Numbers That Are Important To America’s Future

This article is a summary of recent information found in a book titled, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam by Dr. Peter Hammond. The book deals with the goals of Islam and the fact that it is not a religion, but a political system.

Dr. Hammond states, “The primary aim of Islam is not spiritual but political.”  Dr. Hammond explains the process of Islamization–the method by which Islam changes a free country into an Islamic state which controls all aspects of the lives of the population.

This is the progression according to Dr. Hammond:

At 1% of any given country, Muslims will be regarded as a peace loving minority and not as a threat to anyone…

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs…

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats…After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning…At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare.

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels…After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide.

We are currently watching this progression happen in Europe. We need to be careful and avoid it in America. Sweden is one example of what happens when Muslim immigrants do not assimilate.

Ingrid Carlqvist of The Gatestone Institute has stated:

It may have finally begun to dawn on the people that Swedish Sweden will soon be lost forever, and in many areas replaced by a Middle Eastern state of affairs…No one, however, seems to have asked the crucial question upon which Sweden’s future depends: Is Islam compatible with democracy?”

There is no country where Islam is dominant that can be considered a democracy with freedom of speech and equal justice under law.

These are the things we need to consider as we struggle with revising America’s immigration policies.

Losing Our Moral Authority

In 2004, the country of Afghanistan set up a constitution. The idea of having a free state was encouraged by America, as we had a substantial number of troops there and were trying to establish a viable government.

The constitution Afghanistan set up to be the law of the land contained the following:

Article One

Afghanistan shall be an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

Article Two

The sacred religion of Islam is the religion of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Followers of other faiths shall be free within the bounds of law in the exercise and performance of their religious rituals.

Article Three

No law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam in Afghanistan.

Article Four

National sovereignty in Afghanistan shall belong to the nation, manifested directly and through its elected representatives. The nation of Afghanistan is composed of all individuals who possess the citizenship of Afghanistan. The nation of Afghanistan shall be comprised of Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Turkman, Baluch, Pachaie, Nuristani, Aymaq, Arab, Qirghiz, Qizilbash, Gujur, Brahwui and other tribes. The word Afghan shall apply to every citizen of Afghanistan. No individual of the nation of Afghanistan shall be deprived of citizenship. The citizenship and asylum related matters shall be regulated by law.

There is something here that is important–Article Three states that “no law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion on Islam in Afghanistan.” In other words, Sharia Law is the law of the land according to the constitution of Afghanistan. We need to understand that Sharia Law and democracy (i.e. freedom) are incompatible. Sharia Law does NOT allow the free exercise of religions other than Islam. Sharia Law considers saying that Jesus is the Son of God as blasphemy, punishable by prison or possibly death. Sharia Law prohibits the sharing of Christianity–considering it blasphemy. There is no room for personal freedom in a constitution that upholds Sharia Law. That is the constitution that we allowed Afghanistan to write when we were trying to establish a viable nation. As bad as that was, we did something far worse.

On Thursday, The Hill posted an article with the following headline, “Watchdog: Troops say they were told to ignore Afghan child sex abuse.” I have another source that tells me that the troops were also told not to interfere with the poppy crop. Think about that for a minute. I understand that the poppy crop is the major industry of the country, but it is a major source of trouble around the world. Wasn’t there a way to retrain the farmers to plant something less harmful? I also understand that pedophilia is part of the Afghan culture, but it bothers me that we let it continue uninterrupted. If we were there helping the country get out from under the grip of the Taliban, didn’t we have a responsibility to uphold some sort of moral standard–regardless of the ‘cultural norm.’

I am ready for America to leave Afghanistan. However, if we choose to stay there, we have an obligation to help the people of the country find their way out of the fifth century. We can’t bomb them back to the stone age–they are already there. If we are going to continue to sacrifice money and American lives for the people of Afghanistan, we need to begin to change some of their basic customs. Pedophilia and poppy growing are ultimately moral issues. If we can’t stand for the moral issues in Afghanistan, we have no moral authority to be there.

Protecting Our Young Women

This article was posted in The Daily Caller last month. I missed it, but I am posting it now because I think it is important.

Wikipedia states:

In 1996 the Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Act made it illegal to perform FGM on minors for non-medical reasons, and in 2013 the Transport for Female Genital Mutilation Act prohibited transporting a minor out of the country for the purpose of FGM. In addition, 24 states have legislation banning FGM. The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes all forms of the practice. The firstFGM conviction in the US was in 2006, when Khalid Adem, who had emigrated from Ethiopia, was sentenced to ten years after severing his two-year-old daughter’s clitoris with a pair of scissors.

Unfortunately, some of the Muslim residents of America choose to ignore the law. Last week I posted an article about some recent arrests for performing FGM. We need to remember that Muslims who believe in Sharia Law believe that it supersedes the U.S. Constitution. They do not feel bound by the federal ban on FGM.

The article in The Daily Caller reports:

The American Civil Liberties Union launched a vocal opposition this week against a Maine bill criminalizing female genital mutilation (FGM), Mainely Media reports.

Republican Rep. Heather Sirocki is sponsoring the bill, saying that it would classify performing FGM as a Class B crime in the state, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine. The bill would also punish the parent or guardian of the victim.

However, the Maine ACLU staunchly opposes the protection. ACLU spokesman Oamshri Amarasingham said that the risk of mutilation isn’t worth expanding Maine’s criminal code. The Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault also supported the ACLU, arguing that FGM is not happening in Maine.

…The bill, LD745, only criminalizes the practice on those under 18. It does not apply to adults who choose to undergo mutilation, “though it probably should,” Sirocki said. If the bill passes, Maine would be the 25th state to protect its residents against FGM.

