not even paying taxes (and I know for a fact that after a period of time ex-pats file, but don't pay).

The swining of the pendulum. Now, we have something on which we all agree. The prevaling insanity has got to stop. From what I am hearing and reading, it seems not to be in a hurry to stop. We absolutely need to start thinking and acting sane.

No, the prevaling insanity stops when the pendulum swings back hard enough to kick some of these Leftist fucks out of office. NOT BEFORE. Don't you dare think that it will stop with a simple compromise. *I* am sick of the Right compromising with the Left just to keep the peace.

But I have to be honest with you. Where are you going to find sanity in this generation? Take that farmer compensation bill that handed out $50 grand to farmers: all you had to do was show intent that you were a farmer and you got a check. And then this very same lawyer is now going to pursue compensation for women and other minority groups from the government????

This "generation"? If you mean the "children"? then well, I'll agree with you, and it's all because my generation (and apparently yours) allowed hippies to fuck up the brains of everyone on the planet.

I don't believe that Sharia law will ever become a part of the American law. The hype of this "evil" monster sounds to me to be more of a smoke screen for something more hideous (or odious). Perhaps as a move to foment a hatred against all people who profess to be Muslim.

It already HAS. Where have you been Wallis? You apparently get only the news you're fed in a foreign country, which is certainly NOT going to tell those stories. They are posted here on this site, I suggest you READ and understand them. Courts have already RULED that Sharia law can be pursued in some places.

This is not a smoke screen, this is a fucking WAKE UP CALL, and you're damned right - Sharia Law will NOT become part of American Law because there are those of us that will stop it any way it takes.

People are evil. That is equivalent to people being people. If I can achieve and advantage and have a good chance at getting away with it, I'm going to do it. Why? Because I am a human animal. And that humaness makes me evil in the sight of everyone around me. It takes a great deal of cerebral will and activity to attempt to do good things.

You are wrong. People are not "evil". I am an example of a GOOD Person, look around you. I've saved lives, I've jumped in and stopped criminals, I've fought to save people from "the system". I don't apply for "disability" simply because I got injured in the military (and draw 50-100+% of my base pay). In fact, of ALL the retirees I know, I'm the ONLY ONE THAT HASN'T TAKEN MONEY I DON'T DESERVE.

I PAY my taxes, all of them and sometimes more - and yes I BITCH about it, I have that right, I LIVE and WORK in the United States, I VOTE and I'm not an illegal ALIEN. My family has lived in this country for at LEAST SIX generations. Count them, SIX. (And this bullshit people scream about "we're all immigrants" is NOT TRUE. *I* AM A NATIVE AMERICAN GOD DAMN IT).

There is nothing wrong with you stating that China or Russia or Iran or whatever nation you have a problem with as "evil." I just feel that stating such is over-simplifying the problem. China buys our debt to keep us afloat. That is evil? Of course, over time, should China be able to use that to wield some kind of hegemony over us, then we certainly will feel that China is evil. But what if when we get over this economic crisis and we look back at how China "helped" us, will we thank them? Will we think of them as less "evil"? I think not.

Over simplifying? On the one hand it's apparently too difficult for you to go actually read the threads that the majority of us post here about Russia and China and actually see that we're in no way "over simplifying" ANYTHING. On the other hand, you want to point out our "simplistic thinking".... on the third hand, you want to point out how we're sheep following our Pavlovian responses to Beck putting things together.

I am sure you don't actually have three arms or hands. So which is it really? Stop arguing in circles.

Declaring something or someone as evil, IMO, makes it a hell of a lot easier to "kill." And, I'm sorry, but I do not believe that reactively reaching out and killing something is the right way of doing things in global politics and economic undertakings. That is not being liberal; that is a culmination of study (International Relations/Strategic Studies) over several decades. Such attitudes fomented both World Wars and a number of conflicts since.

Really? It's that simple for you? I suspect you are like many other Liberals, learning your International Relations and Strategic studies at liberal universities. Which one did you go to?

No, such arguments didn't foment both wars. The GERMANS fomented both world wars by trying to take over the world. Good God. Read your history.

That fellow with the bumper sticker? Now there is a prime example of not being dedicated to the U.S. He takes home a hefty pay check but will be the first to scream bloody murder when it is taken away from him.

You're damned right. He has the right to talk how ever he likes, but he works for an Agency that has a LOT of classified data. It's people like him who end up being blackmailed or passing it on for a profit to the bad guys because he has a DISAGREEMENT with the actual true underlying system - that is American principles.

[vector7]

The Administration Takes on 'Islamophobia'

By Nina Shea

An unprecedented collaboration between the Obama administration and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC, formerly called the Organization of the Islamic Conference) to combat “Islamophobia” may soon result in the delegitimization of freedom of expression as a human right.

