Muslim Terrorist Exacts Sharia at Gay Night Club in Orlando

It appears we have another Islamic massacre.   This time the slaughter happened at a gay night club in Orlando, Florida.  The murderer is an American citizen born to Afghan parents.  Of course, the murderer’s parents deny this has anything to do with the “religion of peace,” but we know better and we can expect a lot more killings of this nature since Barack Obama is importing as many of them as possible.

American’s are paying a high price for this mass immigration of a people whose culture and values are hostile to Western civilization.  The cost for relocating Syrian refugees to the United States starts off at $20,000 per person.  That doesn’t include welfare benefits. 

Statistics on federal support for refugees, according to the Office of Refugee Resettlement

Pete Hegseth pointed out that a large number of refugees receive further federal support, including food stamps, Medicaid and housing assistance, which could also incentivize refugees to flee to the U.S. as opposed to other destinations.

"I think these numbers will surprise a lot of Americans," Hegseth said. "A lot think, 'Hey, the benefit is being able to come to the land of opportunity, like America.' But most people don't realize there's a lot of money that comes along with it."

Taylor noted that average Americans and legal immigrants don't get the same "federal safety net" as these asylum seekers.

 

Muslims have a name for blood and treasure paid by the kafir, its called jizya.

Source:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/06/12/orlando-nightclub-shooting/

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/06/11/feds-spend-20k-refugee-or-asylum-seeker-report-says

http://pamelageller.com/2016/06/devout-muslim-gay-nightclub-shooter-identified-omar-mateen.html/

The Statue of Sharia

H/T

Western Rifle Shooters

Pamela Geller and Michael Coren Discuss State of the Islamic Caliphate

Michael Coren of Sun News and Pamela Geller provide an update on the Islamic caliphate and their worldwide expansionist aspirations. You’ll hear some good along with the bad. It seems Europe is waking up. But is it too late? Time will tell.

Source: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

Pennsylvania Judge Imposes Sharia Law on American Citizen

When I first read this story, I didn’t believe it. A Pennsylvanian atheist participated in a Halloween parade dressed as a zombie Muhammad. A Muslim watching the spectacle attacked, and beat the reveler. The crime was caught on tape. The perpetrator (Muslim) admitted his guilt but stated that he was an immigrant and was ignorant of the law. He further stated that his religion obligates him to beat anyone who defames their prophet Muhammad. The judge adjudicating the case – also a Muslim – sided with the defendant. Here is what the magistrate said to the atheist, as reported by Opposing Views:

“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.

Judge Martin then offered a lesson in Islam, stating,

“Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it.

Judge Martin furmisunderstanding it ther complicates the issue by not only abrogating the First Amendment, but completely when he said,

“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights as long as we get our say but we don’t care about the other people’s say”

But wait, it gets worse. The Judge refused to allow the video into evidence, and then said,

“All that aside I’ve got here basically.. I don’t want to say he said she said but I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other.”

And,

“The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof… “

And,

“…he has not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge”


Holy **** this judge just imposed Sharia Law on an American citizen. We’ve seen this kind of nonsense happen all over Europe, Great Britain, and Canada. Now, it has come to the United States. We cannot allow Judge Martin to abrogate our laws in deference to Sharia. This magistrate has crossed the line and needs to be removed from office.

Source:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/muslim-admits-attacking-atheist-muslim-judge-dismisses-case

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/muslim-admits-to-attacking-atheist-over-zombie-muhammed-costume-muslim-judge-dismisses-case-lectures-atheist-on-joys-of-islam/

Oklahoma Loses 10th Amendment Right in Federal Court Power Grab

Once again we are witness to the transgressions of a federal court. Oklahoma passed a state law that forbade judges from considering international and Sharia law in their decisions. CAIR, a subversive Islamic organization, sued. The end result is another federal government power grab.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a ruling released Tuesday, affirmed an order by a district court judge in 2010 that halted the law from taking effect. The ruling also allows a Muslim community leader in Oklahoma City to continue his legal challenge of the law's constitutionality.


The measure, known as State Question 755, was approved with 70 percent of the vote in 2010. The law is an amendment to the state constitution and bars courts from considering the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. "Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law," the law reads.

