Category Archives: Western Law
“We’re not scaremongering, this is really happening.” – Idioteque, Radiohead.
My University in London used to be a Polytechnic. Before that, it was a parking lot. By gradients then, the same space has become progressively less functional over the ages, and it now blights the cultural life of an otherwise charming town.
In appearance, the main building resembles a very old-fashioned, inner-city high-school. The campus is tiny relative to normal universities. There is no green space nearby and we are surrounded on all sides by busy roads. The website calls it ‘cosy, modern and artful’. In reality it is compact, ugly and depressing.
I didn’t need to attend this place. I received very good A-level results. Warwick University was among the first institutions to offer me a place. I turned them and others down because I wanted to attend somewhere further away from the small, boring town in which my parents live. More specifically, I was determined to live and study in London.
What I had in mind was the London I saw on television, a stuffy, slightly upmarket New York in effect, with intelligent men and aspirant women supping cocktails and espresso, you know the kind of place. What I have become used to since I arrived here is a city of burkas, terrorism, homophobia, black-tar Heroin, and prostitution; a magnificent metropolis half-destroyed by a single cultural minority.
You may think, dear general reader, that the panic and hysteria over Islam is unwarranted or driven by third-party interests (oil politics, Jewish Nationalism, Racism etc…). The ‘me’ just a day or two into freshers week would completely agree with you. The ‘me’ now wants you to listen carefully and without prejudice as to why this is not the case.
I realise now that the present epoch is a contest between two starkly different futures: One in which the West is Islamised and the other in which the West is restored. The first is a nightmare of which some of us already have a taste, and which we are fully prepared to fight to prevent.
I’ll give you three examples from personal experience…
During my first year of study, I was resident in a student halls with many other people, most of them Muslim, most of them British-born. Throughout this year I witnessed and on occasion suffered cultural bullying of a type I never imagined existed. This was the bullying routinely talked about on racist websites, and which I had always assumed to be Islamophobic fiction.
Here’s a question for you – In what situation do you think it is appropriate to label a women you don’t know a ‘slag’? I’m sure, assuming you are a decent and rational person, that you would only imagine yourself using such language in public during a fit of rage over something like a terrible betrayal, or after being physically attacked by a female stranger…..
Well, the non-Muslim women of my block grew used to hearing this word in retribution for such crimes as wearing shorts on their way to netball practice. They became used to hearing it when they went out in groups to local nightclubs and when they returned home in the early hours of the morning. They hardly blinked when such slurs were screamed out of windows, day-in and day-out, and it went unreported.
Here’s another question for you – In what situation do you think it is justified to spread lies about people you barely know?
Well, lies of the most serious and defamatory kind were routinely spread about non-Muslim students by Muslims that year, via intranet email, graffiti and loud insinuation. The women (the ‘slags’) were alleged to be infected with sexual diseases. The boys were alleged to be homosexual and/or riddled with AIDS. The ‘evidence’ for such slurs were the lifestyles of the Kaffir, and their attending of parties, easy laughter and the congregating with people of the opposite sex etc…
Here’s a second example….
On St Valentine’s Day during the second year, the Student Union decided to propose a Valentine’s Day Singles Ball, in which single men would come wearing badges saying ‘single’ to meet single women, who would be identified likewise. It sounded quite silly I remember thinking, but if people enjoyed it, who cared?
You don’t need me to tell you who cared about it, and who eventually protested loudly enough for the Ball to be cancelled. It was the ****** University Islamic Society, a sprawling and powerful mafia with tentacles reaching into every aspect of student life. They thought the ball would encourage promiscuity and so they lobbied against it.
Again, nobody said a word.
A third and final example I’ll give of my awakening to the Islamic issue, is the most serious. You might well dismiss what you’ve read so far as ‘anti-social behaviour’ and no worse than the behaviour of other social groups. But not this occasion:
I was sitting in class one day, near the back of the room. The lecturer had finished talking and now we were told to discuss amongst ourselves the things we’d heard. A group of Muslim men just across from me were apparently uninterested in the lecture that day as they commenced to discuss videos they’d been emailing each other instead. It took me a short while, but I came to understand that these were decapitation videos. Hearing this, I nervously looked over at the faces of the men and saw sick, sadistic smiles.
At the end of that year, I was a fully developed ‘Islamophobe’. I can’t and won’t deny what I witnessed and what I saw others go through. And more than this, I won’t help the taboo to survive which allowed for these abuses to go unreported.
If there is one thing my University made clear during Fresher’s Week, it was the ‘multi-faculty policy on discrimination’. In lengthy assemblies, we were told in a frank and serious tone that no ‘discrimination’ of any kind was tolerated longer than it took for those responsible to be expelled.
A climate of fear, no less palpable than that of totalitarian dictatorship was cast over us all.
You’ll notice that I haven’t provided you with the name of my University. This is because I am currently studying there, and do not wish to be beaten to a pulp by students. I wouldn’t trust the staff or security to help me in such a situation. This University is Islamic territory now.
The people I hope to reach are those who might have any illusions about the determination of the Muslims to enforce their way of life onto the rest of us. It is not a ‘Zionist fabrication’. It is not a ‘fantasy’ of White Nationalists. I am a perfectly liberal guy, and have a zero-tolerance policy for racism.
The threat is real.
From Defend The Modern World: http://defendthemodernworld.wordpress.com/
“The problems of the Clash of Civilization cannot be postponed much longer. They are our problem. We cannot save 1 billion people from themselves, but we can save ourselves from them.”
