Kos opens a post with the suggestion that people are pretty ignorant about the Constitution:
Nearly every oath of service in this nation includes the phrase “Defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America” in some form or the other. Not having a King we needed an object of loyalty, something bigger than the individual to focus our loyalty on. It was well planned by the Framers that when taking office each servant of the people would swear to uphold and protect the very document which created this nation.
It is therefore shocking how few of our fellow citizens actually get know or understand what the Constitution says
Now I am inclined to disagree. I think we have someone at the top who does think he is King.
And naturally, anyone who is opposed to building a mosque adjacent to Ground Zero is a religious bigot, as opposed to the symbolism of it all.
Now with the help of the radical Republican propaganda machine the issue of citizens of the Islamic faith are under the same kind of pressure. The intent of a long time Manhattan Imam to build a large community center two blocks (Two New York City blocks, not the dinky things that you and I have in our neighborhoods) from the former site of the World Trade Center has lead to at least one on the radical Right to call for a ban on all mosque or Islamic community centers across the nation.
And why are those bigots so sore? 9-11 just wasn’t that big a deal:
Given that they are such a small minority in this nation, it is odd that so many of our fellow citizens see them as such a threat. Yes, the 9/11 attacks were horrific, but they were more about optics than actual harm. The economy was already taking a hit before the Twin Towers fell. The reaction of the nation to seeing two major buildings in New York fall on T.V. has boosted the attack out of proportion. While the loss of even a single life is to be condemned and the devastation these deaths caused the families of those killed, more than this number of teens are killed every year incar crashes. These are also tragic losses but we do not make the kind of high profile issue of it that the 9/11 attacks are.
Damn. That puts the kibosh on Pearl Harbor. Only 2400 died there.
D-day? Only 2500 Americans.
I don’t know why we even bother with these events. They’re even smaller than 9-11 in terms of loss of life and they were soooo long ago.
The idea that just because a majority of people have a negative opinion of this group now is reason enough to give up the level of legal tolerance that we have enjoyed for more than 220 years. This is the worst possible outcome.
The Japanese-Americans interred during WWII don’t count. Hardly any of them died. And don’t get me started on slaves. None of this measures up to the anti-Muslim period we’re going through right now.
H/T Newsbusters via Gateway Pundit
.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Koz also speaks as though 911 was the ONLY “bad” thing Fascistical-Islam has ever done…as though it was some sort of one-off fluke. He is so myopic that he is blind to how the rest of the planet has had to suffer under them, pre-and post 911. (1993, anyone?)
The world has endured over 15,000 acts of Islamic-based violent since 911. Koz and the rest of the far-left like to claim that is is us who “are ignorant of the world” yet he just proved the opposite.
Gawd what an idiot…What’s worse, is that the lamprey’s that suck his butt will be mindlessly repeating this new meme ad-nausium.
Old meme…the 15,000 acts of Islamic violence were because of the BushChimpyMcHitlerCheney’s unnecessary war they sent General BeTrayUs over to fight…..so, those acts of violence don’t count.
One could easily argue that Islam is a religion inseparably wed to a political ideology therefor not protected by the First Amendment.
>>One could easily argue that Islam is a religion inseparably wed to a political ideology therefor not protected by the First Amendment.>>
How would it not be protected? There is a perfectly legal Socialist Party of America, and I believe there is also a legal Communist Party.
It’s a Reader Post. That’s like a post on a Message Board. The guy who wrote it wasn’t Kos, nor part of his crew. He’s just a reader who registered.
@Missy,
Nice try, but no, many of those attacks can not be directed back to the previous administration beyond the fact that they happend during that particular time frame. Aside from the treatment of non-monotheists for roughly 1400 years Islam has been in a constant state of near cival war since shortly after Muhammed’s death. What changed wasn’t that fanatical Muslims would kill, torture or maim people but that for a time media outlets reported it in such a way that the correlation looked like causation. Were it not a long running historical trend based in a now very old ideology Obama’s tact of bowing, scraping and appologizing should have stopped attacks cold; instead they continue. Its just not our fault.
suek
Well for one in Islam there is no distinction made between church and state and for another even a plurality of American Muslims believe that Islamic law takes precedent over constitutional law.Two ideas that divorce Islam from the views most Americans hold about religions role in American life.
15000 Americans are murdered EVERY year by other Americans, presumably the vast majority are Christian on CHristian type murders. Last year 27 of those who were murdered were killed by Islamic terrorists. Oh yeah and they have a mosque INSIDE of the Pentagon, not 2 blocks away
@Guy:
I was just being sarcastic, Pat’s post reminded me of the talking points the lefties, and yes, the media, were throwing about while President Bush was in office. 😉
@KJ
You’ve got it…
This is not even, in their own words, a Mosque, its an “outreach” center…
Sooo… IMO, this is an embassy for a foreign State (because only States have Laws, religions have commandments)…. not a religious building… and thus not covered under Freedom of Religion.
@suek, it must be getting scary for you to steal my thunder, girl. 😆
Yes, indeed… whether Islam is considered religion or political – or even both combined – it is still protected rights. They cannot be denied because the religion, or political association, are not necessarily universally embraced. And if they are, we are all in deep doo doo.
@MataHarley
So its OK to embrace the enemies Politics during a time of War? I seem to remember reading about how the Nazis were treated… or Japanese… or Communists during the Cold War… or heck… Southern sympathizers during the War Between the States…
You must read a very different history than I do…
Heck, if we even CONDEMN Islam, we are called Isane (Islamaphobia, an IRRATIONAL Fear of Islam?).
Romeo13, careful leaping over that chasm of assumption, guy. May hurt yourself.
I’m not “embracing the enemies” because you and I define “the enemy” differently. You consider all Muslims “the enemy”. I consider the global jihad movement “the enemy”. You encompass a wider class of people in your enemies net than I do. But then, this particular POTUS and Congress have been heavily pushing the class warfare indoctrination. So I can’t blame those that prefer to think of people in bulk.