The appellate court opinion pointed out that proponents of the law admitted to not knowing of a single instance in which an Oklahoma court applied Shariah law or the legal precepts of other countries.

"This serves as a reminder that these anti-Shariah laws are unconstitutional and that if politicians use fear-mongering and bigotry, the courts won't allow it to last for long," said Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. Awad sued to block the law, contending that it infringed on his First Amendment rights.

What is unconstitutional is a federal court interfering in state law. The federal government has no claims on the internal business of Oklahoma. Our federalist system, which promotes and celebrates self-governance, is slowly turning into despotic state. And predator organizations like CAIR are benefitting from this power grab.

We as a people once knew the limitations and prerogatives of federal and state governments. Alexis de Tocqueville when traveling the United State in the early 1800’s documented Americans knowledge of the differing roles of each body. He also wrote about the fate of countries who tried to replicate our style of government without understanding it. Here is an excerpt from his Democracy in America:

Once the general theory is well understood, the difficulties of applying it remain; these are countless because the sovereignty of the Union is so entwined in that of the states that it is impossible at first glance to see its limits. Everything in such a government is arbitrary and contrived and it can only suit a nation long accustomed to self-government and where political science reaches right down to the lowest rungs of society. Nothing has made me admire the good sense and practical intelligence of the Americans more than the way they evade the countless difficulties which derive from their federal constitution. I have scarcely ever encountered a single man of the common people in America who did not perceive with surprising ease the obligations entailed in the laws of Congress and those which owe their beginnings to the laws of his own state, nor who could not separate the matters belonging to the general prerogatives of the Union from those regulated by his local legislature and who could not point to where the competence of the federal courts begins and the limitation of the state tribunals ends.


Tocqueville further states what happens to those nations who replicate, but don’t follow the SPIRIT of our Constitution as understood by our founding fathers:

The Constitution of the United States is akin to those fine creations of human endeavor which crown their inventors with renown and wealth but remain sterile in others hands.
Contemporary Mexico has illustrated this very thing.

The Mexicans, aiming for a federal system, took the federal constitution of their neighbors, the Anglo-Americans, as their model and copied it almost exactly. But although they transported the letter of the law, they failed to transfer at the same time the spirit which gave it life. As a result, they became tangled endlessly in the machinery of the double system of government. The sovereignty of the states and Union entered into a collision course as they exceeded the sphere of influence assigned to them by the constitution. Even today Mexico veers constantly from anarchy to military despotism and back again.


Is this our fate? We have federal judges who don’t know the limitatations of their power; worse, we Americans have no understanding of our federalist system. Are we destined to be like Mexico? Are predators like CAIR setting up shadow governments in the United States just like their brethren in Great Britain? Will we become another third-world country like Mexico? According to Tocqueville’s analysis we are well on our way to serfdom.

Source: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/01/10/2344789/oklahomas-islamic-law-amendment.html#storylink=cpy

Jewish Yale Professor: Don't Fear Sharia Law

The New York Times has produced another dhimmi to write an op-ed piece on American Islamophobia. The latest dupe is Eliyah Stern, an assistant professor of religious studies and history at Yale University. He received his PH.D. from the University of California at Berkeley. Need I say more?

The premise of Mr. Stern’s article is centered on American’s irrational xenophobic tendencies. He pontificates that American exceptionalism is based on its ability to accept the cultural enrichers who will eventually assimilate by weaving their customs and laws into our society:

Given time, American Muslims, like all other religious minorities before them, will adjust their legal and theological traditions, if necessary, to accord with American values.

America’s exceptionalism has always been its ability to transform itself — economically, culturally and religiously. In the 20th century, we thrived by promoting a Judeo-Christian ethic, respecting differences and accentuating commonalities among Jews, Catholics and Protestants. Today, we need an Abrahamic ethic that welcomes Islam into the religious tapestry of American life.

Of course, the professor’s definition of American exceptionalism is patently false, but I digress.