Muslims are The Problem.
The Muslim world has two approaches to the West; underhanded deceit and outright terror. The practitioners of the former are considered moderates and the latter extremists. The West has two approaches to the Muslim world, regime change and love bombing. With regime change we bomb their cities to save them from their rulers and with love bombing we shamelessly flatter and appease them in our own cities to save them from themselves.
Westerners worry a great deal over who runs the Muslim world. Muslims do not care very much who runs Western countries. They prefer weak liberal Western leaders to strong ones, but they do not believe that there is truly a moral difference between them. Even a Hussein in the White House has not improved America’s ratings in the Muslim world.
Muslims are religiously and culturally antagonistic to the West. Whether a John McCain or a Barack Hussein Obama is in the White House; America is still a great non-Muslim power. That very fact, in contradiction to the promises of the Koran and its deity, will continue to bring forth a xenophobic response no matter how much America flatters the Muslim world.
Westerners focus their animus on Muslim leaders, on a Saddam, a Gaddafi or an Arafat– not recognizing that the hostility comes not from the leaders, but from the people. We can remove all the leaders of the Muslim world and replace them with muppets, and it won’t noticeably change the underlying bigotry of the Muslim world. And very soon the muppets will also start chanting, “Death to America” because it’s the popular thing to do.
Regime change, whether through armed force or democratic revolutions, won’t save the Muslim world.
The Muslim world is not backward by their standards, it is backward by our standards. It refuses to make the social and political changes that the West did, but that is because it does not like the trade-offs that come with those changes. And that is a choice that each Muslim country and society has to make. Individualism, freedom and tolerance are not acceptable values in the Muslim world. And totalitarianism, theocracy and repression are not acceptable values in ours. The Muslim world has no obligation to accede to our cultural standards, but we accordingly have no obligation to accede to theirs.
There is always a gap between civilizations, but rarely has the gap yawned as starkly as it does now. We are as eager to bring the Muslim world into the light, as they are to drag us into the darkness. And the momentum is on their side. We don’t have the answers that we think we do. Democracy is not the solution. Neither is embracing Muslim culture with open arms. They don’t have the answers either, but they have something better; unrestrained violence that is fueled by the moral desperation of a failed culture struggling against the tidal pull of that failure. Like a drowning man, if we try to save them, then they will pull us down with them.
How does one protect them from the damage that they do to their own character? And how does one save people from their own hate?
We are not so wise and so perfect that we can claim to know how to save 1 billion people from themselves. Right now we are having a good deal of trouble saving us from ourselves and we cannot be expected to shoulder the burden of reforming the Muslim world as well. Whatever spiritual or cultural redemption waits for them, can only come from themselves and through themselves. It will not come through a change of government or lavish praise. Only through a growing moral awareness. There is no telling when or if such an awareness will come. There are animal rights campaigns in China and anti-rape campaigns in Africa– but no progress on human rights in the Muslim world. It is likely that China will be vegetarian before non-Muslims are treated as equals in the Muslim world.
It has been made manifestly clear that Muslim violence against us, both individual and collective, will not cease any time soon, and that such violence is informed by the scriptures of their faith. While some Muslim countries claim to harbor no violent intentions toward us– such claims often prove false under the pressure of domestic unrest and growing religiosity.
If the Muslim world has raised up a wall of sand against freedom, tolerance and the recognition of our common humanity– then it is best for their sake and ours that they remain on their side of that wall of sand.
If they refuse to coexist with us, either locally or globally, then that is their choice. They may have their paradise of hefty-bagged women, towering mosques and cowering infidels– so long as their bigotry and oppression remains on their side of the wall of sand. When they breach that wall, then they have to live by our laws, not theirs. If there is no room for our laws in their lands, then there is no room for their laws in ours.
Thinkers and politicians talk on of how to save 1 billion Muslims from themselves. Remove their tyrannies, some cry. But what will they replace them with? More tyrannies. Governments reflect their peoples. If 1 billion Muslims really wanted to be free, they would be. The tyrants are expressions of their condition, not repressions of their moral will. The Muslim world does not differ on whether there should be tyranny, but on what manner of tyranny it should be. The Arab Spring has proven that.
The most fundamental error of the West toward the Muslim world is that of condescension. Western governments may see Muslims as minorities, but they see themselves as majorities. And throughout the world they are majorities. Muslims in the West do not see themselves as minorities, but as natural majorities who have the right to impose their will and their way of life on a minority that functions as a majority only because it has not yet been overrun and conquered. Unlike refugees who come from cultures where they are minorities, Muslims come expecting to have things done their way. And when the West accedes, that only affirms the Muslim sense of privilege.
The West condescends to Muslims, and Muslims condescend to the West. Both reassure the other that everything is fine. But while the West’s condescension is based on wishful thinking, that of the Muslim world is based on progressive conquest. If diplomacy is the art of saying, ‘Nice Doggie’ while looking for a stick, then the West isn’t looking for the stick, and the Muslim is.
The West’s missionary impulse toward the Muslim world is not only misplaced, it is positively dangerous. How can the West convince the Muslim world to believe as it does, when it no longer knows what it believes?
The Muslim world lacks such weaknesses. It cannot be crippled by moral quandaries, ideological contradictions, philosophical crises or doubts about the future. Its members do not recognize contradiction, rather they embrace them, until those contradictions explode in violence.