Preposterous to compare it to WWII. That was a war where a nation State declared war on the US and world. Jihad is just a bunch of religious nut street thugs and gangs, and not a nation State.
You know, I really have to point out the obvious here. Since the beginning of this argument, I… along with Wordsmith and Aye… have pointed out repeatedly that those suffering from the ‘phobia were not everyone opposed, but those where it was obvious with their statements. I gave examples of them in this comment. To date, no one has spoken out against such extreme beliefs.
It would also be remiss for me not to point out that all the blanket “everyone who opposes is an Islamaphobe” characterization was made by some who oppose Cordoba House…. not three of us. I will also point out that we were also labeled “the muzzie teamsters”, despite the fact all of us have said we do not like the Cordoba House location, but certainly support the rule of law that grants them the right to build within current zoning ordinances…. even when we DON’T like it.
So I ask you… who exactly is engaging in the “every one is an Islamaphobe” or “everyone is a Muzzie Teamster” accusation? It has certainly not been me, Aye Chi or Wordsmith. Did Daily KOs do so? Well sure. But then, they also call all tea party people racists. What do you expect from a lib/prog? But I have to wonder why, if you feel that is such an unfair characterization, that so many of you are engaging in that same tactic?
Kiddie Kos is nothing more than a collection of blathering idiots.
They are believers and practioners of abortion. Given time they will reduce their numbers.
Pearl Harbor means nothing. The invasion of Hong Kong, the savaging of Shanghai, the Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March were nothing but hyperbole or never happened. Let’s revise history and bask in the hope and change of huge utopian government. Let’s print and borrow money so we can redistribute wealth and work in the wheat fields together, standing shoulder to shoulder. Let’s learn how to sing and worship nature.
Hirohito wanted world domination and had a plan for the white races. He first wanted to “liberate “Asia. Hitler had plans for North and South America. Islam has plans for the infidels.
Guard your first and second ammendentments. Follow your constitution. Value your freedoms that are being attacked daily. Take back your Congress this November.
MataHarley
Political speech is protected by the First Amendment not political parties or organizations.But in any case we already put all kinds of restrictions on our amendment rights, do we not?
Let’s revisit Armenia in 1914. The Ottoman Turks and Imperial Germany wanted the Orient Express to strenghen their alliance. Armenia which was mostly Christian and Jewish was a railblock. Between one and two million just disappeared.
Let’s revisit Saddam’s northern part of Iraq, modern Kurdistan populated with Muslims, Christians, and some Jews. They are different from Sunnis and Shias so lets practice with our chemical weapons. Yes, Saddam was like little Miss Muffet- they both had curds in their whey. They kill their own also.
Let’s revisit what Mustapha Kamal did to the Greeks, circa 1921. Yes, Islam over many centuries is guilty of genocide.Too many examples of convert or die or,get lost.
Sorry about the sarcasm. I read my history.
@MataHarley
“careful leaping over that chasm of assumption,
guyGIRL. May hurt yourself.”May wish to take your OWN advice.
Do I see Moslems individualy as a problem? or the Enemy? NO.
However, I do see a huge problem with the Political/Legal/Philisophical framework diguised as a religion called Islam… AND the culturaly PC outlook which will not allow us to recognize it for what it is.
And I notice you suddenly take a philisophical converasation Personaly. Did I accuse YOU of calling folks like me Islamophobes? Don’t think so… yet the MSM and parts of our Government would, as I think you would have to admit.
Romeo13, your chasm assumption leap did not have to do with ‘phobia. It was directed at your assumption that I was inclined to “support the enemy” in times of war. So you, in your response, have decided to take another chasm leap that it had to do with the secondary commentary on condeming those that called everyone in opposition Islamaphobes. Separate argument.
And while your argument about the ‘phobe category was not directed at me, Word or Aye specifically, it has to be pointed out that those who have been making that accusation here on the FA threads are emulating the lib/prog tactics in doing so. In fact both extreme accusations – i.e. calling everyone ‘phobes, or labeling the opposite muzzie teamsters – has all originated from the vehemently opposed camp, and has been used to degenerate the basic philosophical debate around the issue. That, IMHO, has been too bad. But it seems to be somewhat abated of late.
And yes, I do admit that the MSM and parts of our government do indeed use that despicable tactic. Don’t like it anymore than I like seeing all tea party supporters being labeled racists. But with a confirmed Alinsky’ite in charge, along with his merry band of pundits, hardly surprising, don’t you think?
My conversations on Cordoba House have *always* been philosophical…. and how it pertains to our rule of law.
To the first, political parties, religions and grassroots organizations are merely gathering places for those of political like mind and opinions. Not only their right to express their political views – however repulsive – is protected, but so is their right to peacefully assemble and redress grievances. So I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Whether Islam is considered a religion, a school of political thought, or a combination of both, it enjoys the freedom to exist in our founding principles and Constitution.
To the second statement, couldn’t agree more that we already have far too many restrictions on our rights…. those which I disagree with passionately. That, however, makes me even more opposed to not only adding more restrictions, but formulating those restrictions based on someone’s choice of religion, political thought, or combination thereof.
@MataHarley
No… I was questioning your grasp of history… no assumption there was made.
YOU made the statement that Political thought was covered by the Constitution… I was making the observation that HISTORY shows otherwise, especialy in time of WAR.
YOU have taken this whole conversation so personaly at this point, that ANY dissent is seen as a personal attack on yourself… even when the comment is general in nature.
So… I will leave you to your echo chamber….