Mr. Stern’s assertion that Sharia Law is no different than any other is disingenuous. A scholar of religious studies should know the Rabbinic principles in the Halacha and how that is completely the opposite of the supremist laws of Sharia. Rabbi Jon Hausman succinctly made this distinction in his article, "Halacha, Sharia and the Religious Acceptance of Constitutional Governance":

Simply stated, there is a basic Rabbinic principle that has operated since roughly the year 226 CE. That principle is known as Dina d’malchuta Dina; the law of the country is binding and, in certain cases, is to be preferred to Jewish law/Halacha.

[…]

Samuel, the leader of the Babylonian Jewish community in 241 CE, specifically imbued his community with the consciousness that one must be reconciled to changed circumstances regarding government, and that civil law is necessary for the functioning of the greater society.

The result was an internal recognition of Judaism’s non-supercessionist and non-conversionary character. According to the Prophet Nehemiah, Jews should obey the laws of their rulers (Nehemiah 9:37).

As a result, Jews view this legal principle as deriving from the Biblical authority. . . .The United States has a Constitution under which the government functions, and the Bill of Rights which protects basic human rights and freedom - rights derived from the Almighty according to the secular foundational documents of these United States - freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of education and freedom to organize political parties. Judaism accepts this situation without issue.

Sharia would seem to have much in common with Halacha. Sharia means “the path” (as does the Hebrew word halacha at its etymological root) and, on its face might be described as the religious code for living the moral system according to Islamic tradition…perhaps, in the same way the Bible would serve for Christians. The question with Sharia (as with Halacha) is the same . . . Does the Rabbinic principle of ‘the law of the land is paramount’ apply in Islam?

You peel back the layers and understand that Sharia refers both to the Islamic system of law and the totality of the Islamic way of life. . . .Whereas Judaism took the Torah and its commands as rubrics within which to live . . . Sharia holds a different view.

Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the direct word of Allah delivered to the last and greatest prophet Muhammad. Therefore, it is immutable, perfect, unchangeable, static, and unchanging. What can’t be derived from the Qur’an may be gleaned from the Sunna, which relates how Muhammad conducted his life in practice, and is considered by Muslims to be immutable for all time.

So, if Muhammad used the pretext of a hudna or tahadiya (two Qur’anic terms meaning an impermanent cessation of military hostilities) to regroup and strengthen his forces for a future battle against the Banu Quraysh, killing and enslaving the Jews in Arabia, legitimizing the rape of women as a tactic in war, it applies today as a tactic. (Parenthetically, the treatment of Jews as described and prescribed in the Qur’an is particular graphic and loathsome…kill the Jew where one finds a Jew and do so for glory and honor.) If the punishment for rudd/apostasy, to a murtadd was death, then apostasy continues to be a capital offense. Homosexuality, adultery, freedom of speech issues when it comes to criticizing Islam or Muhammad or drawing satire cartoons such as the Jylland Posten satires by Kurt Westergaard are capital offenses under Islam…How does this impact our Bill of Rights as Islam is as it has always been, expansionary, supercessionist? Or, in the words of a number of its defenders in the US, Islam is not meant to be one amongst equals but to be the supreme law of the land


Considering what’s happening in the world, I have to wonder what motivates people like Professor Stern. Doesn’t that Ivory Tower have windows?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/opinion/dont-fear-islamic-law-in-america.html?_r=4&hp

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/37647

http://www.newenglishreview.org/Rabbi_Jon_Hausman/Halacha,_Sharia_and_the_Religious_Acceptance_of_Constitutional_Governance/

Arab Spring is Becoming Western Nightmare

The Arab spring is becoming a nightmare. Terrorist crossed into Israel via the Egyptian border and killed eight of its citizens. When the Israelis counterattacked, the current regime in Egypt acted as if they were the ones who were wronged. This is how these bastards act.

Now, Libya has ousted their dictator – mind you, one who was not friendly to the United States – and they have proposed a “democratic” form of government with one caveat, as reported by the Heritage Foundation:

The dust has not yet settled over the Libyan capital of Tripoli since rebels took control over the weekend. But already, a draft constitutional charter for the transitional state has appeared online (embedded below). It is just a draft, mind you, and gauging its authenticity at this point is difficult. There is also no way to know whether this draft or something similar will emerge as the final governing document for a new Libyan regime.