Western codes are black and white, Muslim codes combine all shades into one. When the Muslim world is confused or in doubt, it resolves these feelings with violence. The West does not resolve them at all. While the West broods, the Muslim world slits throats. The problems of the Clash of Civilization cannot be postponed much longer. They are our problem. We cannot save 1 billion people from themselves, but we can save ourselves from them.
Two years ago, on Election day, Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly approved a state bill in support of anti-sharia legislation. But the Islamofascists at CAIR (Council on Anti-American Islamic Relations) and their Commie pals at the ACLU sued to block the anti-sharia bill and were able to convince a few Obama dhimmi judges to overturn the will of the people on appeal. Hopefully, this time, the patriotic citizens of Oklahoma will succeed in their crusade to have barbaric sharia law banned from their state courts forever.
Associated Press Once again, Oklahoma lawmakers are considering banning judges in the state from basing any rulings on foreign laws, including Islamic Sharia law.
A Senate panel on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved the bill, which has broad support in the Republican-controlled Legislature. The bill would specifically make void and unenforceable any court, arbitration or administrative agency decision that doesn’t grant the parties affected by the ruling “the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the U.S. and Oklahoma constitutions.”
Muslim groups will start buying billboards condemning the people of Oklahoma who want to outlaw sharia in their state:
“This is a way to protect American citizens … where somebody may try to use any kind of foreign law or religious law to affect the outcome of a trial,” said Sen. Ralph Shortey, R-Oklahoma City, who sponsored the bill. Shortey described it as “American Law for American Courts.”
A handful of other states have laws aimed at keeping courts from basing decision on foreign legal codes, including Islamic law. Oklahoma voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2010 that would have specifically prohibited courts from considering Sharia law, but a federal judge blocked its implementation after a Muslim community leader alleged it discriminates against his religion.
CAIR uses social media to disparage criticism of Islamic sharia law as bigotry and lies:
Shortey said he didn’t know of an instance in Oklahoma where a judge has relied on foreign laws, but he said there have been cases in other states. That prompted state Sen. Brian Crain, R-Tulsa, to describe the measure as a “solution that’s looking for a problem.” Crain was the only member of the Senate committee to vote against the bill.
The panel approved the bill 8-1. It now heads to the full Senate for a vote. A similar measure has been introduced in the Oklahoma House.
CAIR Islamists gather their fellow jihadists to try to intimidate opponents and interfere with hearings:
The executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said Oklahoma courts already are required to enforce state and federal laws when they conflict with foreign law that violates public policy.
“This bill is entirely unnecessary and creates significant uncertainty for Oklahomans married abroad as well as those Oklahomans who have adopted a child from another country or are seeking to do so,” Executive Director Ryan Kiesel said in a statement. “These Oklahoma families don’t deserve to have this type of doubt cast over them. ”It also creates an atmosphere of uncertainty for foreign businesses seeking to do business with Oklahoma businesses.”
From bare naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
“Dr. Peter Hammond, the author of “Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat”, pointed out that Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. What Americans and others in the West do not grasp is that it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social and military components, but it is the religious component that masks the other elements of Islam.”
Where Will All The Native Anglo-Saxons Go Now That They Have Turned Their Country Over to The mooslim Parasites?
BRITISH WHITE FLIGHT? The unintended consequences of forced multiculturalism when the majority of immigrants are Muslim supremacists
The failure of multiculturalism in the UK is directly connected to the mass importation of a group who not only refuses to assimilate with the native culture, but desires to replace it with Islamic culture, laws, and traditions of misogyny, bigotry, racism, and homophobia.
UK Daily Mail Britain is ‘self-segregating’ as white families flee urban areas for the countryside and outer suburbs. The trend is causing an ‘ethnic cliff’, in which the proportion of households from minority backgrounds is vastly different in areas just a few miles apart.
Some outer London boroughs – including Enfield, Waltham Forest and Redbridge – have seen their white British population drop by as much as a quarter over the past decade. The same applies to urban areas around the capital such as Luton, Reading and Bedfordshire.
Meanwhile, the white British population in many suburban and rural districts just next door has soared, according to research produced by Birkbeck College, University of London, in conjunction with think tank Demos.
‘Between 2001 and 2011, the proportion of white British in London’s population fell from 58 to 45 per cent,’ said Birkbeck professor of politics Eric Kaufmann. ’The share of ethnic minorities reached 40 per cent of the total, a 39 per cent increase.’
‘This has caught many by surprise… Analysts implied that London would not become “majority minority” in most of our lifetimes, but the latest census figures suggest otherwise.’ Affluent white families from diverse wards in London are shifting to less diverse (less Muslim) wards in the outer suburbs.
In the extreme example of Barking and Dagenham, the research shows, a third of the white British population departed between 2001 and 2011. Since many lack the resources to move or are council tenants, this suggests that a majority of local white British who could leave may have done so.
The phenomenon has gone largely unnoticed until now because British city centres tend to have a fairly broad racial mix visible on the streets, in shops and restaurants and in many workplaces. Prof Kaufmann added: ‘While white avoidance of ethnic (Muslim) minorities is the first thought that comes to mind, it’s important to consider the alternative explanations. Most diverse wards are urban and poor.
‘Whites may be leaving for better schools, cheaper homes, fresher air, or because they are more likely to be retirees, wealthier or better educated. Only a statistical approach which controls for these factors can tell us whether ethnic preferences are key.’ (Nope, they are moving to get away from Muslims. Period)
The share of minorities in London has increased by a percentage point a year since 1991. Prof Kaufmann likened the situation to that in the US – where white Americans leave or avoid ‘majority minority’ neighbourhoods and seek out areas that are over 70 per cent white.
