Friday, May 31, 2013

OBAMA’S DOJ SHARIA OFFENSIVE: SEEKS TO CRIMINALIZE FREE SPEECH ON SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS THAT OFFEND MUSLIMS

How is this any different than Islamic law in, say, Turkey (Obama’s favorite and most trusted ally)? In October, 43-year-old Fazil Say went on trial in Turkey for “denigrating” Islam for a series of tweets earlier that year. In one of his messages he had retweeted a verse from a poem by Omar Khayyám, in which the 11th-century Persian poet attacks pious hypocrisy. This is the same thing.

If the DoJ pursued the vicious, offensive, racist, antisemitic tweets directed at me (and others) by Muslims and leftists, they would be pursuing little else. But they wouldn’t and they shouldn’t.

Note to the Justice Department — we will fight you on this every step of the way. We will drag your dhimmi asses all the way to the Supreme Court. This is sharia enforcement, and we are not going to stand for it.

“DOJ: Social Media Posts Trashing Muslims May Violate Civil Rights” Judicial Watch, May 30, 2013 (thanks to Jane)

In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S. the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights.

The move comes a few years after the administration became the first in history to dispatch a U.S. Attorney General to personally reassure Muslims that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is dedicated to protecting them.In the unprecedented event, Attorney General Eric Holder assured a San Francisco-based organization (Muslim Advocates) that urges members not to cooperate in federal terrorism investigations that the “us versus them” environment created by the U.S. government, law enforcement agents and fellow citizens is unacceptable and inconsistent with what America is all about.

“Muslims and Arab Americans have helped build and strengthen our nation,” Holder said after expressing that he is “grateful” to have Muslims as a partner in promoting tolerance, ensuring public safety and protecting civil rights. He also vowed to strengthen “crucial dialogue” between Muslim and Arab-American communities and law enforcement.

Evidently that was a precursor of sorts for an upcoming Tennessee event (“Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society”) that will feature the region’s top DOJ official, who serves as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and an FBI representative. The goal is to increase awareness and understanding that American Muslims are not the terrorists some have made them out to be in social media and other circles, according to a local newspaper report. The June 4 powwow is sponsored by the American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee.

The area’s top federal prosecutor, Bill Killian, will address a topic that most Americans are likely unfamiliar with, even those well versed on the Constitution; that federal civil rights laws can actually be violated by those who post inflammatory documents aimed at Muslims on social media. “This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian says in the local news story. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”

The DOJ political appointee adds in the article that the upcoming presentation will also focus on Muslim culture with a special emphasis on the fact that the religion is no different from others, even though some in the faith have committed terrorist acts, Christians have done the same. As an example he offers that the worst terrorist attack in the U.S. prior to 9/11 was committed by American Christians in Oklahoma City. He also mentioned the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting last year in which another Christian, an American white supremacist, fatally shot six people and wounded four others.

“Some of the finest people I’ve met are Muslims,” Killian said, adding later: “We want to inform everybody about what the law is, but more importantly, we want to provide what the law means to Muslims, Hindus and every other religion in the country. It’s why we came here in the first place. In England, they were using Christianity to further their power in government. That’s why the First Amendment is there.”

Over the years the Obama administration has embarked on a fervent crusade to befriend Muslims by creating a variety of outreach programs at a number of key federal agencies. For instance the nation’s Homeland Security covertly met with a group of extremist Arab, Muslim and Sikh organizations to discuss national security matters and the State Department sent a controversial, anti-America Imam (Feisal Abdul Rauf) to the Middle East to foster greater understanding and outreach among Muslim majority communities.

The Obama Administration has also hired a special Homeland Security adviser (Mohamed Elibiary) who openly supports a radical Islamist theologian and renowned jihadist ideologue and a special Islam envoy that condemns U.S. prosecutions of terrorists as “politically motivated persecutions” and has close ties to radical extremist groups.

The president has even ordered the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to shift its mission from space exploration to Muslim diplomacy and the government started a special service that delivers halal meals, prepared according to Islamic law, to home-bound seniors in Detroit. Who could forget Hillary Clinton’s special order allowing the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties have long banned them from the U.S.?

 

Posted by  on Friday, May 31, 2013 at 01:10 AM in Department of Injustice | Permalink

Comments

John Perry said…

There are a few issues with the inclusion of Sharia law into the American Jurisprudence structure.

1) The US Constitution won’t uphold it. The Judicial branch, not to be confused with the Department of Justice which in the Executive branch, does not get to dictate what laws are used and what laws are not. For Sharia to work it requires clerics to dictate the “thinking”; the highest Court in the United States is the Supreme Court and unlike England where the House of Lords can overturn a decision they do not like that does not exist in the United States, likewise, if the Imams as a whole do not like a decision then it’s best they stick to one of the 57 Islamic countries that recognize that authority.

2) For this to work it would require that the 1.4 million licensed attorneys in the United States to be licensed to practice Sharia. It would require the Congress and the several states (3/4th of the union) to go along with this. If you thought the NRA yields power, try the ABA.

3) Given the liberal rant of “freedom from religion” and that Sharia is Islamic law whose origins is the Qu’ran, a Muslims holy book, and effectively by the word of God it would mean that these very same liberals would need to accept religion in the courtrooms: this case tried by US law, that case tried by Sharia, some other case involving both. Try explaining this to the jury of your peers as required by the Constitution; and then there are the appeals and the chaos that would create.

Let’s consider something here, when you look up Barack Hussein Obama’s license to practice law you learn that it was voluntarily surrendered. While William Clinton held the office of President his license to practice law was in effect, not so with Obama’s. The reason any attorney would voluntarily surrender his or her license to practice (Michele Obama is in the same boat classification) goes something like this: we have a solid case against you for some violation so we will give you the opportunity to voluntarily surrender your license or we will proceed against you.

Barack Hussein Obama would like you to embrace Sharia, so ask yourself this one question: Would you trust someone who’s license to practice law has been voluntarily surrendered? Yet if you are one of those that voted for him what will come when someone you know is in a case where Sharia is the law that governs? While you have been trampling the Constitution, it will be interesting how fast you look to it for protecting your freedoms that you have given up.

Freedoms given up to government are lost and you do not get them back.

Advertisements