Considering the orginal plan to hit the towers started in 1998 and was to happen in late summer of 1999, this attitude from the Kos chills me to the bone. I and my family was standing on top of Building 2 in that late summer of 1999 enjoying pleasant vacation from what had been hell for me in High School that spring and to think that some 3,000 people killed in the name of Islamic Militant expansionism is no big deal and I could have been one of those dead if the orginal plan was upheld to hit in 1999 shows this sick little man’s true colors as an enemy of the United States in his slimy attempts to ply appeasement and apathy to whose who’d make him their slaves or cannon fodder.
Until Congress and Senate grow a pair of cajones and declare full war on all Islamic Nations bearing any political and economical ties to Islamic Terror cells we will keep getting this leftist notion shoved into our Government that Islam isn’t the problem and that its the other religons are when they truly didn’t start this new militant expansionism. One only has to look up the bloody history that Buddaist empires experienced at the hands of Islam. Apathic Empires crumbled, enslaved, butchered while militant ones stood to defend their lands and fell almost as fast to the vast leigons of Islamic armies. Buddaism couldn’t be squashed out but many relics, pricesless artifacts to such a faith, demolished by Islamic hands out of rage and intollerance and the blood of any who tried to rebuild or salvage these holy relics were slaughtered like animals. History, much to the left’s rehtorical chagrin, bears the scars of ancient deeds most horrible. Dark Age Protestant, Catholic and Christian practices weren’t so soft and cuddly either, but today’s chapters of each of these faiths have long sheathed their “sword” and lay behind their “shields” being on the defense as Islamic groups swing their “sword” around like a man given way to horrid bloodlust. With that History shows that the victor of any battle has never been one to hide defensively for long.
“To the first, political parties, religions and grassroots organizations are merely gathering places for those of political like mind and opinions. Not only their right to express their political views – however repulsive – is protected, but so is their right to peacefully assemble and redress grievances. So I’m not what you’re getting at”
What I’m getting at is the notion that somehow the idea that First Amendment rights are unfettered is pure nonsense.
Mata et al – The days of philosophizing about Islam may be coming to an end in the not so distant future. Cannot see a threat to the soverignty of this nation being given any rights. There will be a confontation against Islam here as the populace is finally wise to the fact it is our enemy. Islam and a Judeo/Christian society cannot coexist on the same piece of land. Hope you are able to choose the right side.
@Minuteman26:
You appear to be saying that all of Islam, and therefore all Muslims, are our enemy.
Is that correct?
Marta
I would be interested to find out your views on the Second Amendment,should that be completely unrestricted too?
kj, I thought I answered your query INRE my thoughts on restricting our inalienable rights in @my last paragraph in my comment #18. I most certainly do not support the ever encroaching regulation of rights that, by the very definition of inalienable, should lie beyond the power of the elected ones.
INRE the 2nd Amendment, my reading on it, formed mostly on the Heller SCOTUS opinion, is that the militia weaponry envisioned by the Founders was based on citizenry being armed with commonly found weaponry of the times. So I find it offensive that auto weapons and common rifles are forbidden fruit.
But the RKBA has always been a big deal to me, and one of my last fights in California was to be part of the grassroots battle against SB-20, the “assault weapon ban”, where I ran from gun show to gun show, collecting over 6500 signatures for the referendum. It fell short by about 100,000 signatures… bummer. But we weren’t organized, save thru website. Very similar to the tea party movement. I was quite happy to bolt that State, as I was active in shooting Action Pistol competition then, and many of my fellow shooters became “felons” overnight with the passed legislation. Nope… not going to hang in that state.
I’m not sure exactly what the question is. So perhaps, in order to not run off on tangents in miscommunications… which is wont to happen here when the Cordoba House is involved – maybe I should ask you and Romeo13 to clarify how you stand on the following:
I don’t support the erosion of our rights in anyway. Both of you have pointed out that our rights have indeed been eroded in the past.
So the question to you both is: are you okay with this erosion when it’s aimed at a target your don’t like, and it’s convenient to justify further erosion to accomplish a goal? Or are you appalled that they continually try to erode our rights, even when you don’t like the target group?
Not a trick question. Not planning on any personal assault campaign, no matter how you answer. Just helps to know where someone’s coming from.
@Minuteman26, I think if you actually read all my past commentary, you will find that any attempt by anyone to usurp our founding principles and freedom will find me with weapons in hand. That is a given.
Were what you predict to come to pass, I would be right there at your side. I think our differences lie in that you think this will come to pass. I do not. I can’t see Muslims escaping tyrannical countries with Islamic law for America’s freedoms, and importing what they are escaping.
Aye – Ref23 – That is exactly what I’m saying. When they refute the Quran, then I’ll know they’re not trouble. Until that comes to pass, I consider all muslims my enemy. Didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
Does anyone happen to know the status of legal enforcement of arbitration agreements in the US??
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/sharia_law_in_canada_and_brita.html
Question to Mata:
>>I do not. I can’t see Muslims escaping tyrannical countries with Islamic law for America’s freedoms, and importing what they are escaping.>>
Read that link to the AT article. Don’t you think that many muslims in GB went there for GB’s freedoms? Yet…they seem to be importing exactly what they escaped from. Any opinions about that?
@KOS: OF COURSE WHY the majority is loosing patience and tolerance ; BECAUSE they can see clear, AND express negatives oppinions of course;
SO of course YOU KOS put the blame on the wrong side;
OF course 9/11 kill some 3000 peoples and injured some 60000 more;
OF COURSE, you dont think this is a big deal;
OF COURSE, you dont give a dam for AMERICANS;
OF COURSE YOU ARE showing how stupid you are, of couse.
@suek, unless you’re planning on marrying into Islam, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. While Shariah for civil cases got the quiet nod from the Brit higher elected ones, that is not the case in the US. Nor would you… or I… stand still for such.
However two real facts on British Shariah “tribunals”, if you will:
1: They do not allow of capital/criminal punishments that are against British law… i.e. beheadings, stonings, dismemberment, and honor killings. These are prosecuted in British courts as crimes and not granted any exclusion.