He added: ‘Whether Britain will follow in America’s footsteps is an open question: much will depend on the residential preferences of working-class British whites and whether they are able to realise them.’
From Bare naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
FFA A measure to ban the use of foreign laws in domestic courtrooms is progressing in Florida’s statehouse, one of dozens of similar efforts across the country that critics call an unwarranted campaign driven by fear of Muslims. The Blaze has reported before about allegations that Sharia law has been finding its way into Florida courtrooms. Forty such bills are being pursued in 24 states, according to a tally by the National Conference of State Legislatures, a movement backers say is a response to a glaring hole in legal protections for Americans.
Click here to send your email to House Judiciary Committee members.
Florida Family Association sent out two alerts that encouraged supporters to send emails to members of the Florida House Civil Justice Subcommittee to encourage them to support HB 1209 Application of Foreign Laws in Certain Cases. This bill would prohibit certain provisions of foreign laws including Sharia law from being considered by Florida courts if they do not afford the same liberties, rights and privileges guaranteed by the Florida and US Constitution.
Assembly of Muslim Jurists of AmericaAMJA’s goal: replacing our Constitution with sharia law:
The enablers of radical Islam in government, academia and the media regularly dismiss warnings about sharia law creeping into American judiciaries.. They have either never heard of, don’t want to know about, or don’t want you to know about AMJA. Learn more here: mainstream-american-muslim-jurists-blueprint-for-undermining-americas-legal-system
Thousands of supporters sent emails which encouraged members of the Florida House Civil Justice Subcommittee to support HB 1209. The subcommittee passed HB 1209 on the morning of January 31, 2012 with a bi-partisan vote of 13-0. Click here for the official Florida House Civil Justice Subcommittee vote record.
The companion bill in the Florida Senate SB 1360 passed the Florida Senate Judiciary committee on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 by a vote of 6-0. Click here to read more on SB 1360.
There are numerous provisions of Sharia law which are inconsistent with Florida statutes. Sharia law authorizes polygamy, pedophilia and perpetuates violence towards women and death for dishonoring the faith. HB 1209 and companion bill SB 1360 are significant legislative starts in the right direction to protect Americans from the intrusion of some provisions of Sharia law which are inconsistent with American laws.
Section 3 of HB 1209 and SB 1360 Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases states “Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.” Click here to read the full bill.
The Florida House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider HB 1209 on February 22, 2012 at 8:00 am.
If Florida courts accept provisions of Islamic Sharia law or other foreign laws and legal codes which are inconsistent with American laws it will undermine public policies enacted by our representative form of government and change our value system.
Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send which encourages Representatives on the House Judiciary Committee to support House Bill 1209.
To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. Because opponents try to use our email system to send opposing messages we NO longer allow for changes in the wording of the subject line or message of the email prepared for you to send to advertisers.
Please click here to send your email to encourage the House Judiciary Committee members to support HB 1209.
From Bare Naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
A Federal Court Finally Interprets Constitutional Law Correctly and Rules Obama’s Power Grabs Unconstitutional
Finally, a first step. A Federal Court provides us with much needed relief from the maniacal power grab of a President out of control. If a Republican played third world dictator, there would be hell to pay from a rabid media. But the reporting on this is comical: “Obama claims he acted properly…..”
Obama Labor Board Recess Appointments Are Unconstitutional, Federal Court Rules AP, January 25, 2013
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court has ruled that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit says Obama did not have the power to make recess appointments earlier this year to the National Labor Relations Board.
Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays. But the court says the Senate technically stayed in session when lawmakers gaveled in and out every few days for so-called “pro forma” sessions.
GOP lawmakers used the tactic specifically to prevent Obama from using his recess power to fill vacancies in an agency they claimed was too pro-union.
The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
From Atlas Shrugs: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
Now where would they get that idea from?
ROME, JANUARY 24 – A new survey by Paris-based Ipsos research company on Thursday showed 74% of French respondents believe the Muslim religion is ”intolerant” and incompatible with their social values.
The survey, published on the Le Monde newspaper website, also showed eight out of 10 French people believe the Islamic religion tries to impose its views on others, 10% believe a majority of Muslims are fundamentalists, and another 44% believe a many but not all Muslims are fundamentalists. Most respondents did not know how to define fundamentalism, however.
The data varied across age groups and political affiliations, but represents a majority in each category of respondents.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
The Bee and the LambPart 9 (continued)
By Takuan Seiyo
A Whole New Road to Serfdom
That Which is Not Seen
For over 60 years, White mea-culpists have had a firm grip in all fields of cultural mind imprinting: education high and low; paper media, then electronic, then digital media; all forms of entertainment, the plastic arts and music high and low, and religious instruction and worship too. Their main endeavor has been to enforce their compulsory (e.g. K-12) and discretionary (e.g. television) self-flaying on account of long-ago Slavery, Colonialism, Imperialism, Male Supremacism, Racism, Antisemitism, and so on.
It’s the evils of the Iberian Inquisition — which were evil — but not the evils of the Japanese equivalent in which, in the 40 years up to 1597, 50,000 Christians were publicly crucified, burned or beheaded. Nor the evils of the worldwide Islamic Inquisition which — not in the 16th century but now, in the 21st, condemns Muslim apostates to barbaric execution. It’s America’s destruction of the snail darter but not Mussulmanism’s destruction of the Bamyan Buddhas or its proposed destruction of the Sphinx and the Pyramids, let alone its obliteration of all the pre-Rome cradles of Christianity but for remaining ruins in the Middle East and dust of the desert in North Africa.