Sirocki said that the Committee of Criminal Justice and Public Safety was divided in its support of the bill, but eventually recommended the bill favorably with a 7-5 vote. The Maine House of Representatives will first review the bill, then it will go to the members of the state senate.

FGM is a brutal practice, often done without anesthesia, that can result in serious health problems for women later on. It does not belong in America. I don’t understand why the ACLU is not protecting young women from being subjected to this practice.

 

What Did You Learn In School Today?

The Daily Caller posted a story today about Middle School students in a southern Indiana school who were taught that living under Sharia Law is wonderful.

The article reports:

The assignment provides a reading passage ostensibly written by a 20-year-old woman named Ahlima who resides in Saudi Arabia.

Ahlima says she feels “very fortunate” to be governed by Sharia law — the notorious Islamic penal code which, in countries such as Saudi Arabia, includes the practice of cutting off the hands of criminals who steal. She observes that she is about to become some guy’s second wife. She supports the repressive clothes women in Saudi Arabia must wear. “I understand that some foreigners see our dress as a way of keeping women from being equal,” Ahlima writes. “I find Western women’s clothing to be horribly immodest.”

The article points out that Ahlima is an imaginary character invented by Sharon Coletti, the president of InspirEd Educators, and based on someone Ms. Coletti saw interviewed on a television program.

The article states:

Coletti, the creator of the assignment, defended her work.

“If I can shape something so that kids have to decide for themselves, once I get them involved in the situation, they never forget it,” the former social studies teacher told The Courier-Journal.

Coletti, who describes herself as a practicing Christian, also said she hopes her materials help student to become “patriotic” and “problem-solvers.”

However, the fictional story of 20-year-old Ahlima who is becoming a second wife and loves to wear repressive clothing is apparently no longer for this world after the Highland Hills Middle School kerfuffle.

Coletti said she will retire the assignment and related material going forward because she doesn’t want to court bad press.

The same assignment has caused parents to be angry in the past. In 2011, parents in Smyrna, Georgia accused Coletti of “indoctrinating” middle school children with the Sharia lesson.

Where are the feminists when you need them?

We need to teach our Middle Schoolers that all cultures and legal systems are not equal. We need to stop apologizing for western civilization. Western civilization is not perfect, but it provides more freedom and opportunity for all people, including women, than Sharia Law. According to Sharia Law, a man can have more than one wife. All a man has to do to divorce his wife by declaring “I divorce you.” She has no say in the matter. The testimony of a woman in court is worth less than the testimony of a man in court under Sharia. Under Sharia Law, the murder of infidels or taking them as sex slaves is allowed. Under Sharia Law, pedophilia is acceptable. There is no religious freedom under Sharia Law.  Under Sharia Law, allegiance is to Islam–not to a country or the set of laws of that country. That is why Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution are incompatible.

Teaching school children that Sharia Law is a good thing is teaching them that women have no value. Is that really the lesson we want to teach our young women?

Misquoting The Constitution For Your Own Gain

It’s amazing to me how some politicians ignore the U.S. Constitution until they want to make some sort of attack on their opponents. Then they freely misquote it. We have seen a lot of recent examples of this, but there is one that really bothers me.

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review today illustrating how Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton either misunderstands or chooses to misuse the U.S. Constitution.

The article reports:

Of all the ignorant pronouncements in the 2016 presidential campaign, the dumbest may be that the Constitution forbids a “religious test” in the vetting of immigrants. Monotonously repeated in political speeches and talking-head blather, this claim is heedless of the Islamic doctrinal roots on which foreign-born Islamists and the jihadists they breed base their anti-Americanism. It is also dead wrong.
The clause said to be the source of this drivel is found in Article VI. As you’ll no doubt be shocked to learn, it has utterly nothing to do with immigration. The clause states, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (emphasis added). On its face, the provision is not only inapplicable to immigrants at large, let alone aliens who would like to be immigrants; it does not even apply to the general public. It is strictly limited to public officials — specifically to their fitness to serve in government positions.

Just a few personal observations…If your religion requires that your religious rules supersede the U.S. Constitution, maybe you should find another place to live. If your religion has its own set of strict rules that condone honor killing, female genital mutilation, stoning of rape victims, marriage of women under the age of thirteen, and killing of homosexuals (all against American laws), maybe you should not come to America and expect to follow your religious rules. The obvious question here is, “What is the difference between a religion and a political movement?” Which is Islam?
The article concludes:
Promotion of assimilation and fidelity to the Constitution have been historical bedrocks of immigration policy. Indeed, before immigrants are naturalized as citizens, they must swear what is pointedly called an “oath of allegiance.” It calls on them to renounce any foreign sovereigns by whom they have been ruled, and to honor our Constitution — principles that are inimical to sharia supremacism. We should resist a categorical ban on Muslim immigration; but nothing in the Constitution prohibits the commonsense vetting of immigrants for beliefs that are antithetical to our principles, regardless of whether the immigrant perceives such beliefs as religious or political in nature.
We should welcome immigrants who embrace our principles, seek to assimilate into our society, and are value-added for — rather than a strain on — our economy. But if, in an era of jihadist violence, we cannot seriously vet immigrants to determine whether they fit this bill, it would be better to have a categorical ban. And if, based on an illiterate construction of the Constitution, the political class insists that its fictional “no religious test” rule forbids not only a categorical ban but the heightened scrutiny of Muslim aliens, it would be better to prohibit immigration across the board.
The United States government’s first obligation is to shield the American people from foreign threats, not to shield foreign threats and render the American people defenseless.