2: As the AT article clearly says, *both* parties in the civil dispute must agree to allow the British Shariah tribunal to give it the authority to rule on the specific case.
The following “given the second-class status of women” comment seems not to be based on fact, but speculation. I see no instances to that cited whatsoever.
Are both you and the AT author saying that American (or British) Muslim women wanted a system to be put into place so that their Muslim husbands could drag them into Shariah courts and rake them over the coals?
Begs the willing suspension of disbelief, if you don’t mind my saying so.
I suggest that isn’t the case, and that if a Muslim man attempts to force his wife into Shariah courts involuntarily, she either refuses and reverts to British law, or the husband commits a crime and attempts to discipline her … all in defiance of British criminal laws… and will be hunted down for prosecution. Their dual system still doesn’t allow for such punishment.
Examples? Abdalla Yones sentenced for life for murdering his 16 year old daughter. Or the father and uncle sentenced for life. Or the two that murdered their cousin. Or Mehmet Goren, sentenced for 22 years just this past December for the murder of his daughter.
Think this crap is confined to Islam? Take a better look around at the defective humans, murdering their children… or others… that have nothing to do with Islam.
I have said this before, and evidently I have to say it again because it just doesn’t stick. I am not in favor of a dual legal system here. If any attempt were done in that direction, I would fight just as hard as the rest of you.
That said, I have no problems with a civil Shariah system that involves voluntary participation, and that does not issue any judgments and penalties that are outside the scope of our laws. Fact is, this type of arrangement is done every day in arbitration/mediation agreements between dissenting parties who both agree to allow a panel to rule on their case, with no appeals. If you don’t believe me, check out any real estate agreement to purchase you’ve done in the past years, and you will find that almost all states include language that requires you give up your right to a jury trial in any potential litigation, and agree to have it settled by arbitration and mediation. The winner gets to sue the loser for any defense costs too.
“Whilst Britain’s democratic processes and human rights obligations preclude such a possibility in its entirety, nonetheless, Shariah courts are already dealing with some criminal matters” (page 8)
“Under Shariah’s code, a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s, her marriage contract is between her male guardian and her husband, and a muslim woman is not permitted to marry a non-muslim.” (page 9, I think)
These quotes are taken from the June 2010 report entitled “Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights” – there’s a link. It’s 38 pages.
Also, if the British police are called for some domestic dispute and the matter concerns muslims, the matter is turned over to the shariah courts – whether the woman wants it or not. She’s muslim. It’s not a British matter, it’s a shariah matter. Note that she doesn’t really even have an option – the contract of marriage does not require her consent.
>>Are both you and the AT author saying that American (or British) Muslim women wanted a system to be put into place so that their Muslim husbands could drag them into Shariah courts and rake them over the coals?>>
No. We’re saying that a muslim woman has no voice in the matter. What she “wants” is irrelevant.
>>The following “given the second-class status of women” comment seems not to be based on fact, but speculation. I see no instances to that cited whatsoever.>>
Mata…That _is_ shariah law. That is in the koran. A woman’s testimony is worth only half of that of a man. Even if a woman says she is raped, it requires the testimony of 4 men to corroborate her claim. Women receive in inheritance 1/2 of whatever share each of her brothers receive. She does not “agree” to a marriage contract – the contract is between whatever male is responsible for her and whoever that males chooses for a husband. That is simply a fact.
If you know anyone who served in Iraq – ask them what happens if they knocked on a door to search for weapons. The women – even if it’s adult women – will go to find the oldest male – even if the oldest is a _child_ to give permission for them to enter. The male _child_ – if the father is not home – is the authority in the home.
Read the article again – follow the links.
It’s a very slow process, but it’s the camel’s nose under the tent – soon you have the whole camel.
suek, we are not Iraq. We are not Britain. Why you seem fixated on the USA turning into even a shadow of those nations is just beyond comprehension.
And what part about “both parties” must voluntarily agree to submit to the tribunal final ruling on the case do you not understand? If the wife voluntarily submits to the arbitration, she must accept their ruling…. however unfair. It is the same thing in any American arbitration/mediation hearing. Don’t like the outcome? Too bad. You agreed to accept the decision up front… no appeal.
So no, the Muslim wife does not have have to submit… tho you continue to insist that she has no choice. I fully disagree.
So it then becomes interesting that you bring up domestic violence… albeit again in Britain. I have no idea what real life experience in the infidel battered wife world you possess, but you might want to do some exploration about just what limitations police have in our own country INRE domestic violence. I happen to have painfully intimate experience there, and I will tell you that there is always a choice. It’s not an easy one to make, extremely difficult and dangerous to live thru (and with, mentally). But necessary if you want to get yourself out of a difficult place of your own making. Just as battered wives can take a difficult path to extract themselves, so can Muslim women. If they are willing. Let me tell you this in no uncertain terms. It is no different to fear dying, or harm to your children, at the hand of a non Muslim spouse than it is to fear death at the hands of a Muslim spouse.
Now you may wish to imply that Shariah courts make the unthinkable and illegal… suddenly legal. And you may wish to base that on what transpires in another country. It is not true in Britain. But that’s not important to me. I live here. I concern myself with what this nation does. I’ve cited specifics on Muslim men being prosecuted for their actions in Britain… even post the British nod to Shariah tribunals. Plus that, I’ve already told you – over and over again – that I don’t support a dual legal system, and again this falls on your deaf ears. Now why is that?