As both the Morning Bell and Washington in a Flash noted today, Heritage Fellow Jim Phillips recently pointed out that Islamist forces “appear to make up a small but not insignificant part of the opposition coalition,” and must be prevented “from hijacking Libya’s future.” Parts of the draft Constitution allay those fears, while others exacerbate them.

Much of the document describes political institutions that will sound familiar to citizens of Western liberal democracies, including rule of law, freedom of speech and religious practice, and a multi-party electoral system.

But despite the Lockean tenor of much of the constitution, the inescapable clause lies right in Part 1, Article 1: “Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).” Under this constitution, in other words, Islam is law. That makes other phrases such as “there shall be no crime or penalty except by virtue of the law” and “Judges shall be independent, subject to no other authority but law and conscience” a bit more ominous

That’s right Sharia will be their principle source of legislation. Democracy doesn’t necessarily equate to liberty.

Source: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=235001

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/22/libyan-draft-constitution-sharia-is-principal-source-of-legislation/

Canada's Great Awakening to Muslim Immigration

Canadian’s are awakening to the insidious nature of Islam. This news anchorman hits his stride at the end of this piece. If Muslims don’t like their adopted country’s culture, move elsewhere.

But that is not the mission of Muslims. They are here to impose their Sharia Law on all of us. Allah Akbar! LALALLALALALLALALA!!!

H/T: Gates of Vienna

The Islamic Battle Flag Marches Onto D.C.

The Islamic black flag is marching onto Washington D.C. this March 3rd and Independence Day. The enemies are at the gate and they are demanding that we submit to their way of life. One of the coordinators of this event was interviewed by Fox News:






Shariah4america is also a sponsor of this event. They are calling for a revolution. And their logo is the United States covered with the Islamic Battle Flag:

The biggest mistake we could make is not taking their words seriously. If you want to know the symbolism of the Islamic black flag, watch the video below:

CBN Reports on the Dhimmitude of Western Civilization

CBN is probably the most unapologetic news outlet on the Islamification of western civilization.  This video demonstrates the dichotomy of western philosophy and Muslim dogmatism.  They are incompatible.

H/T:  Gates of Vienna 

Failed Times Square Bomber: Screw Pledge of Allegiance

Faisal Shahzad the failed Times Square Bomber was given a life sentence the other day.  This man came to the United States and became a citizen.  He swore an oath to this country.  When asked about his pledge of allegiance he said he didn't mean it.

Muslims are beholden to Sharia and the Ummah.  Any pledge that they make to our Constitution is perfunctory and necessary to advance the world wide Caliphate.

H/T:  Gates of Vienna

King of Morocco: "No Secular Islam"

After reviewing the above video, I have to ask where Rep. Keith Ellison's allegiance stands.  After all, he swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States on the Quran.  Is that not a contradiction?

Source:  Gates of Vienna

Elena Kagan Favors Sharia Law

I found this on Gates of Vienna. The post was originally published on BigPeace.com

I wonder if any Senator asked Elena Kagan about her views on Sharia Law during her confirmation hearings. She has a disturbing record, which is outlined in this article.

Shariah Comes to the Supreme Court: Elena Kagan’s Decisions
Posted by Christine Brim

The Senate should not confirm Elena Kagan, because her views render her the first Supreme Court Justice who actively favors the introduction of Shariah law into national Constitutions and legal systems. To excuse themselves for voting for her confirmation, Senators of both parties have told themselves this vote for Kagan’s confirmation will result in a harmless swap: the substitution of one liberal justice for another.



The reality is far more threatening and unprecedented in American history. A vote to confirm Elena Kagan’s nomination will bring a liberal, pro-Shariah justice to our highest Court. And if she is confirmed, her behavior as Obama’s Solicitor General indicates she will refuse to recuse herself on any Shariah-related decision but instead will lead the charge to legitimate Shariah law in America.

Senators have told themselves they have little evidence on which to evaluate Kagan, because other than her work as Obama’s Solicitor General, she has no judicial experience.

But Kagan has made repeated and very public decisions about a judicial system – Shariah – and Senators should be obligated to take into account those decisions when they vote for her. Her 2003-2009 career as Dean of Harvard Law School is a history of those decisions, and every one of them shows her “deep appreciation” of Shariah law.