We should welcome refugees who want to come here and become Americans. We should encourage those who want to bring their culture with them and not assimilate to immigrate to a country with a culture similar to the one they left.

Houston, We Have A Problem…

Newsmax posted an article today about the number of ISIS terror attacks thwarted this year in the United States.

The House Homeland Security Committee has the following map posted on their website:

TerrorThreat3TerrorThreat2This is not comforting.

Newsmax reports:

And a year after the U.S.-led coalition began airstrikes against ISIS, they “have largely failed,” according to the monthly “Terror Report Snapshot” released Tuesday by the Republican members of the House Homeland Security Committee.

…Here are some other facts from the report:

  • Since 2014, ISIS has been linked to 14 terrorism plots and 63 arrests or indictments in the U.S.
  • Since early 2014, the majority of jihadist plots in the U.S. have included plans to kill police or U.S. soldiers.
  • Islamic State terrorists have inspired or directed 55 terrorist plots or attacks against the West by the end of July, including 14 in the United States.
  • Nearly twice as many ISIS-linked plots have occurred against the West so far this year — 35 — than in all of last year, which had 20.

What happened in Florida was the result of the Koran’s teaching about homosexuality. In countries ruled by Sharia Law, homosexuals are routinely thrown off of buildings with their hands tied. Execution is seen as the appropriate punishment for homosexuality under Sharia Law.

Yesterday Breitbart.com reported:

Between 2001 and 2013, the U.S. permanently resettled nearly 30,000 Afghan migrants on green cards. According to Pew, nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) support sharia law as official law.

As legal immigrants, these migrants will be granted lifetime resettlement privileges will be given automatic work permits, welfare access, and the ability to become voting citizens.

Between 2001 and 2013, the United States permanently resettled 1.5 million Muslim immigrants throughout the United States.

In the next five years, without changes to our autopilot visa dispensations, the U.S. will permanently resettle a Muslim population larger than the entire population of Washington D.C.

Islam as practiced according to the Koran is not a religion of peace. There are peaceful Muslims, but they are afraid to speak out about what is going on in many of the mosques. The Obama Administration has chosen to turn a blind eye to what is happening in our mosques. Have you ever wondered how small Islamic communities have the money to build large Islamic centers and mosques? Many of them are funded through the Islamic Society of North America (named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Trial) or funded indirectly through Saudi Arabia (the country that financed the 911 hijackers). Western civilization is under attack. Both the Sunni and Shiite Muslims want to set up a worldwide caliphate run by Sharia Law. Their only disagreement is about who will control the caliphate and where it will be headquartered. It is time for America (and the rest of western civilization) to wake up and pay attention.

Maybe We Are Screening The Wrong People

In early April of this year, I posted an article about security at American airports. The article was based on a Judicial Watch story and included the following:

In all of the cases, airport workers used their security badges to access secured areas of their respective facilities without having to undergo any sort of check. As if this weren’t bad enough, last month government records obtained by the media revealed that 73 employees at nearly 40 airports across the nation were flagged for ties to terror in a June 2015 report from the DHS Inspector General’s Office. The files identified two of them working at Logan International Airport in Boston, four at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and six at Seattle-Tacoma International in Washington State. Here’s the government’s explanation for letting the potential terrorists slip by; the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) didn’t have access to the terrorism-related database during the vetting process for those employees. You can’t make this stuff up!

Now we learn that only three of the nation’s 300 airports—Atlanta, Miami and Orlando—require employees to undergo security checks before work, even though there’s an epidemic of illicit activity among this demographic.

Today, the Center for Security Policy posted a short discussion of the recent loss of EgyptAir Flight MS804. This is the discussion:

Frank Gaffney discussed the issue on Secure Freedom Radio with Fred Fleitz, the Senior Vice President for Policy and Programs at the Center for Security Policy. As a former CIA analyst, Fleitz has an extensive background in analyzing such matters. Gaffney asked him to break down what we know so far:

“From what I’ve heard so far Frank, it looks like this probably was not the result of technical difficulties. There’s evidence that the plane tried to make some strange right and left and 360 degree turns shortly before it fell from the air. There are fishermen who said they saw a fireball so obviously the plane exploded before it crashed so it is looking like this is an act of terror and my concern as a former intelligence analyst is that this raises real questions about whether Jihadis have found new ways to penetrate airport security, both by getting their members as employees and possibly by finding technical workarounds to ways to detect bombs placed on aircraft.”

Gaffney pointed out that many American airports have staff members in various positions who may embrace Sharia Law which obliges them to embrace Jihadi philosophy and wonders if we have “lost our minds” on this issue. Fleitz responded:

“Well, you’re raising a question no one wants to talk about, I mean Western societies, we want to be tolerant, we don’t want to tar and feather every Muslim employee as a Jihadi but we know the French and British have identified people with ISIS sympathies working at airports. This is a problem in this country. Congressman Peter King was on the radio this morning talking about how TSA is finding this is a real problem, they’re trying to ferret out people who appear to have sympathies with ISIS or al Qaeda working in these sensitive positions and these are people behind the scenes, baggage handlers and mechanics who could easily put a weapon on a plane.”

Gaffney stressed that they obviously weren’t talking about all Muslims but pointed out that there is a difference between modern post-Sharia Muslims and those who embrace a medieval view.

There is a good possibility that whatever brought down EgyptAir Flight MS804 was put on the plane while it was on the ground. The plane made numerous stops before it left Paris for Egypt. It is time for all countries to take a close look at their airport workers. Planes that are flying at 35,000 feet do not fall out of the sky for no reason. Even if you lose all power, you have a chance to glide down safely. We need to pray for the families of the victims, and we need to learn quickly from the mistakes that allowed this tragedy to happen.