You can sit here and argue Shariah with me until the cows come home. But that’s not what we are up against. We’re up against a multifunction building that is allowed to be built
illegally, that we all find offensive. I, however, am not going to leap to fanatical assumptions that this building is akin to implementing Shariah law as a parallel legal system in this country. When that battle arises, you will find me on your side. In this more immediate battle, you’ll have to look to others to nod their heads in agreement for your extreme predictions that building mosques/cultural centers or an increasing Muslim population is the same thing as leaping to a Shariah court parallel system.Mr Irons: hi, THANK you, on your 20, no bullshit there for sure;
THAT’s why we have to change this GOVERNMENT and choose to elect CONSERVATIVES,
WHO will protect the UNITED STATES, from ennemies within and abroad with the laws of
THIS LAND, there is more chance for AMERICANS to feel safe,in this country ,
BECAUSE of the values still intack of theses CONSERVATIVES and of course REPUBLICANS,
THOSES VALUES are PRIMARY aimed at AMERICA ; NOT at the WELFARE of others QUESTIONABLES COUNTRYS. bye
REAL AMERICAN PATRIOT: NO question about it that MISSY always put the truth inside her comment; SO, you will have to check on your own comment ,when she challenge your words.
>>Now why is that? >>
Because those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
If I understand you correctly, you know nothing about islam, have no intention of learning about it and are certain that whatever bad stuff it may be responsible for, it won’t happen in the USA. Besides, if women are seriously abused and made second class citizens, it’s their own fault that they don’t face reality and get themselves out of that situation. I assume that includes the young girls who have clitorectomies.
Ok. I’d rather have you working to prevent the problem, but I’ll just have to be satisfied that if we fail in preventing it (in which case, you’ll no doubt say “See…no problem. I told you so!”) you’ll be willing to fight along side when the battle is within our shores. It’s better than nothing.
Now suek, what a charming tone you have decided to assume. Seems if someone doesn’t agree with you, they must be uneducated idiots, yes? ’tis a strange sense of ego fragility you possess there.
First of all, if we went into your “if I understand you correctly” abilities, we can pretty much chalk up you don’t understand much, if anything about me, nor my opinions in the blog world for over a decade. You have either purposely, or blindly, *not* “understood me correctly” since this subject began. There is no dearth of my blog work on the dangers of jihad, terrorism and appeasement of the enemy in this blog, or my previous blogs. What you can put in your pipe, and continue smoking, is that the last post I did on my Sea2Sea blog, and before I started blogging for Curt, happened to be about the Archibishop’s push for the Shariah system in the UK in 2008. I didn’t like it then, and I don’t like it now.
Maybe, in order for you to “understand correctly”, you need to have a less emotional read of that linked report… and separate what is actual events vs speculated acts and where those acts take place. As even that report is quick to point out (conveniently the paragraph that lead into the paragraph you decided to life and past as your “evidence”. Selective editing much, leaving out the caveat?) neither Islam nor Shariah are practiced alike from country to country, or culture to culture. I’m also going to take a rough guess that your curiousity did not extend to learning who the One Law for One group was, correct? You just saw words you wanted to see, and ran from there.
Such a comment is tremendously embarrassing to hear from a modern woman. It tells me two things about you… that you’ve no personal experience with serious domestic abuse, and that you have an inherent belief that women are victims only.
To the first, there are two people ill in an abusive situation. The one doing the abusing, and the one continuing to accept the abusing. The latter is the most difficult fact to accept, but once you do, you’re on the road to straightening out a situation that.. yes… you put yourself in. Even if innocently in the beginning. But once you know, and you stay… continuing to make excuses… you then put yourself in the helpless victim class, expecting others to extract you. Only you can make that choice. No more than you can make an alcoholic cease drinking.
As to the second – automatically bestowing the “victim” label on women – suffragette rights advanced in this country because women made the choice they no wanted longer to be victims and they knew they had the opportunity to change things because of the way our country is structured. Just as the blacks took on civil rights later, taking their avenues out of oppression and abuse open to them. For all, it took strength, determination and active lobbying efforts to change events. Woe to us all had they been like you…. whining about being a victim, and having no choice to change it. Then again, that may be why you think it will be so easy for the US to become another Iran.
As I pointed out, and you preferred to skim over with speed reading, it was Muslim women who essentially put the major kabosh on Shariah in Canada. And it is from them, first and foremost, where the dissent must come. Not from you, the self professed scholarly infidel, who will have no personal involvement in Shariah civil matters. Frankly, it’s no more your business if they have Shariah arbitrators here, in the UK or in another Muslim country than it is if there are Jewish courts… unless, of course, you are a practicing Jew.
It becomes *all* of our businesses is there is any attempt to install a parallel court system with our own, that allows it to usurp our laws.
Frankly, like the Canadian Muslim woman who are more assimilated into western culture, I’m banking on the American Muslim woman, wanting no part of taking steps backwards into that which they escaped.
I find it very interesting, all huff and fury of this “creeping Shariah” hyperbole. Rather like allowing your evening dinner burn in the oven because you’re fretting over whether lobsters will be available for next year’s dinner.
It was about six decades ago that Nikita Krushchev made the stunning observations that the US will fall from within and embrace Communism. Looking at the make up of the leaders in Congress and this WH, it’s hard to argue his point. Instead of focusing on the immediate and very real problem at hand, too many prefer to speculate how the US will end up another Iran/Afghanistan if more mosques are built. When we need everyone with even a sliver of conservative in them to battle down the immediate leadership, conservative leaders like Newt and Geller are running around, sounding the sky is falling alarm on all of Islam, mosques and Shariah.
Perfect.. so when the campaign season hits full force, and the important swing vote again holds the key, the Dems will smear the conservatives in the nation as bigots. Worse yet, all they have to do is sift thru a few conservative blogs and conservative publications, and they’ll have plenty of ammo to back that charge up.
@suek:
I posed some questions to you here but you may have missed them.
There is a well done video on You Tube entitled “3 Things About Islam” which spells out what Islam is and what its trying to achieve. Hint, it ain’t a religion.