Every vote for Kagan is a vote to bring a pro-Shariah view to the Supreme Court. Here are five reasons to vote against Kagan’s nomination:


1. PRO-SHARIAH MISSION: With Kagan’s direction, Harvard’s Islamic Legal Studies Program developed a mission statement (here on 9/2008, also 6/2009) dedicated “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law as one of the world’s major legal systems.” That mission statement guided her actions and those whom she directed as Dean.

Under Kagan’s direction, her chief staff at the Islamic Legal Studies Program aggressively expanded non-critical studies of Shariah law – fulfilling her mission “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law.” In 2003, the year Kagan became Harvard Law School Dean, Islamic Legal Studies Program Founding Director Frank Vogel and Associate Director Peri Bearman founded the Massachusetts-based International Society for Islamic Legal Studies. In 2007, Bearman and Vogel founded the Islamic Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools (inaugural panel audio here).

2. PRO-SHARIAH MONEY: When Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $10 million to New York City’s Rudy Guiliani on October 11, 2001, Guiliani refused to accept it, because the prince insisted that U.S. policies in the middle east were responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack. Guiliani stated flatly, “There is no moral equivalent for this act.” But – when Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $20 million to the Islamic Legal Studies Program in December 2005 – Kagan accepted it; after all, the Saudi royal family had funded the program since its inception, to establish the moral and legal equivalency between Shariah law and U.S. Constitutional law. As Newt Gingrich has noted, Harvard Law School currently has three chairs endowed by Saudi Arabia, including one dedicated to the study of Islamic sharia law.

In 2001 Guiliani made a decision not to accept Talal’s blood money; In 2005, Kagan made a decision not just to accept it, but to implement Talal’s policies at Harvard.

And not just at Harvard. As reported earlier this year, “Kagan is the main reason why the Supreme Court ruled against the 9/11 families” in a suit filed by thousands of 9/11 family members that traced funding for the 19 hijackers to certain Saudi royals, along with banks, corporations and Islamic charities. Kagan, as Obama’s Solicitor General, said in her brief “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims” and that the families’ claims that the Saudis helped to finance the plots fell “outside the scope” of the legal parameters for suing foreign governments or leaders.

Let’s review Kagan’s decisions so far: she actively solicits Saudi financing to promote Shariah law in the U.S.; she actively protects Saudi financial backers for terrorism against the U.S., as being immune from claims by 9/11 families.

3. PROMOTING THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND SHARIAH CONSTITUTIONS: In December, 2006, Kagan hired Noah Feldman, architect of Iraq’s Constitution requiring Shariah, as a star faculty member at Harvard Law School. On March 16, 2008, Feldman published his controversial article “Why Shariah” in the New York Times Magazine, which promoted “Islamists” - the Muslim Brotherhood – as a progressive democratic party, and promoted Shariah as a model not just for Muslim-majority countries but for all: “In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world…” The article was adapted from his book The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State, which was published in late March, 2008.

On September 16, 2008, Kagan whole-heartedly endorsed Feldman’s promotion of the Muslim Brotherhood and Shariah by honoring him with the endowed Bemis Chair in International Law. Feldman’s speech on receiving the award was revealing: he advocated for an international, “outward interpretation” of the Constitution that could “require the U.S. to confer rights on citizens of other nations,” and allow for an “experimental Constitution.”

As to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist worldwide political organization that Feldman and Kagan support? Their motto is as revealing as Feldman’s speech:

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Given that slogan, you could well ask if Feldman really meant the Muslim Brotherhood when he wrote about “Islamists” in the book Kagan so admired that she gave him an endowed chair. And he anticipated that question; in the second footnote in his book he states, “Throughout this book, when I refer to Islamists or Islamism, I have in mind mainstream Sunni Muslim activists loosely aligned with the ideology of the transnational Muslim Brotherhood (MB)…the Brotherhood broadly embraces electoral politics, but without eschewing the use of violence in some circumstances, notably against those whom it defines as invaders in Iraq and Palestine.”

