By omission or commission, will a second Obama Administration pave the way for Shar'ia law?
by William Bigelow
The most harrowing prospect is the Obama Administration’s passivity
in the face of attempts to introduce aspects of sharia law into our
legal system. Now there is strong and open evidence of the Obama
administration collaborating with Islamist activists to ensure the path
toward sharia law is accelerated.
Just last week, Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General of the
Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, was asked this
question by Trent Franks (R-AZ), a member of the House Judiciary
Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution:
“Will you tell us here today that this Administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?”
Perez refused to answer. Four times.
And why would Franks target Perez?
Here’s why:
Last October, at George Washington University, there was a meeting
between DOJ officials, including Perez, and Islamist advocates against
free speech. Representatives from the Islamist side included Mohamed
Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The
ISNA was an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding trial in
2008, as well as functioning as a Muslim Brotherhood Front. The leader
of the Islamist attack was Sahar Aziz, an Egyptian-born American lawyer
and Fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a
Muslim advocacy group based in Michigan. At the meeting, the Islamists
lobbied for:
1. Cutbacks in U.S. anti-terror training
2. Limits on the power of terrorism investigators
3. Changes in agent training manuals
4. A legal declaration that criticism of Islam in the United States should be considered racial discrimination
Aziz said that the word “Muslim” has become “racialized” and, once
American criticism of Islam was silenced, the effect would be to “take
[federal] money away from local police departments and fusion centers
who are spying on all of us.”
And what was the response from Perez and the DOJ officials?
Nothing.
That’s right:
No objection.
No defense of our first amendment right to free speech.
" From calls to “nuke the middle east” to demands that anyone with brown
skin and a beard be profiled at airports, to anxiety over “sharia law”
and even “sharia babies” we have collectively, as a culture, in both
parties worked to demonize"
- libfreeordie on August 6, 2012 at 8:11 AM
So, you didn’t have a problem when a Pennsylvania judge let a Muslim
off scot-free for assaulting an atheist? The judge said that the
atheist “asked for it” by “insulting” Mohammed.
From Professor Jonathan Turley, a Progressive and a friend:
“Pennsylvania Judge Throws Out Charge For Harassing Atheist While Calling The Victim A Doofus
There is a surprising story out of Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania that
seems the perfect storm of religious tensions. You begin with Ernie
Perce, an atheist who marched as a zombie Mohammad in the Mechanicsburg
Halloween parade. Then you add Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim who stepped off
a curb and reportedly attacked Perce for insulting the Prophet. Then
you have a judge (Judge Mark Martin) who threw out the criminal charges
against Elbayomy and ridiculed the victim, Perce. The Judge identifies
himself as a Muslim and says that Perce conduct is not what the First
Amendment is supposed to protect….”
I've got a deep (farmer's) tan and a goatee. Profile me at the airport!
ReplyDelete