It’s the evils of feudalism and industrial workers’ exploitation in Europe and America, but not the strict Confucian evils of Northeast Asia. There, a member of the ruling class in China had, essentially, a free hand with anyone of the lower classes, a Japanese samurai could test his sword by cutting down an insolent peasant, and farmers were so squeezed by their fief holders that they habitually sold their daughters to bordellos for the few coins it provided for next season’s seed.
Feminism, Socialism and anti-Antisemitism should have arisen in Saudi Arabia or Yemen, Algeria or Peshawar, for good reasons. Instead, aggressive White androphobes of all genders which I can no longer count are decimating the philogynous and egalitarian West. Equality psychos are tearing down the most egalitarian society that ever existed (except for initial communist experiments, before they turned bloody). American Jews, at the apex of the greatest fortune and philosemitic tolerance their long diaspora has ever bestowed on their kind, are busy supporting all the ideologies and policies that demolish their safe harbor and build up their Muslim, Black and Third World enemies. They will come to rue their tacit assumption that better the antisemite you don’t know than the few hundred imputed and real ones catalogued at ADL.
One would be hard put to find a nation not based on the invasion of another people’s territory and their mass slaughter. Yet poisoned American madmen proclaim “No Thanks for Thanksgiving” as though the Indians themselves did not fight endless genocidal wars from Peru to Canada, with torture, ritual murder or slavery for the captives and, at times, cannibalism too.
Leftoid masochists and the Christian meek call for returning Hawaii to the Hawaiians and capitulating before a massive Mexican reconquista of one-third of America. The self-defined “Feminist-Tauist-NeoPagan-Post-Structuralist-Deconstructionist-Socialist” useful idiot Gillian Schutte begins her New Year 2013 Dear White People by “wholeheartedly apologizing for what my ancestors did to the people of South Africa and inviting you to do the same.”
Yet the Magyars don’t seem to feel much guilt over the Illyrians, Pannonians, Sarmatians and Celts whose land and lives they took in the 9th century, to form Hungary. The rightful Etruscan landowners are not bearing angry placards in front of the Vatican. The Japanese are not planning to relinquish Hokkaido to its original owners, the Ainu. The tall, white and fair-haired Chachapoyas of the Andean forest have, alas, no remnants left to sue the Incas for genocide in a Peruvian court of law. The Aztecs, whether in Jalisco or Los Angeles, don’t agonize over having taken what would become Mexico City from its original Culhuacan owners, with lots of grisly details. Yet for 38 years Neil Young has been reminding adoring audiences about “Cortez the Killer”, discreetly omitting Tlacaelel the killer and the killer people whom Cortez killed.
Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (1996) is a book by Daniel Goldhagen presenting the thesis that the German nation as such was composed of willing executioners of the Jews because of a unique “eliminationist antisemitism” in the German people, with long historical roots. However, even that great moral abyss of Western civilization — the Holocausts — stands out more in its industrialized and organizational features than it does either in the quality of its hatefulness or its relative or even absolute volumes. And Holocausts they were, for in addition to the nearly 6 million Jews, the Germans also murdered over 21 million civilian Slavs, and that’s counting Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Belarus and Czechoslovakia alone.
In absolute numbers, the total number of World War II non-German civilian victims of Nazi Germany is smaller than the 50 million victims of the Bolsheviks in Russia, or Mao’s 70 million in China, or the Mughal-Muslim genocide of Hindus — the latter have their own Holocaust Day on August 14.
In relative numbers, in just one year, 1994, the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, killed off a total of one million, in a population of 7 million. 75% of the Tutsi population was erased. Is it more humane to go by a stroke of a blunt machete than by a whiff of Zyklon B?
The Khmer Rouge murdered at least 2 million Cambodians between 1975 and 1979: one quarter of the population, by a conservative count. Is it more humane to die by wallops from a Cambodian pickaxe handle than by a bullet from a German Mauser?
Inscription on the back (in German): “Ukraine 1942, Jewish Aktion, Ivangorod.”
There is a special horror attached to the Third Reich, because those were 20 th century Europeans, Christians, and in many ways the smartest, most civilized people on Earth. But the Holocausts do not prove that Whites are worse than other people, just that they are no better. The history of the Third Reich also proves that with the right formula of economic blowup, misery and humiliation, sparked by charismatic evil, no people are immune to such horror, at no time.
Several businesses, groups, and individuals have sued in court to fight the payment of fines for adhering to their religious convictions. Some Federal court judges (will miracles never cease) have actually issued injunctions protecting those folks from being hammered with massive fines, at least until they have had their day in court.
Enters this b*tch, the Skank of SCOTUS:
Obama’s Gun Control Presidential Threat is Impeachable Offense
By Clash Daily This weekend the President of the United States declared war on legitimate gun owners who have the protection of the U.S. Constitution under their Second Amendment rights. Barack Obama informed the host of Meet the Press on the December 27th show and its viewing audience that he would use the full authority and “full weight” of the presidential arsenal of his office to unleash the dogs of war against legal gun owners.
The threat is real, because if one considers the nature of Obama’s cavalier attitude toward upholding or even recognizing the legitimacy of the authority of the U.S. Constitution, he has little regard for it. He has ignored the 10th Amendment regarding state’s rights, the Second Amendment regarding gun rights, and even laws passed by congress, like the Defense of Marriage Act. His presidency has been a renegade take-over and emasculation of the very constitution he swore to uphold.