So let’s review. Kagan made the decision to honor Feldman, author of “big-lie” forms of pro-Shariah propaganda, supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, with an endowed chair. Feldman states flatly that the Muslim Brotherhood, whom he admires, does not “eschew the use of violence….against those whom it defines as invaders in Iraq and Palestine.” Kagan’s financial backer, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, insisted that the U.S. policies in the Middle East, specifically in Israel and Palestine were a cause of the 9/11 attacks . Like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Prince did not “eschew the use of violence” against the U.S. And when 9/11 families sued the Saudi royals who funded the September 11, 2001 “use of violence” against the U.S., Kagan used her power as Solicitor General to protect the group that had been her financial backers at Harvard.

But wait. There’s more.

4. PROMOTING SHARIAH IN CONSTITUTIONS WORLDWIDE: On May 1, 2007, Kagan initiated a lecture series on Shariah Law, named for Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanhuri, a legal scholar who had drafted constitutions throughout the Middle East between the 1930s and 1960s. There are literally dozens of legal reformers throughout the Muslim world that she could have chosen; but she chose al-Sanhuri.

Sanhuri’s entire career was dedicated to making sure that the civil and criminal legal codes throughout the Middle East were Shariah-compliant. He drafted the laws that ensured Shariah law took precedence over secular laws. As much as any single individual, he was responsible for the legal drafting for the “Constitutionalization” of Shariah in previously secular Muslim-majority nations in the 20th century, in concert with the political pressure for Shariah by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the financial pressure for Shariah by the Saudi Royal Family.

As legal scholar Enid Hill wrote in her biography of al-Sanhuri, “The outlines of the future dialectic are thus able to be detected if al-Sanhuri’s specifications are followed: Islamic legal theory versus Western legal rules, and when the Western rules reflect a different underlying theory they are to be eliminated and new rules put in their place, rules that are reflective of Islamic legal theory.” (h/t Andy Bostom) Or as al-Sanhuri states himself in his book The Arab Civil Code, “The goal towards which I am striving is that there will be an Arab civil code derived primarily from the Islamic Shari’a.”

Kagan presided over four of the al-Sanhuri lectures before her departure to become Obama’s Solicitor General

5. PROMOTING SHARIAH IN THE JUDICIAL COUP IN PAKISTAN

Kagan consistently used her position at Harvard to promote and legitimate the introduction of Shariah provisions into national constitutions, and indeed into Supreme Courts of other nations. In Pakistan, her influence is having dire consequences.

On November 19, 2008, Elena Kagan presented the Harvard Law School Medal of Freedom to Iftikhar Chaudhry, the controversial Chief Justice of Pakistan. Chaudry had been deposed from his post in 2007 by President General Pervez Musharraf in a complex dispute that included the issue of independence of the judiciary. Musharraf later resigned, and on March 16, 2009, the Prime Minister Gilani re-appointed Chaudhry as Chief Justice.

As noted by Department of Defense attorneys from the Clinton and Reagan eras, Kagan’s honoree has mounted a Shariah judicial coup:

“Contrary to the constitution of Pakistan, Chaudhry usurped the right of appointment of vacancies in the court from the elected prime minister and president…In a previous ruling, Chaudhry reaffirmed the right of the court to disqualify members of Parliament, the president and all ministers of the cabinet from serving if they violate “Islamic injunctions,” or do not engage in ‘teaching and practices, obligatory duties prescribed by Islam. “

The U.S. Senate has the evidence it needs to vote NOT to confirm Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. A vote for Kagan is a vote to bring Shariah to the highest court of the land.

Elena Kagan is fifty years old. She could easily serve to the age of eighty or longer. Her confirmation to the Supreme Court will begin a thirty-years legal war to protect the Constitution against Shariah

Sharia Law and the United States

Newt Gingrich gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute where he addressed the problem of Islam. He wants to pass a federal law that would in essence ban the practice of Sharia Law in the United States.



A dialogue is starting to take place. The scales are dropping from our eyes and we are beginning to see the true nature of Islam; it is a political ideologue in the guise of a religion. We in the West believe that all religions are peaceful; and because of this basic understanding we’ve allowed ourselves to be deceived.