Recent Fairy Tales I Have Encountered

Breitbart.com is reporting the following today:

Peter Altmaier who is both the German federal refugee coordinator and a member of Angela Merkel’s own Christian Democratic Union party (CDU) said that Mrs. Merkel will convert these misogynistic migrants’ attitudes toward women into something more in line with German progressive attitudes, reports the Kurier.

He sat on a panel at the Munich Security Conference Friday when a local politician told him that many migrants in local asylum centres refused to listen to the instructions of female workers and refused food and money from them demanding that they would only accept aid from fellow men.

Altmaier answered the question by saying that the asylum workers should tell each migrant who does not listen to a woman that he must respect women like he would respect Chancellor Merkel. “you have to explain to him that there are hundreds of thousands of “Angela Merkels” in Germany who have just as much to say,” and that they should treat women with the same reverence.

I hate to be a pessimist about this, but this is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time. There are some very stark differences between western civilization (based on a Judeo-Christian ethic) and Islamic society (based on Sharia Law). One of those differences has to do with the role of women and the value placed on women as people. The migrants in question are simply behaving in a way that is culturally in tune with their upbringing–since German women are not fully covered, they are subject to groping and possible rape. This is not a simple matter of bad behavior–it is a matter of ingrained, learned behavior. The migrants have no incentive to change–they don’t believe that what they are doing is wrong.

This will not end well.

What Sharia Law Means To America

This is a screen shot taken from a video on YouTube:

MuslimPublicAffairsCouncilThis chart shows what has happened to our national security lexicon since 9/11. This is the result of recommendations from the Muslim Public Affairs Council who object to such terms as Muslim, Islam, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Jihad, etc. in our national security briefings. Their objection has nothing to do with truth–it has to do with the fact that using those words in conjunction with terrorism is offensive to Muslims. To ban the use of those words puts our national security apparatus in compliance with Sharia Law. Doesn’t that make you feel secure?

The video on YouTube  this was taken from is a briefing by Maj. Stephen Coughlin entitled “The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its Role in Enforcing Islamic Law.”

In case the video magically disappears from YouTube, I am inserting it  here:

It is a long video, but it is well worth watching.

Losing Our First Amendment Rights

On December 17, 2015, Representative Donald S. Beyer, Jr., a Democratic Congressman from Virginia, introduced House Resolution 569 into the U.S. House of Representatives.

This is the text of the Resolution (taken from thomas.gov):

RESOLUTION

Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.

Whereas the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim;

Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;

Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;

Whereas this Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;

Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;

Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; and

Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;

(2) steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim;

(4) recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;

(5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;

(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and

(7) reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.

We need to be really careful about this resolution. Where is the rule against hate speech against Jews, Christians, Blacks. Indians, etc.? Note that this law makes hate speech a crime. I am not a fan of hate speech, but making it a crime is a dangerous infringement on the First Amendment. Hate speech is speech–not action. If actions follow, they need to be dealt with, but freedom to be an idiot is enshrined in the First Amendment. Just for the record, this law is in compliance with Sharia Law.

Let me explain the history of what is going on here. In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted under the oversight of Eleanor Roosevelt. The document was an attempt to internationalize the rights that Americans have under the U.S. Constitution. In 1985, Sa’id Raja’i-Khorassani, the permanent delegate to the UN from Iran said the following:

The very concept of human rights was “a Judeo-Christian invention” and inadmissible in Islam…. According to Ayatollah Khomeini, one of the Shah’s “most despicable sins” was the fact that Iran was one of the original group of nations that drafted and approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In 1990, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) drafted the Cairo Declaration. It was introduced to the United Nations in 1993. This document controls OIC policy on human rights.

The Cairo Declaration states in Article 22 (a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely to such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah. Remember that according to Sharia Law slander is defined as mentioning anything concerning a person that he would dislike. Truth does not play into the equation. Saying you love Jesus could be considered slander (or hate speech) under Sharia.

The information in the previous four paragraphs is taken from Stephen Coughlin’s book Catastrophic Failure. It is a book all Americans need to read.

Back to the Resolution. This needs to be put to rest very quickly. It is a direct assault on the First Amendment. Please keep in mind that one of the stated goals of both the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS is to bring non-Muslims under Sharia Law. This Resolution is a perfect example of how that would work.

This Would Be So Much Easier If We Would Just Get Back To Basics

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at the National Review today about the recently announced nuclear treaty with Iran. Yes, it is a treaty.

This is the lead paragraph from the article:

It is time to end the Kabuki theater. The Corker Bill and its ballyhooed 60-day review process that undermines the Constitution is a sideshow. If you scrutinize President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, you find that the president ignores the existence of the Corker process. So should Congress.

So what does the U.S. Constitution say about treaties?

“The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2

The deal with Iran is a treaty. It needs to be treated as such.

The article further reports:

Obama’s Iran deal also ignores the existence of Congress itself – at least, of the United States Congress. As I’ve previously detailed (piggy-backing on characteristically perceptive analysis by AEI’s Fred Kagan), the deal does expressly defer to the Iranian Congress, conceding that key Iranian duties are merely provisional until the jihadist regime’s parliament, the Majlis, has an opportunity to review them as required by Iran’s sharia constitution. The United States Constitution, however, is a nullity in the eyes and actions of this imperial White House.

There is no way America should ever defer to any other constitution, much less one subject to Sharia Law.

Let’s get back to the guidelines set forth in the U.S. Constitution, which is supposed to be the ‘supreme law of the land’ in America. It is time we got acquainted with what it says and got back to following it.