The course of action is clear for the Congress of the United States: the President of the United States has decided to pursue a direction that even the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 and 2010 cases, has concluded is legally without merit. The president believes through his actions that the Second Amendment can be marginalized, and with the full consent of a weakened congress, that gives in to his pressure as it did on January 1st with the Fiscal Cliff bill.
What is left to wonder for Americans to weigh about the need for impeachment proceedings as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. There is nothing left to debate, to discuss, to bargain or barter over. An assault on freedom and the constitution regarding gun rights is not open for negotiation or for misinterpretation.
Impeachment hearings are a serious step for any congress to consider, and it takes a matter which is defined by the U.S. Constitution as impeachable offenses for judiciary hearings to be undertaken by the House of Representatives.
Three sitting presidents have been investigated by congress, which had impeachment charges brought against them, beginning with President Andrew Johnson in 1867, Richard Nixon in 1974, and Bill Clinton in 1998. In each of the cases, the three presidents attempted to thwart either the will of the legislative branch, lied to the legislative branch or mislead the legislative branch in open and contemptible violation of the law.
Yet, in each case there was not an attempt to openly circumvent the constitutional authority of congress or eliminate constitutional protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, as Obama has engaged in. This sitting president has engaged in such actions as defined by the Constitution’s framers as well as those states that approved this essential American document.
The impeachment investigation by congress is a critical and necessary first step:
“Those who adopted the Constitution viewed impeachment as a remedy for usurpation or abuse of power or serious breach of trust. …Thus, the impeachment power of the House reaches “those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust,” according to the Washington Post’s “Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment”.
The betrayal of the public trust is a key component that elevates Obama’s conduct, both past and present, to this impeachment threshold. By engaging in continuing dismissive conduct regarding selective enforcement of the laws of the United States he bears congressional investigation. He has therefore “betrayed the public trust”, by these actions that the framers of the U.S. Constitution felt warranted impeachment of the nation’s highest constitutional officer.
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” ~ Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution
Let the first action of the new congress be one which serves notice on the re-elected president, that due to high crimes and misdemeanors you are so charged with Impeachment!
Image: The Senate as a Court of Impeachment for the Trial of Andrew Johnson; source: Harper’s Weekly, April 11, 1868; author:Theodore R. Davis; United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs division; public domain/copyright expired
Kevin Fobbs has more than 35 years of wide-ranging experience as a community and tenant organizer, Legal Services outreach program director, public relations consultant, business executive, gubernatorial and presidential appointee, political advisor, widely published writer, and national lecturer. Kevin is co-chair and co-founder of AC-3 (American-Canadian Conservative Coalition) that focuses on issues on both sides of the border between the two countries.
College Professor – Dr. Jonathan Matusitz – Explains Why The US Government Does Not Call Terrorism By Its Name
Found at Blazing Cat Fur
Sharia law in Arizona: Muslim mom gets probation after brutally ‘beating daughter and burning her with hot spoon’ for talking to a boy at school, Devout Dad freed after stabbing her in the throat
This is Arizona. Not Yemen, not Iran, but Phoenix. A Muslim mother was sentenced to two years’ probation after she was accused of beating her teenage daughter because the girl refused to go along with an arranged marriage and was spotted talking to a male student at her high school. Her devout Muslim father cut his daughter’s neck with a knife on February 7, leaving a one-and-a-half inch wound. He had admitted trying to kill her with the knife. And they are freed. This is sharia in America.
Honor violence is not merely sanctioned in Islam, it is encouraged. And honor murder of the offspring is sanctioned under Islam: read it, page 584 in Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.
Obama say, “respect it!” Four more years!
“Woman gets probation after ‘beating daughter and burning her with hot spoon’ for speaking to a boy at school” Daily Mail
Sentenced: Yursah Farhan (right) , 51, was given two years’ probation for unlawful imprisonment of her daughter, 19-year-old Aiya Altameemi
An Iraqi mother was sentenced to two years’ probation after she was accused of beating her teenage daughter because the girl refused to go along with an arranged marriage and was spotted talking a male student at her high school.
Yursah Farhan, 51, who lives in Phoenix, Arizona, was spared jail time in exchange for a guilty plea to unlawful imprisonment of her daughter, 19-year-old Aiya Altameemi.
The girl’s father, Mohammed Altameemi, 46, also received two years’ probation for disorderly conduct, and her 18-year-old sister, Tabarak Altameemi, received the same sentence for assault.
Prosecutors said the incident started when Aiya was spotted by family members talking to a young man outside her high school.
The father and Aiya’s sister confront the young woman and took her home, where Mohammed Altameemi struck her several times. The girl’s mother and sister admitted to tying her to a bed with a rope that was secured with a padlock and beating her.The family home in lives in Phoenix, Arizona
Aiya Altameemi also claimed that she was burned with a hot spoon on her face and chest while her sisters held her down.
She told school officials about the incident and claimed that her family was trying to protect her because they ‘want her to be a virgin for an arranged marriage’ to a 38-year-old man, according to court documents.
Farhan was arrested at St. Joseph’s hospital in Phoenix in February because she had hit her daughter so violently with her hands and a shoe that the girl required medical treatment.