MATA: hi, I just want to note that no matter what the DEMOCRATS will say, IT wont register with the VOTERS, because of their precedent used of lying to AMERICANS, so they lost their CREDIBILITY with AMERICANS quite a while before, and the only thing left for them is what the AMERICANS will decide. bye
Bees, the Dems have been lying for decades. It hasn’t stopped electing Clinton twice, nor the Dems getting a supermajority… and most especially lies didn’t stop election this putz in the WH now.
If you look at most of these polls carefully, people are very disgruntled with the Dems, but the GOP isn’t in much higher favor. There is an inherent distrust of both parties now, and justifiably so. So people are looking for the usual “lesser of two evils” to elect. Thus it will come down to which they find least offensive… socialism, or a party that they perceive as being made up of bigots (which the Dems will be happy to do, most especially using Cordoba House and the extreme commentary as their example).
>>Now suek, what a charming tone you have decided to assume. Seems if someone doesn’t agree with you, they must be uneducated idiots, yes? ’tis a strange sense of ego fragility you possess there.>>
Ok…so clear it up for me. I’ve been trying to comprehend just exactly why we have such different opinions here, and have yet to figure it out. You continually say that you are strong against islam, but yet you condemn Pam Geller as a fanatic. You claim to understand the situation of oppressed women, but seem unconcerned that in GB – which is as close in culture to ours as any where, (though admittedly growing further and further away) the laws are being changed in such a way as to make it almost impossible for women to break away from that oppression. You appear to be unconcerned that _some_ muslims have the intent to make the same changes here, because you are confident it will never happen here – and yet when a judge decides in favor of observing cultural practices in the case of an abused woman, you cite that as a example of how it won’t happen here since it was overturned. You don’t seem to appreciate that the first judge made that decision in contradiction to our laws – and that’s the first crack. Yes it was corrected – but you deny that it was of any importance. Lots of small cracks eventually weaken the system – just as it has in GB.
>>It tells me two things about you… that you’ve no personal experience with serious domestic abuse, and that you have an inherent belief that women are victims only.>>
True. I’ve been fortunate in having no direct experience with serious domestic abuse. No, I don’t believe that women are victims only – but I do believe that there are many people who are in abusive situations because they have been conditioned by their upbringing to accept those roles, and it will take a tremendous effort for them to make the personal changes to not only get out of their abusive situation, but to avoid going from one abusive relationship to another. I do think women are more likely than men to be abused and accept the situation. That doesn’t mean I think women are necessarily victims, but I do think the probability is higher for women.
>>it was Muslim women who essentially put the major kabosh on Shariah in Canada. And it is from them, first and foremost, where the dissent must come.>>
Maybe. I can accept this to a certain extent. That’s a wait and see situation.
>>It was about six decades ago that Nikita Krushchev made the stunning observations that the US will fall from within and embrace Communism. Looking at the make up of the leaders in Congress and this WH, it’s hard to argue his point. … we need everyone with even a sliver of conservative in them to battle down the immediate leadership, conservative leaders like Newt and Geller are running around, sounding the sky is falling alarm on all of Islam, mosques and Shariah.>>
And you don’t see any connection between these two situations?
>>Instead of focusing on the immediate and very real problem at hand>>
Just exactly what do you see as the immediate and very real problem at hand?
Okay, thank you for the tone change. Let’s start at the beginning with your first sentence….
I am not “strong” against Islam. I am “strong” against the global Islamic jihad movements. INRE Islam, not a fan, would never choose the religion myself, but I’m certainly not going to condemn nor dictate to those that do in this country. Therein lies the heart of all of our disagreements…. those that wage emotional and verbal war against all of Islam, and those that confine their strong rhetoric to obvious jihad types. Then we can further separate that by those who equate a statement that America’s policies were party to the 911 attacks, or that have a desire for Shariah councils for civil law, as indication they are a closet terrorist/take over the world jihad type.
Fact is, waaaay too may of our elected officials expressed the same concern about foreign policy contributing. And now Rand Paul… a tea party type who also believes the exactly the same…. is elected. So you can see that not only is the “blame America” a common belief amongst many Muslims, but it’s not even confined to lib/progs.
I’ll try again. In the UK, in Canada and America (as well as most western culture free nations), our laws make it entirely possible to break away from oppression. It isn’t the easy path, and takes a serious choice to embark upon. That path is not an option in places like Iran. That is the difference between our countries, and our opportunities. Which is why modern Muslims are escaping to the western countries… to get away from this antiquated crap.
Canadian’s Muslim women have already stood up and make their protests known. I suspect that American Muslim women will do the same… *when* it’s something real being faced – and not some speculative ominous prediction constantly thrown out there by infidel blogs/readers simply to hype fear of Islam and quash the Cordoba House. I think there are many Muslims who also believe Cordoba House is a lousy choice, but no one is encouraging their participation by extending that argument with this “Islam and Shariah are gonna take over the US!” accusation. In fact, at the Geller protest, they assaulted Muslims who were there to lend support, and they had to be extracted from the crowd by police for their safety. Wonderful…. what does that say?
I’d also like to remind you of your own words:
This is a very reasonable opinion, suek. One that almost is a mirror image of my own. So I think, where you end up off in the tangents, is when you see the US somehow becoming another Iran. The only way that could happen is by genocide in this country… from citizenry to all elected officials. Even the most lib/prog of americans would not accept that lifestyle. Euro-socialism, yes. Iranian dictatorship? Nope.
Let me take both of these together:
I’m taking the last first, which then has something to do with the first. The first and very real immediate problem is our fiscal debt, out of control spending, and job creation environment. We are so very close, if not already past, the ability to pull out of this. So these next few years and economic policies are going to be the make it/break it moment for this nation going forward. The weaker the economic plight of the citizen, the stronger the ability for socialist or powerful central government to finally take the last bite of the nation we once knew.
In short, “it’s the economy, stupid”, as Carvelle said. Our economic status and our freedoms and opportunities are intrinsically entwined. Lose one, and the other is likely to sale down the same sewer line.