Please read the entire article. It contains a few very good suggestions on how Congress can limit the damage that will be caused by the current nuclear deal with Iran. The question is whether or not Congress will have the backbone to stand up for America.

The Dangers Of Political Correctness

The story that recently came out of Rotherham England is extremely upsetting. The U.K. Telegraph posted a story on Sunday about the sexual abuse of at least 1,400 children over 16 years. The fact that this continued over a sixteen-year period is horrendous. These children can never buy back their innocence. They will probably never fully recover from the damage that was done when the abuse continued for sixteen years without being addressed. The really scary fact here is that the authorities were hesitant to pursue reports of the abuse because they did not want to be called racists. That is truly sad. People in charge were afraid to stand up for justice because it might not be politically correct.

The article reports:

The Rotherham scandal and a series of cases in towns including Rochdale highlighted how evidence of Pakistani men targeting white girls for abuse was repeatedly played down for fear of accusations of racism.

Mr Danczuk (Simon Danczuk, who helped expose a pattern of grooming of white teenage girls by men from a Pakistani background in Rochdale, where he is the Labour MP) said the elements of Pakistani political culture itself were partly to blame for the cover-up.

“There are cultural issues around the way politics are done in the Asian community which have to change,” he said.

He said he had personally come under pressure from Asian councillors and members of the community for speaking out as well as being warned by prominent figures in his party.

He pointed to the way in which two Muslim councillors in Rochdale had provided character references for one of the perpetrators of the Rochdale abuse.

Politics are done differently in Pakistan, it is a cultural difference we have imported some of that into some of these northern towns and cities and I think we have to face up to the fact that we can’t carry on doing politics like that.

“It is not healthy and the direct consequence is that we end up having to tackle issues like has been faced in Rotherham.”

He described it as “a looking after your own” within the Asian community which other politicians had accepted.

This is the danger in allowing an immigrant population to settle in a country and not assimilate. We have the same problem in America. I am not opposed to legal immigration, but when you bring in a population and do not teach them how America (or Britain) works, you may find that population doing things that are considered illegal here.

The role of women in Britain and America is very different from the role of women in Muslim countries. We need to make sure that young girls and women who live in America and Britain are treated with the respect the law grants them. In Muslim countries, under Sharia Law, women have no legal standing. Rape is not rape unless a woman has male witnesses to confirm that it was a rape. A women can be jailed or killed for being raped in a Muslim country. We do not need those laws or that attitude here. Immigrants should be welcomed, but they should also be required to understand that all citizens have rights in America and Britain–not just male citizens.

 

While The Press Was Covering Ferguson…

Yesterday, Hot Air reported on four murders that the press seems to have overlooked. Ali Muhammad Brown was suspected of killing three Seattle men. He is now accused of shooting 19-year-old Brendan Tevlin eight times at a West Orange traffic light in New Jersey in June.

The article reports:

He sought revenge against America for what he said was the wanton killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tevlin was allegedly Brown’s fourth victim.

Brown’s victims, with the exception of Tevlin, had a similar background: they were young, gay men.

…Brown may eventually face federal and/or state-level terrorism charges, but few press accounts of his attacks – most of them in local outlets — state clearly that Islamic jihadist ideology inspired him. “All these lives are taken every single day by America, by this government. So a life for a life,” court documents allege Brown said of United States actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some outlets are not mincing words about the nature of Brown’s crimes. A July report via a Seattle-based Fox affiliate described Brown as a “radical jihadist” who targeted homosexual men, but few have followed suit.

Brown was an Islamist who targeted homosexual men. Under Sharia Law, homosexuals are subject to the death penalty. He was simply acting within the bounds of his religion. Somehow the press does not seem to be concerned with this man who killed four men in America in the name of jihad. The jihadis are already among us. Unfortunately, the press is not keeping us informed.

.

 

Meriam Ibrahim Has Been Released From Government Custody Again

CBN News is reporting today that Meriam Ibrahim has been released from government custody again in Sudan.

The article reports:

“She was seized at the airport by the National Intelligence and Security Services of Sudan who do not answer to criminal courts – they are outside the judicial system,” Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice, said.

Marie Harf, a spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department, says the Sudanese government has assured the U.S. that the family has now been released again. Harf said U.S. officials are continuing to work on getting them out of the country.

…The 27-year-old Ibrahim was originally sentenced to 100 lashes and execution by hanging because the government says her father was a Muslim. Therefore, under Islamic law known as Sharia, she’s not allowed to become a Christian, even though she contends she was never a Muslim in the first place.

It is becoming obvious that Mrs. Ibrahim will not be safe until she is out of Sudan. It is also quite possible that radical Muslims will be a threat to her safety if she comes to America. However, the right thing to do is to bring her, her husband and her children here and put them in the witness protection program to protect their identity. Sharia Law is nasty, and many Muslims believe in it. They believe that they would be serving their god by killing this woman because she is a Christian. Many years ago I knew someone who left an abusive Muslim husband and was put into the witness protection program to avoid an Honor Killing–her brother had vowed to kill her in the name of allah. Sharia Law is not something we want to allow in America.

What Sharia Law Means

Yesterday the Boston Herald posted a story about a pregnant Pakistani woman who was stoned to death by her family because she married a person her father did not approve of.

The article reports:

The woman was killed while on her way to court to contest an abduction case her family had filed against her husband. Her father was promptly arrested on murder charges, police investigator Rana Mujahid said, adding that police were working to apprehend all those who participated in this “heinous crime.”

Arranged marriages are the norm among conservative Pakistanis, and hundreds of women are murdered every year in so-called honor killings carried out by husbands or relatives as a punishment for alleged adultery or other illicit sexual behavior.