The administration is taking the lead in an international effort to “implement” a U.N. resolution against religious “stereotyping,” specifically as applied to Islam. To be sure, it argues that the effort should not result in free-speech curbs. However, its partners in the collaboration, the 56 member states of the OIC, have no such qualms. Many of them police private speech through Islamic blasphemy laws and the OIC has long worked to see such codes applied universally. Under Muslim pressure, Western Europe now has laws against religious hate speech that serve as proxies for Islamic blasphemy codes.

Last March, U.S. diplomats maneuvered the adoption of Resolution 16/18 within the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC). Non-binding, this resolution, inter alia, expresses concern about religious “stereotyping” and “negative profiling” but does not limit free speech. It was intended to — and did — replace the OIC’s decidedly dangerous resolution against “defamation of religions,” which protected religious institutions instead of individual freedoms.

But thanks to a puzzling U.S. diplomatic initiative that was unveiled in July, Resolution 16/18 is poised to become a springboard for a greatly reinvigorated international effort to criminalize speech against Islam, the very thing it was designed to quash.

Citing a need to “move to implementation” of Resolution 16/18, the Obama administration has inexplicably decided to launch a major international effort against Islamophobia in partnership with the Saudi-based OIC. This is being voluntarily assumed at American expense, outside the U.N. framework, and is not required by the resolution itself.
…

The OIC’s understanding of the upcoming meetings is that they will “aim at developing a legal basis for the U.N. Human Rights Council’s resolution which [will] help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.”

In an August 17 op-ed on the initiative, OIC secretary general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu was enthusiastic. He expressed concern that “anti-Islam and anti-Muslim attitudes and activities, known as Islamophobia, are increasingly finding place in the agenda of ultra-right wing political parties and civil societies in the West in their anti-immigrant and anti-multiculturalism policies,” and that “their views are being promoted under the banner of freedom of expression.” This parallels the old Soviet-bloc attack on the First Amendment as an official sanctioning of racism.
…

This initiative is shaping up to be one-sided. As Akram said, “The Resolution 16/18 was driven more by the kind of discrimination in Europe and the West in general against Muslims.” He added: “I don’t think any country in the Muslim world is deliberately discriminating against minorities.” Ihsanoglu took a similar tack, writing that “the Islamic faith is based on tolerance and acceptance of other religions. It does not condone discrimination of human beings on the basis of caste, creed, color, or faith.” (In his op-ed, Ihsanoglu also declared that “the OIC has never sought to limit freedom of expression.”)

Having won the latest round in the ideological contest for individual rights and freedoms at the United Nations this past March, the administration is now gratuitously establishing a new “transnational” forum to essentially re-litigate the matter with a body that is openly hostile to such freedoms.

This forum’s agenda is to be structured so that freedom of expression will be put on trial and inevitably condemned by most forum participants as, itself, a human-rights violation. In raising OIC expectations that “anti-Islam and anti-Muslim attitudes” will be dealt with under soon-to-be-drafted “implementation” procedures, the administration is riding a tiger.

In his 2009 Cairo speech, President Obama said, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam whenever they appear.” There are a number of problems with this statement: One is that it encourages the diplomatic folly that is this conference.

An aside: The U.S. pays 22 percent of the UN’s regular operations budget and is assessed 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. What does the OIC pay?

[vector7]

Fury as elementary school lowers American flag... and replaces it with Saudi Arabian one

By Paul Bentley

Last updated at 9:46 PM on 5th September 2011

• Comments (42)
• Add to My Stories
• Share

Parents of children at an elementary school in Colorado are furious after the American flag was lowered at the multi-cultural school and replaced with a Saudi Arabian flag.

As the tenth anniversary of 9/11 approaches, someone at Bauder Elementary School in Fort Collins appears to have lowered the American symbol while raising that of the Muslim country in its place.

The flag is thought to have initially been hung at the school as one of many posted around the site in recognition of the various nationalities represented by the young students.


Disrespectful: A picture posted online shows the Saudi flag raised higher than the U.S. flag

The school's principal insisted the flag was not raised by a member of staff in order to disrespect the American flag - and said the American flag immediately was returned to its prominent position when the issue came to his attention.

But parents argue the display was a direct violation of federal law, which states: 'No other flag or pennant should be placed above, or, if on same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America.'

They argue it's the result of the effect a growing Muslim population is having on the area.

A photograph of the Saudi Arabian flag was taken by a concerned local and first posted on the Greeley Report blog.


Controversial: The school is said to have raised a Saudi Arabian flag above an American one

'We realise this is an extremely sensitive time with us getting close to the 10th anniversary of 9/11,' the school's principal, Brian Carpenter said.

'Bauder Elementary School serves a diverse international population of students. As a means of recognising the varied nationalities of students, flags from the students’ respective countries fly within the school’s center lobby.

'The American flag always sits highest in the centre of a window alcove with the other nation flags being tilted from a lower position.'

He insisted no one at the school had created the display and added: 'The American flag is very important to us and this country so we treat it with respect.'

[American Patriot]

Sensitive? Yeah, for whom? The terrorists? Give us a FUCKING break here. There are LAWS on the books for the display of the American Flag and they were broken.