So the connection is this…. to cure the fiscal economic dangers, we need to encourage the conservative, private enterprise in the citizenry and lay out alternatives to job creation that have been presented (by this admin/Congress on the taxpayers back, and is made up of government employees, not private sector). We already know the Dems are clueless, but unfortunately the GOP isn’t looking much like a brighter wattage of light bulb. This means gathering those of like fiscal mind… of all religions, races, parties, sexual preference… to the main goal – preserving a healthy republic, the personal opportunities and rewards of capitalism. If you look around, you’ll see the American Muslim is very much into entrepreneurial businesses, and not liberal in their fiscal policies. I will also point out they are not liberal in the family values either.
This makes Muslims a very likely conservative voting block… until you hear 15 minutes of fame opportunists like Geller, or those seeking more political power like Newt, that is.
Do you really think conservative American Muslims want to ally with conservatives when they perceive them all to be like Geller and Newt? I don’t. We see this historically with large blocs of black voters voting Dem welfare oppression, refusing to ally with conservatives because they perceived them to be the party of bigots.
This diverse alliance – based on fiscal survival today – will again separate on other issues tomorrow. But for now, it will take everyone concerned about the massive rush to central power in order to stop it. Otherwise there will be little to argue about in the future. And that doesn’t get done when people start predicting the takeover of the US justice system, and the nation reverting to a future Iran, because a group has the extremely poor taste to legally build a multifunction center in a place that offends everyone.
So if you think you’re getting a headstart on a future nightmare you envision by jumping on the bandwagon today, I think the opposite. I think that this type of stuff actually destroys the ability to ally with many, and defeat the genuine enemy – out of control elected mongrels who love to spend this nation into destruction.
MATA: I would think that what is so clear to AMERICANS, they would choose the party who will secure this AMERICA more than what they have now, a destructive economy and they will not stop there, the ruins will affect all rank of society, HOW can you help the WELFARE recipients
WHEN there is no more money in the purse, how can they help the sick people without that same money, how can they help any recovery without the business to create jobs, they did not appreciate thoses businesses so they lost many and more to go, A bankrupt soon to be will hurt every one for sure, people, are the one to choose now , this mistake happen;
BUT they will have to show no matter what lies and propagand is given to them, that they cannot be fooled no more. bye
>>there are two people ill in an abusive situation. The one doing the abusing, and the one continuing to accept the abusing. The latter is the most difficult fact to accept, but once you do, you’re on the road to straightening out a situation that.. yes… you put yourself in.>>
A side note. I agree with you entirely on the above, but it does make one assumption – that a person unintentionally put themselves into an abusive situation. It assumes that the individual has been conditioned to have normal healthy relationships with people. There are some people who seek out an abusive situation because _that’s_ “normal” for them – it’s the only interpersonal relationship they’ve ever known. Making the changes that need to be made – for that individual – is very difficult, and maybe not possible.
@Minuteman26 #27:
So just when did you fall off the turnip truck? 😉
Was Army Spc. Kareem R. Khan your enemy because he didn’t “refute the Quran”? How about Sgt. Abdelhalim:
Is he your enemy too? Are 7 million of your fellow Americans your enemy, simply because they don’t have the same prejudicial reading of the Quran as you do?
@suek #29:
European Muslims as a whole come primarily from a background of laborers and blue-collar workers and don’t have the same kinds of opportunities as American Muslims have here in terms of social upward mobility. Their immigrants are not well integrated nor assimilated, and that is in no small measure due to their treatment as second-class citizens. They are stuck in social ghettos, poverty and crime. When people- regardless of where they came from- are made to feel marginalized, alienated, and socially excluded from acceptance within a society, they become ripe-pickings for criminal activity as well as extremist propaganda and recruitment.
Are there dangerous extremists in GB inflaming and inciting “at-risk” Muslim youths? Certainly. Pointing that out is not the problem. Recognizing the threat Abu Hamza al-Masri poses is vigilance. At the same time, not acknowledging and recognizing whose side 500 other Muslim religious leaders are on creates a very lopsided distortion. Whose side are you actually helping, by doing this? Are you helping to stop Islamic extremism or doing just the opposite by expressing such a monolithic indictment of the whole religion?
@Minuteman26:
And if, hypothetically speaking, a muslim decided to “refute the Quran” then how will you know that such refutations are genuine, rather than the implementation of taqiyaa that you guys are always talking about?
Word – What part of all don’t you understand? Ref38- Watch that video and you’ll see where I’m coming from. If I had a say in the matter, muslims in this country would not be allowed to serve in the military or hold public office. They can’t be trusted. The Quran in of itself makes Islam an enemy of this nation. If you’er muslim and your beliefs are what is dictated by the Quran, you then are my enemy and an enemy to the Republic. IMHO. The 7 million muslims here have but one choice and that is to follow the Quran as written, as does the rest of the Islamic world. By the way, I’ve been off the turnip truck long enough to recognize bullshit by sight or sound.
Back to this again, eh? If I had a nickel for every perceived bad ruling, and every appellate court reversal, I’d never have to worry about being an Obama social welfare senior citizen, suek.
It was not a “crack” in the system that the first judge ruled erroneously. The crack in the system is if it had made it’s way thru the appellate system without being overturned. However you will learn that many lower court judges don’t like to be on the forefront of creating precedents.
And as I also said, that idiot judge should be stripped of his robes. But he’s not the first idiot to hold a gavel, and he won’t be the last.
Aye – I’ll know when some imam issuses a fatwah against his ass and 800 other muslims are running around the countryside trying to kill him. Ain’t Islam great?
INRE the OT analogy between oppressed Muslim women and battered wives of infidels
Not necessarily. I do think the majority walk into situations, never expecting this to be the case. There are also some that suffer from a personality disorder where they believe they deserve abuse… and being the battered spouse is just another way this manifests itself in their lives.