Stonings in public settings, however, are extremely rare. Tuesday’s attack took place in front of a crowd of onlookers in broad daylight. The courthouse is located on a main downtown thoroughfare.

A police officer, Naseem Butt, identified the slain woman as Farzana Parveen, 25, and said she had married Mohammad Iqbal, 45, against her family’s wishes after being engaged to him for years.

…Nearly 20 members of Parveen’s extended family, including her father and brothers, had waited outside the building that houses the high court of Lahore. As the couple walked up to the main gate, the relatives fired shots in the air and tried to snatch her from Iqbal, her lawyer said.

When she resisted, her father, brothers and other relatives started beating her, eventually pelting her with bricks from a nearby construction site, according to Mujahid and Iqbal, the slain woman’s husband.

It will be interesting to see if any family members are brought up on charges for this killing. Evidently the father of the woman did not have a problem with the idea of stoning her to death because she had fled an arranged marriage. This is the culture that grows out of Sharia Law. This is the same Sharia Law many Muslims want to bring to America. This stoning is one of many reasons all Americans need to oppose Sharia Law coming to America.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Watching Britain Lose Its Freedom

Today’s U.K. Mail Online posted an article about the introduction of Sharia Law into the British legal system.

The article reports:

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, an organisation that campaigns for strict separation of the state from religious institutions and equality of religion before the law, says the move is a backwards step that undermines British justice.

He said: ‘The UK has the most comprehensive equality laws in the world, yet the Law Society seems determined to undermine this by giving approval to a system that relegates women, non-Muslim and children born out of wedlock to second class citizenship.

‘Instead of running scared at any mention of sharia, politicians of all parties should face these issues square on and insist on the primacy of democratically-determined human rights-compliant law.

‘Laws determined by Parliament should prevail over centuries-old theocratic laws. We should have One Law for All, not allowing any law to operate which disadvantages any sections of the community.’

Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch points out some of the problems with Sharia Law:

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.

The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs.

Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia principles, which recognise only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.

…Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: “This guidance marks a further stage in the British legal establishment’s undermining of democratically determined human rights-compliant law in favour of religious law from another era and another culture. British equality law is more comprehensive in scope and remedies than any elsewhere in the world. Instead of protecting it, The Law Society seems determined to sacrifice the progress made in the last 500 years.”

Lady Cox said: “Everyone has freedom to make their own will and everyone has freedom to let those wills reflect their religious beliefs. But to have an organisation such as The Law Society seeming to promote or encourage a policy which is inherently gender discriminatory in a way which will have very serious implications for women and possibly for children is a matter of deep concern.”

This is a serious step toward undermining the freedom of the citizens of Britain. Sharia Law includes such things as executing people for converting to Christianity and stoning rape victims. If the British embrace part of Sharia Law, will they be able to avoid having to live with all of the law.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Results Of Sharia Law

Sharia Law is the justice system of Islam. It discriminates against women in the way it regards the testimony of a man versus the testimony of a man, and it allows for honor killing–the murder of a family member for improper behavior. Sharia Law does not allow religious freedom and treats non -Islamic members of society (if it allows them to live) as second-class citizens. It prohibits Bibles, crosses and Christian literature. It also preaches anti-Semitism. It is the law of the land in Saudi Arabia, and soon may be the law of the land in Egypt.

One of the uglier sides of Sharia Law has recently come to light in Saudi Arabia. The Washington Examiner reported on Sunday that Fayhan al-Ghamdi, an Islamic cleric who killed his five-year-old daughter because he suspected that she was not a virgin, has been released from prison.

The article reports:

Saudi media reports say Fayhan al-Ghamdi, a frequent guest on Islamic TV programs, was arrested in November on charges of killing the girl. The reports said he questioned the child’s virginity.

Saudi media say he was freed last week after serving a short prison term and agreeing to pay $50,000 in “blood money” to avoid a possible death sentence.

That is the face of Sharia Law.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Democracy As We Know It Has Ended In Egypt Before It Even Began

Democracy in some countries means one election one time and no further voting. In Egypt it took three elections–one for the President and two for the constitution. The Australian reported today that the second vote on the constitution in Egypt will cement the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood issued a statement saying:

“The Egyptian people continue their march towards finalising the construction of a democratic modern state, after turning the page on oppression,” the Brotherhood’s political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party, said in a statement.

This will mean the end of the Coptic Christians in Egypt. They will no longer have the freedom to worship that they previously enjoyed.

The article reports:

Rights groups say the charter limits the freedoms of religious minorities and women, while giving the military too much power.

Mr Morsi had to split the voting over two successive Saturdays after more than half of Egypt’s judges said they would not supervise the polling stations.

We will now be watching Egypt become an Islamist state similar to Iran. Sharia Law will eventually be instituted. This does not bode well for peace in the Middle East.

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Interesting Development In Egypt

Fox News is reporting today that the Islamist parliament in Egypt has been dissolved by Judges appointed by Hosni Mubarak. The Judges have ruled that Mubarak’s former prime minister can run in the runoff election this weekend. A victory by the former prime minister would allow the military and the remnants of the old regime to stay in power.

The article reports:

The rulings effectively erase the tenuous progress from the past year’s troubled transition, leaving Egypt with no parliament and concentrating rule even more firmly in the hands of the military generals who took power after Mubarak’s ouster. The fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, which stands to lose the most from the rulings, called the moves a coup and vowed to rally the street against the ruling military and former prime minister Ahmed Shafiq, the presidential candidate seen by critics as a favorite of the generals and a symbol of Mubarak’s autocratic rule.