Farhan told police she wanted to punish the girl because her culture states that ‘a female is not allowed to be having contact with males’.Arrest: Farhan is shown apparently in the hospital around the time of her arrest
There was a brief struggle in the emergency room when officers arrived to arrest Farhan, who refused to be handcuffed and was eventually carried out by two people.
The prosecution case against Farhan’s husband Mohammed Altameemi stated that he cut his daughter’s neck with a knife on February 7, leaving a one-and-a-half inch wound.
He had admitted trying to kill her with the knife, until her sister Tabarak Altameemi intervened.
Records show the 19-year-old then had her mouth taped up and her hands and body bound with a rope.School: Farhan’s daughter was caught speaking to a young man here
Tabarak Altameemi is also accused of breaking a glass over her sister’s head around 11 months ago.
Nearly half of all American Muslims polled who plan to vote in the 2012 presidential election (more than 90% for Barack Hussein Obama) believe parodies or insults of the prophet Muhammad should be prosecuted criminally in the U.S., and one in eight say the offense is so serious that violators should face the death penalty.
WND The results came in a groundbreaking scientific poll by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies. It was taken Oct. 22-26 and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3.98 percentage points.
The poll also found 40 percent of Muslims in America believe they should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Sharia standards.
“Almost half of those Muslims surveyed – an astonishing 46 percent – said they believe those Americans who offer criticism or parodies of Islam should face criminal charges,” said pollster Fritz Wenzel in an analysis of the survey’s results.
“Even more shocking: One in eight respondents said they think those Americans who criticize or parody Islam should face the death penalty, while another nine percent said they were unsure on the question,” he said. Wenzel said even the 9 percent “undecided” on that particular question is alarming.
“Seldom in survey research does a response of ‘not sure’ carry such significance, but the response to this question certainly is a surprise, given the severity of the question, and offers insight into the conflict that some Muslims appear to face in making the ideals under-girding American society fit into their religious lifestyle,” he said.
Wenzel’s poll said 7.2 percent of the respondents said they “strongly agree” with the idea of execution for those who parody Islam, and another 4.3 percent said they somewhat agree. While 80 percent said that they somewhat or strongly disagree with the idea, when those who said they were not sure are added, one in five Muslims across America cannot say they believe Christians or others who criticize Muhammad should be spared the death penalty.
More Muslim women (10.4 percent) than Muslim men (4.9 percent) said they strongly agree with the idea, while 12.4 percent of the women and 7.1 percent of the men were uncertain about the issue involving Muhammad.
Four in 10 said Muslims in America should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Islamic Shariah law. “A smaller percentage said they think the U.S. should establish an entirely separate court system to adjudicate matters involving Muslims,” Wenzel said.
While the respondents overwhelmingly lean toward the Democratic Party and like the direction Barack Obama, who repeatedly has praised Islam around the world, is leading this nation, they also have a fundamental conflict with American life, expressing objections to the freedom of speech and religion guaranteed in the Constitution. American Muslims, Wenzel said, “show signs of ambivalence toward the U.S. Constitution generally and the First Amendment specifically.”
“These survey findings show a community in conflict with the foundations of our nation, as many Muslims favor and enjoy the freedoms offered by the U.S. Constitution, including participation in elections here, but at the same time significant percentages want to be treated differently than the average non-Muslim when it comes to legal matters,” he said.
39 percent of Muslims said they believe existing U.S. courts should consult Shariah law when adjudicating cases involving Muslims. Asked if the U.S. should establish separate courts based solely on Shariah law to adjudicate cases involving Muslim, 21 percent said it should.
While 9 of 10 of the Muslim respondents said they agree with the First Amendment, they are also in conflict with it, Wenzel said, citing evidence in answers to “another question in the survey which found that one-third of Muslims – 32 percent – believe Shariah should be the supreme law of the land in the United States,” Wenzel said.
“Another shocking finding from the survey is how Muslims view the religious freedoms of Christians. Asked whether U.S. citizens who are Christians have the right to evangelize Muslims to consider other faiths, just 30 percent agreed Christians have such a right. Another 42 percent said they do not have such a right, while 28 percent said they were unsure on the question.”
One in five say Muslim men should be allowed to follow their religion in America and have more than one wife, and 58 percent said criticism of their religion or of Muhammad should not be allowed under the Constitution.
While 43 percent said they disagreed with the idea of Christians evangelizing Muslims, another 27 percent said they were undecided. Only 19 percent said they “strongly agree” with the idea that Americans have a right to invite Muslims to consider another faith.
Nearly one in three said Israel either has no right to exist or they were uncertain whether it does.
From Bare Naked islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
WASHINGTON — I am grateful to George Washington University professor of Law, Jonathan Turley, for pointing out that a growing number of world leaders find the First Amendment’s right of free speech to be an inconvenience. He cites, for instance, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s warning that “when some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected.” Turley makes the valuable — and if you think about it obvious — observation that free speech becomes intolerable not when it is used recklessly but when one person or a group of people object to its use, especially when they object violently.
Thus the Secretary General’s neat formulation utterly collapses when, say, some heiress to Mother Teresa asseverates in public that “God is the source of all good.” It is a harmless utterance, until some indignado, say, a venerable witch, gets wind of it and objects with hurt feelings or more preferably with violence by burning down Mother Teresa’s chapel. Possibly this Mother Teresa happens to be influential worldwide and she has a whole string of chapels to burn down, possibly some are diplomatic installations. Free speech is difficult to limit. Without limiting it, it can be disagreed with. It can be ridiculed or it can be ignored. But as soon as we come up with some nice neat formulation for limiting it, à la Ban Ki-moon, along comes a mob of brutes and they put free speech to the test. Under the Ban Ki-moon formulation free speech gives way. In fact, it is extinguished.