Mohammed was a warlord. He used deception to conquer his enemies; and encouraged his followers to practice this art of warfare until all peoples have submitted to the will of HIS God. One of the symbols of conquest is a Mosque. We are now engaged in a struggle against just such a symbol at ground zero:




People try to distinguish between moderate and radical Muslims. I say there can be no distinction. Anyone who freely follows Mohammed is not a moderate whatsoever. As far as I’m concerned Mohammed was a megalomaniac who catered to the base needs of his followers for his own personal glory. You have to ask yourself, would God elevate this man as an equal to Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ was a man of peace; Mohammed wasn’t. If anything Mohammed was the original anti-Christ.

We now have Diasporas in the United States that are trying to implement Sharia as we speak. The recent arrest of Christians handing out pamphlets on the streets of Dearborn, Michigan is just one recent example. We must not allow this insidious ideologue to take hold on our soil. So what are we to do? We Americans do have precedence.

At the end of the American Revolutionary War, the Loyalist packed up their bags and left. They did not stay behind; the few who did accepted their new found country and assimilated.

President Andrew Jackson removed the American Indian from their lands in the southern states because of national security issues. The following excerpts are from Robert V. Remini’s biography The Life of Andrew Jackson:

Andrew Jackson was motivated principally by two considerations: first, his concern for the military safety of the United States, which dictated that Indians must not occupy areas that might jeopardize the defense of this nation; and second, his commitment to the principle that all persons residing within states are subject to the jurisdiction and laws of those states. Under no circumstances did Indian tribes constitute sovereign entities when they occupied territory within existing state boundaries.

Mr. Remini also writes:

Jackson’s commitment to the principle of removal resulted primarily from his concern for the integrity and safety of the American nation. It was not greed or racism that motivated him. He was not intent on genocide. He was not involved in a gigantic land grab for the benefit of his Tennessee cronies---or anyone else. After living with the Indian problem for many years and experiencing any number of encounters with the various tribes, friendly and hostile, he came to the unshakeable conclusion that the only policy that benefitted both peoples, white and red, was removal.

And here we are, facing a similar problem but with a different people. American’s will not accept Sharia Law on our soil, and Muslims must follow the mandates of their prophet. We have irreconcilable differences that can only be resolved through assimilation or removal

Christians Arrested in Dearbornistan, Michigan

I remember watching this video last year of a group of Christians who attended the Arab Festival in Dearborn, Michigan. These young people went around asking questions about Islam, until event security guards approached them; all hell broke loose after that.

Pamella Geller writes in Human Events:

Nabeel and David were harassed and intimidated, aided and abetted by law enforcement. Said David and Nabeel: “The conclusion of this video is a mob of festival security attacking our cameras, pushing us back, kicking our legs, and lying to the police. We ask you, is it a coincidence that the city with the highest percentage of Muslims in the United States is the city where Christianity is not allowed to be represented (let alone preached) on a public sidewalk?”

Here is the video:




The same group showed up this year, this time to hand out brochures. The sponsors of the 2010 Arab Festival learned their lesson and now have the police of Dearborn do their bidding.

Geller further reports:

On Saturday, I got this message from David Wood of Acts 17: “Muslims threatened to kill Nabeel [Qureshi, an ex-Muslim and David’s colleague] and me if we showed up again at Arab Fest in Dearborn, so we went there yesterday. They didn’t kill us. Instead, police arrested us and we got to spend a night in jail (along with two others who were video recording us).”
Wondering if they were arrested for passing out fliers in defiance of the ban, I asked David about the ban. He answered, “Yes, we’re banned from handing out literature, but we didn’t do that. We followed the rules, and still got thrown in jail. They flat out lied about us. We can prove they lied with the video footage (just like last year), but the police took our cameras and won’t let us have the footage. There’s major oppression of anyone who criticizes Islam.”

So, no one can pass out literature on the streets of Dearborn, Michigan? Is Dearborn, Michigan still part of the United States?

Here is the video:




Next year, I say an army of Christians surround the city of Dearborn and hand out pamphlets not just on Jesus Christ, but the monstrous acts of their prophet Muhammad.

Source: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37621