As far as “conditioned”, the group you are referring to INRE Muslims, conditioning has every opportunity to change with exposure to different conditions… as Muslim women experience in the USA in particular. In Muslim/Shariah rule countries, they are unhappy with the conditions. They migrate to western nations where this is not as extreme, and they also interface with evil, infidel western civilizations. They generally come to a point where they have no desires to return to 3rd world Islam of the past.
Therefore conditioning is not a permanent condition… in fact, none of them necessarily are.
Yes…I did miss this:
1) How many constitutes a “significant number” in your mind?
Well…Three Percent comes to mind…
2) How do you propose to determine which ones fall into the specific categories of peaceful and non-peaceful? Is such determination achieved through fingerprinting, DNA analysis, blood typing? Or would it be achieved through a less objective mushy squishy set of testing standards that lie mainly in the eye of the beholder?
I guess _you_ must have missed the times I said that the real damage of taqiya is not so much the deception itself, though that’s bad enough, it’s the fact that if you accept that taqiya is a reality, you no longer know who to trust. It’s extremely corrosive to any relationship that requires trust.
3) What do you propose that we do with this “significant number” that you claim exists within the US once they have been separated from the herd? Should we round them up and put them in camps ala FDR’s Japanese solution? Should we shoot them all before they have a chance to harm us? Should we deport them? If so, to where?
Hey…assuming we could actually separate them from the herd – which I doubt – any or all of the above would be acceptable. That is – if they’re considered enemies of the US. _There’s_ the problem. We haven’t declared war, and due to the nature of the enemy, are unlikely to. So we’re limited to the usual legal maneuvers that can be used against any criminal. Unfortunately, as long as they just talk – or preach – we probably can’t take any action against them. Not even “hate speech” – though they’ll certainly use that one against us! Turn about ought to be fair play.
4) Are you a believer in the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” or do you subscribe to the “guilty by association” mindset?
In a court of law, I believe in “innocent until proven guilty”. Outside of a court of law, I think we have to use our own best judgment regarding a person’s intent, and “birds of a feather” is often to be considered, though it isn’t a final unchangeable statement of intent.
5) When the attempted bombing of Times Square occurred there was a movement afoot to deny the suspect of his Miranda Rights? Would you have agreed or disagreed with such a denial of Constitutional protections?
Depends. Was he arrested as an enemy combatant or as a criminal perpetrator? At this point in time, _can_ a person present in the US be arrested as an enemy combatant? I don’t know what the requirements and/or limitations are. If he was arrested as an enemy combatant, then he is not entitled to Miranda Rights warnings. Yet. If he was arrested as a probable criminal perp, then he should be read his rights.
@Minuteman26:
Good Lord! You mean this:
LOVE the big words. This is something you’re proud to trumpet around as a source for “where [you’re] coming from”?!
What is amazing to me is how it takes items that are factually correct, but taken out of context and draws distorted conclusions. It will happen every time from anti-Islamic readings. There is nothing “non-partisan” about the video. If you go to anti-Islamic sources, what else do you expect to get from it? The truth? Reality? It’s propaganda that is just as bad as the political correct reading of Islam.
>> . Besides, if women are seriously abused and made second class citizens, it’s their own fault that they don’t face reality and get themselves out of that situation. I assume that includes the young girls who have clitorectomies
Such a comment is tremendously embarrassing to hear from a modern woman. It tells me two things about you… that you’ve no personal experience with serious domestic abuse, and that you have an inherent belief that women are victims only. >>
So…what was embarrassing for a modern woman to say? That some cultures exist where women are second class citizens?
Are you saying that you think I believe that…”all women are victims” or that “all victims are women”? I don’t believe either…so I think there’s a misunderstanding. Quelle surprise!
I’ve just been re-reading this. I think you misunderstood me. You highlighted my statement, which I _think_ you interpreted as my saying “if women…situation”, when in fact that’s what I understood _you_ to be expressing. I added the “young girls…clitorectomies” (by the way…spell check doesn’t recognize that word. Offered tonsillectomies instead) because I don’t think you give enough weight to the abuse of the women that the islamic culture imposes.
Will islamic women with 2-3 generations in the USA make a difference? I don’t know. Word offers class differences as a factor. I have no idea if that’s a real difference. He suggests that the ghettos of (odd that we should use that term) Europe are a factor that encourages unrest. I can see that. Do we have conclaves of muslims here in the US? we seem to in some areas. That incident in Michigan where cops arrested Christians who were handing out literature at a muslim gathering of some sort was worth noting.
suek: hi, I was thinking from a line MATA mentioned of UK’S muslims have found a way to get something across by finding a loophole to work for their demand and won:
SO If you have the GOVERNMENT protecting them and even the mass of them in other countrys,
the people should be very prudent and watch, what laws bills are slip under a pile of other non related bills, be it executive orders or others that even the MEDIA dont know of,
and after it pass , someone stumble upon that secret bill pass;
RIGHT under the nose of the usualy well informe public, and if that bill is against the will of AMERICA, and favored a country of haters of AMERICA, even help them to immigrate in
THE UNITED STATES, at the cost of AMERICANS taxpayer.
there is nothing anyone can do , It’s pass,so if there is nobody accountable to have read the bill
BEFORE and refuse it a bill that is conseale from the opposition to read,
THAT make a danger for the AMERICANS. bye
ONE MILITARY was WORKING with sick militarys in hospital and there was suspicions from co workers that was not taken seriously and end up favoring the person by the higher command, he was selling islam to his patients from what was reveal : and time went by, until he was to go abrod to serve his mission, and he snapped and decide to kill many who had been living with him for quite a long time. this should tell us about how you will know, until they reach the breaking point,
UNLESS you purpusley get them to demand to follow a special training that will bring them to that breaking point and how they will react at the time.