That was the lesson from the eruption of violence around the globe to the idiotic YouTube masterpiece of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, “Innocence of Muslims.” In America hardly anyone saw it. In the Arab world my guess only the makings of a small mob or two saw it. Yet it was used as a pretext for violent protest and thus for such lawyerly poppycock as was spewed by Ban Ki-moon, and there are others. Prime Minister Julia Gillard of Australia has said, “Our tolerance must never extend to tolerating religious hatred.” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has delivered an equally muddled declaration on tolerance and free expression, arguing for the adoption of a U.N. resolution that would simultaneously guarantee “the right to practice one’s religion freely and the right to express one’s opinion without fear.” Try enforcing that resolution in Benghazi, Madame Secretary of State.
Freedom of speech is being diminished, says Professor Turley, “not from any single blow but rather from thousands of paper cuts of well-intentioned exceptions designed to maintain social harmony.” I am not sure they are “well-intentioned.” Rather I consider them the fatuous efforts of politicians intent on riding out the storm. They hope the enemies of freedom will be placated temporarily or at least until the politician retires. I am not so sure they will get their way. As Turley says, there are thousands of cuts. Eventually free expression could be extinguished.
He cites opposition to blasphemous speech, to hate speech, to discriminatory speech, and to deceitful speech. That accounts for a lot of “paper cuts.” The aggrieved groups keep growing and the defenders of free speech keep fighting off ever more enemies. Now we have the opponents of unhealthy diets opposing commercial free speech. We have already disposed of tobacco advertising. Will chocolate be next?
It seems to me freedom of speech must be absolute. Let anyone say anything they please. Let Nakoula Basseley Nakoula or whatever his name is make any film he desires. We do not have to watch it. We can protest it. We can ridicule it. We can even ridicule his idiotic name, replete with its redundancy. Call it hate speech if you will. Call it discriminatory. Just let free expression reign. As for the mob that protests him, so long as they do not break the law they too are free to utter whatever they want in public or in private, so long as they are law-abiding. That is the way we should do it in America. It is, as we say, the land of the free. Keep the lawyers, the busybodies, and the government away from the First Amendment. That is the American way.
About the Author
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.
From The American Spectator: http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/18/the-first-freedom
Political correctness has been used for decades now to silence the Right. The Left does not believe in freedom, unless it is closely regulated by the State. Donald Douglas has a link to a piece on the possible death of freedom of speech
From Jonathan Turley, at the Washington Post, “Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech” (viaInstapundit):
Free speech is dying in the Western world. While most people still enjoy considerable freedom of expression, this right, once a near-absolute, has become less defined and less dependable for those espousing controversial social, political or religious views. The decline of free speech has come not from any single blow but rather from thousands of paper cuts of well-intentioned exceptions designed to maintain social harmony.
In the face of the violence that frequently results from anti-religious expression, some world leaders seem to be losing their patience with free speech. After a video called “Innocence of Muslims” appeared on YouTube and sparked violent protests in several Muslim nations last month, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned that “when some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected.”
It appears that the one thing modern society can no longer tolerate is intolerance. As Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard put it in her recent speech before the United Nations, “Our tolerance must never extend to tolerating religious hatred.”
A willingness to confine free speech in the name of social pluralism can be seen at various levels of authority and government. In February, for instance, Pennsylvania Judge Mark Martin heard a case in which a Muslim man was charged with attacking an atheist marching in a Halloween parade as a “zombie Muhammed.” Martin castigated not the defendant but the victim, Ernie Perce, lecturing him that “our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures — which is what you did.”
Of course, free speech is often precisely about pissing off other people — challenging social taboos or political values.
This was evident in recent days when courts in Washington and New York ruled that transit authorities could not prevent or delay the posting of a controversial ad that says: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.”
When U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer said the government could not bar the ad simply because it could upset some Metro riders, the ruling prompted calls for new limits on such speech. And in New York, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority responded by unanimously passing a new regulation banning any message that it considers likely to “incite” others or cause some “other immediate breach of the peace.”
The Left, and Islamists, in fact all dictatorial mindsets seek to control freedom, starting with freedom of expression. They will use intimidation, threats, and yes, they will cloak their desire to subjugate in nice words like sensitivity, inclusion, or tolerance, but their end goal is control. Those of us who love, and practice freedom of speech have the ultimate stake in never allowing our freedom to be curtailed.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
From the perspective of our rulers, law is defined by multilateral human rights commitments. From the perspective of their rulers, law is defined by the Koran and allegiance to Islamic law. Both consider their approach just and believe that their mission is to extend and universalize their legal codes. The transnationalists believe that they can integrate Muslims within their codes. Muslims believe that they can integrate transnationalists within their system.
Western law’s universalism has a broader and narrower appeal to self-interest than Islamic law. This is the paradox that undermines any attempt to export it to the Muslim world. While universalism with its equality clause appears on the surface to have broader appeal, it actually has far less appeal, because it weakens the position of those in power while holding an appeal only to those who are not in power.
Freedom is not always taken at the point of a gun, sometimes it is taken at the very idea of the gun or at the economic and political disruption that would be caused by the idea of the gun. These are the effects that ripple through the conceptual spaces, breeding appeasement and surrender, as the system tries to integrate the foreign element, rather than spitting it out.