In the past (as in after the assassination of Anwar Sadat) when an Egyptian leader was removed from power, the top person in the military simply took over. There was some belief that when Hosni Mubarak was removed from power, the country would transition to a democracy. That does not seem to be happening. The elections that gave the Muslim Brotherhood a majority were legal, but the danger is that the history of the Muslim Brotherhood is one election to declare democracy and no elections after that. If the Muslim Brotherhood gains full control of Egypt, there will be no freedom for the Egyptians. Sharia Law (the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood) is incompatible with freedom and democracy.

The article further reports:

The dissolution of parliament now raises the possibility the military council could appoint the panel, a step that would fuel accusations that it is hijacking the process.

The legal adviser of the Freedom and Justice Party, the Brotherhood’s political arm, said the court rulings were “political,” lamenting the outgoing legislature as the country’s “only legitimate and elected body.”

“They are hoping to hand it over to Ahmed Shafiq and make him the only legal authority in the absence of parliament. The people will not accept this and we will isolate the toppled regime,” Mukhtar el-Ashry said in a posting on the party’s website.

A moderate Islamist and a former presidential candidate, Abdel-Moneim Abolfotoh, said the rulings amounted to a “coup” and warned that the youth, pro-democracy groups that engineered the uprising that toppled Mubarak last year would protest the court’s rulings.

A military take-over of Egypt is unfortunate for those who wish to see freedom and democracy in Egypt; however, the election of the Muslim Brotherhood to the presidency and the majority of the parliament will also mean the end of freedom and democracy. There really is no good choice for the Egyptian people.

 
 

 

 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Acceptable Assualt and Battery ?

Andrew McCarthy posted a story at National Review Online today about some recent events in Australia.  A 25-year-old Moroccan named Canan Kokden was assaulted, abducted and nearly killed by her brother-in-law, Ismail Belghar, a 36-year old Muslim. The reason for the assault–she had taken her older sister, Belghar’s wife, to the beach without his permission. Things got worse when Mrs. Belghar’s shoulders showed signs of sunburn–indicating that she had therefore “displayed her body.”

The article reports:

In the usual endearing family way, Belghar telephoned his sister-in-law to convey that he was a tad rankled: “You s**t, how dare you take my wife to the beach!” Afterwards, happening upon Ms. Kokden at a shopping mall in New South Wales, he angrily confronted her, slapped her face, and dragged her to the railing of an over-ground parking lot. As he seemed ready to hurl her to the traffic below, her brother (Kokden’s chaperone at the mall) finally stirred himself to intervene, tackling the assailant. Belghar was charged with attempted murder, among other crimes.

As night follows day, Belghar’s defense counsel argued that his client could not get a fair trial because Australians are too Islamophobic: Once informed about the nature of the allegations and the fact that he is a Muslim, jurors would surely leap to the crazy, bigoted conclusion that Belghar was probably guilty of this “honor beating” — which, in fact, he was. Just as he was, precisely, motivated by his Islamic beliefs.

That is what Sharia Law looks like. Notice that Ms. Kokden was at the shopping mall with her chaperone–thank goodness–that is the only reason she is alive today! The article points out that Mr. Belghar has not adapted to the culture of Australia–he is still functioning under the rules of the country (and religion) of his country of origin. The question is, “How accommodating should western countries be to Sharia Law?” I guess part of the answer to that may depend on whether you are a man or a woman!

The Muslim attempt to bring Sharia Law into the legal systems of western countries is called “cultural jihad.” Sharia Law is incompatible with true democracy (it does not allow for religious freedom for anyone or personal freedom for women). There have been a number of attempts to impose Sharia Law in America, please read the entire article at the National Review to see how these cases were handled.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Is Not Something America Should Be Supporting In Any Way

Chief Justice Shinwani from the Supreme Court ...

Image via Wikipedia

I probably would not qualify as a feminist by today’s standards. I believe women should be able to do any job they are qualified for and should be paid equally for their work, but the current definition of feminism has left that concept far behind. However, I have very strong ideas about how women should be treated. Some of those ideas come from spending part of my childhood in the American south, where chivalry and manners can still be found. Thus, I was very disturbed when I read the following article.

The Toronto Star posted an article today about recent comments by President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.

The article reports:

In remarks made Tuesday, Karzai backed a “code of conduct” written by the Ulema Council of 150 leading Muslim clerics. It could dramatically restrict women’s daily lives and threaten a return to the dark days of Taliban rule.

“Men are fundamental and women are secondary,” the council said in its statement released last week, and later published on Karzai’s own website.

…It says women should not travel without a male guardian or mingle with men in public places such as schools, offices or markets. It also allows wife-beating in the case of a “sharia-compliant” reason, although it rejects forced marriage and the bartering of women to settle disputes.

In Kabul, Karzai said that the council had not put “any limitations” on women, and that it was only stating “the sharia law of all Muslims and all Afghans.” But some Muslim scholars have disputed the clerics’ strict interpretation.

This was what Afghanistan was like under the Taliban. I remember the joy when people took out their radios and danced when the American troops arrived. Have the people of Afghanistan forgotten their own recent past?

The article further reports:

Before the 2001 invasion, Afghan women were confined to their homes and forced to wear burkas. Girls were not allowed to go to school, and females could not get medical attention from male doctors.

Since then women have made large strides, returning to work and school, starting businesses and taking part in the political process. But their lives are frequently at risk, and have become more difficult as security has frayed in recent months.

“Sixty-five per cent of the population is under the age of 25, and young women are not prepared to take it any more,” says Toronto author and journalist Sally Armstrong, who has written on Afghan women’s rights. “They are brave, and they march in the street. The message is ‘Karzai must go.’”

Karzai has been backtracking on women’s rights in recent years, as Western countries began to roll up their military operations. By 2014, most will have left the country, although they have pledged to continue support for its development.

President Karzai is hedging his bets because foreign forces are leaving his country, and he is faced with making friends with the Taliban or being literally left hanging. The mistake made early in our dealings with Afghanistan was allowing Sharia Law to be written into the country’s constitution. Until their constitution changes, Afghanistan will never truly be a free country.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Losing Our Focus In The Koran Burning Case

CNS News posted an article today stating that Jan Kubis, head of the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and secretary-general Ban Ki-moon’s special representative in Afghanistan, has said that the U. S. troops who accidentally burned the Koran should be disciplined. Note that the Koran was accidentally burned.

As Andrew McCarthy pointed out on February 25 (rightwinggranny.com):

The facts are that the Korans were seized at a jail because jihadists imprisoned there were using them not for prayer but to communicate incendiary messages. The soldiers dispatched to burn refuse from the jail were not the officials who had seized the books, had no idea they were burning Korans, and tried desperately to retrieve the books when the situation was brought to their attention.

This is a false issue. Where are the Muslim apologies when they burn Bibles (which they routinely do in Muslim-ruled countries)? To punish these soldiers would be to put Sharia Law above the U. S. Constitution, which they are sworn to defend. Is that really what we want to do?

The article at CNS News points out:

“It was natural that after such a grave mistake we saw expressions on the side of the people of Afghanistan, how they reject this desecration of holy Qur’an,” Kubis said. “We were very glad to notice that the majority of the demonstrations – and they are legitimate and expressions of rejection of this desecration – were peaceful.”

He also criticized the deadly violence, which he said was provoked by “irresponsible elements,” but made no call for the perpetrators to be brought to trial.

So, let me understand this, the soldiers who accidentally burned the Korans that the Muslims had defaced should be punished, but the Afghans who murdered people in cold blood should not be punished? Seems a little one way to me.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

We Are Not Hearing The Whole Story

Today Reuters posted a story about the Christmas day shooting near Dallas, Texas. The story details how Aziz Yazdanpanah, who was estranged from his wife and teenage daughters, killed his family and other relatives that were visiting his family. Yazdanpanah showed up in a Santa suit and started shooting.

Why am I posting this article? Because Reuters and the mainstream press are not telling the entire story.

The Blaze posted a few more details of the story:

In addressing the “honor killing” potential, Jihad Watch quotes Nona Yazdanpanah’s (Yazdanpanah’s daughter) friend, Lacie Reed. The young girl was quoted as saying, “She (Nona) would come to school crying and telling us her dad was crazy. He wouldn’t let her wear certain things. He was always taking her phone away, checking her call history and checking her text messages.”

Reed went on to say that Nona couldn’t date until she was “a certain age” and that she wasn‘t allowed to date anyone outside of the family’s race or religion. In addition to these details, Jihad Watch also claims that Yazdanpanah had installed cameras around the family’s home in an effort to monitor the activities that were going on.

These quotes, in themselves, are not enough to definitively call the murder-suicide an “honor killing.” That being said, the information, should it be true, does cause some questions to emerge.

So far, the Grapevine Police Department has been tight-lipped about the details surrounding the case, so any and all theories regarding motive will have to wait for definitive answering.

We never really have encountered a situation with this many victims that were shot and killed,” Sgt. Roger Eberling said. “We’re still trying to uncover the background here. This is the worst homicide we’ve ever had.”

Under Sharia Law, it is appropriate to kill family members whose behavior has brought shame to the family. That applies to women who have divorced their husbands and wives and daughters who have been westernized. When you consider the fact that the Fort Hood Massacre was declared ‘workplace violence,’ you begin to wonder how honest authorities are being about the source of these murders.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Looks Innocent But It Isn’t

CBN News reported today on U.N. Resolution 16/18, a U.N. Resolution supported by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The resolution sounds very practical until you examine it closely. The resolution seeks to limit freedom of speech when dealing with Islam.

The Center for Security Policy reports:

The Obama administration started down this ill-advised road by cosponsoring in 2009 an OIC-drafted resolution in the UN Human Rights Council that condemned “defamation of religion” – read, Islam.  That initiative helped advance the Islamists’ twelve-year campaign to “prohibit and criminalize” such defamation in accordance with the “blasphemy laws” that are part of the totalitarian doctrine they call shariah.

Then, as more and more of the Free World began awakening to the danger posed by such efforts to compel them to submit to shariah, Team Obama helped engineer a new document at the Human Rights Council.  Adopted in March, Resolution 16/18 focused, instead of banning defamation, on getting the world’s nations to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization, and  discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”  

The countries in the OIC that are sponsoring this are countries where a person can be put to death for converting to Christianity or encouraging anyone else to become a Christian. Do we really believe that they are for preventing discrimination based on religion?

The article at CBN reports:

Sekulow (Jordan Sekulow, director of policy and international operations for the American Center for Law and Justice) says his organization is fighting to keep the resolution from becoming adopted because it could backfire and be broadly misinterpreted country by country.

“Just the building of churches … having a cross outside your door can be inciting violence,” Sekulow explained.

“So if you let them define these definitions when there is no problem coming from the minority faiths, this is somehow going to ‘green light’ their suppression,” he added.   

We need to remember that freedom of religion is not a right in many countries around the world. Letting a group of countries where freedom of religion does not exist pass a law about religious discrimination is simply not smart–the intentions of those countries may be very different than the intentions of the countries in the world where all faiths are welcome.

Enhanced by Zemanta