Muslim radicalization
A Congressional committee has just commenced hearings to determine the extent of, and reasons for the radicalization of Muslims in America. It is puzzling to me that apparently the committee members, and perhaps the majority of Americans, regard Islam as a homogeneous group of people. I am certainly no expert on Mohammedenism, but a very cursory look at a few library books has revealed a few of the significant differences between some of the major groups which call themselves Muslims.
The major difference appears to be that between the Sunnis and the Shiites. This difference arose after the death of Mohammed in 632. One group, the Sunnis, claimed the successor to their prophet should be chosen by his followers. The Shiites, on the other hand, believed that the successor should be, basically, from the bloodlines of Mohammed. The two groups have been battling, physically and/or politically, ever since. Witness the present troubles in Bahrain – the ruling family is Sunnis, but many thousands of protesters are Shiites. And in Saudi Arabia the same division appears. And the almost forgotten bloody war between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – the Sunnis – and Iran, a Shiite nation, was further evidence of the survival of the centuries-old enmity between the two sects. Even when Spain was in the hands of the Muslims – the Moors– there were clashes between two groups of Muslims – the Arabs, the scholarly and leisure-loving masters of Andalucia – and the more war-like and crude Berbers.
The Shiites appear to be more dangerous to the American way of life than the Sunnis, although Osama Bin Ladin is said to be a Sunni. The difference between the terror groups allied to either of them might not be readily apparent. A basic difference is that the Shiites are bound, personally and politically, to their imams, and they firmly believe in theocracy, as it exists in Iran. The pronouncements of Ahmadinejad are certainly approved and, in effect, censored, by the Ayatollah Khomeini.
The Koran has been shown to not only approve, but to urge, the killing of infidels (you and me); and the Islamic law, the Sharia, set forth in the Koran, apparently specifies penalties for acts seen to be violations of the Koran. Thus, a woman accused of adultery may be stoned to death – a barbarous penalty. I don’t know if all, or only some, of the Muslims who are American citizens subscribe to such punishment, but I am told that England has in some places allowed Sharia courts to be established in Muslim areas. It seems to me that if “peace and brotherhood” is to be achieved, as President Obama desires, some of these things should be examined by the congressional committee. We have recently seen the accusation, right here in Phoenix, that a father allegedly ran down and killed his daughter because she had become “too Westernized.”
So far, the feeling of the congressmen appears to be that “a Muslim is a Muslim” without further question. I would hope that they would attempt a real assessment of the problem without simply producing political sound-bytes.
Ralph G. Smith | Cave Creek
Back
Alliance Defense Fund: House on firm ground to defend DOMA
House Speaker Boehner announces U.S. House will initiate legal defense in wake of Dept. of Justice’s refusal to do so
WASHINGTON – U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner announced March 9 that the House is initiating a legal defense of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The decision by the Obama administration last month to abandon defense of the law in several current lawsuits left the law without any legal defense.
“The American people deserve to have their laws defended. The House has stepped up to the plate where the Department of Justice has shirked its responsibility,” said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Brian Raum. “The House of Representatives has the legal authority to intervene in these lawsuits to defend the federal DOMA statute. Even though Congress passed it with overwhelming bipartisan support, the DOJ won’t defend it. That means that a rigorous defense by Congress is the best possible option.”
In a statement Wednesday, Boehner wrote, “Today, after consultation with the Bipartisan Leadership Advisory Group, the House General Counsel has been directed to initiate a legal defense of this law. This action by the House will ensure that this law’s constitutionality is decided by the courts, rather than by the President unilaterally.”
An order issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit on Feb. 25 cleared the existing briefing schedule in two critical cases involving the Defense of Marriage Act and asked whether Congress would defend the law now that the U.S. Department of Justice refuses to do so.
The 1st Circuit issued the order in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services and Gill v. Office of Personnel Management. ADF currently represents House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the cases in January which highlighted, even prior to the Feb. 24 letter from the DOJ, that the Defense of Marriage Act was in need of an adequate defense.
The act passed in 1996 by overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate and was then signed by President Bill Clinton. Forty-five states also have laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Voters in all 30 states that have sought to affirm marriage as one man and one woman in their state constitutions have overwhelmingly done so.
ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.
Visit www.domawatch.org for more information about ADF and the Defense of Marriage Act.
Back
Supreme Court weighs parental rights abuses by social workers, police
Washington – The United States Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday, March 1 in a pair of cases that could restrict the authority of social workers to interview and examine children without their parents’ knowledge and consent. Pacific Justice Institute filed an amicus brief in the cases in support of parental rights.
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, stated, “For years, we have heard from outraged parents whose children have been subjected to invasive questioning and embarrassing physical examinations at school and elsewhere, without the parents’ knowledge or consent. These cases are a critical opportunity to restrict unchecked governmental power and reassert parental authority.”
The cases arose in Oregon, where a social worker and police officer went to a child’s elementary school, pulled her out of class, and interrogated her for more than an hour about alleged abuse by her father. The child later said she only agreed that her father had abused her because the social worker would not accept any other response. The child was later removed from the home by the social worker and subjected to being undressed and invasively examined, and her mother was refused permission to be anywhere near her during the exam.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the social worker and police officer were shielded from liability for the interrogation at school, but that the social worker violated the Constitution by preventing the mother from being near her daughter during the physical examination, and that a jury should decide whether the social worker lied in order to get a court order removing the children from their home.
The Supreme Court is also considering another case this year that seeks to apportion liability between the State of California and the County of Los Angeles for trampling the rights of parents who were initially accused of child abuse by a rebellious teenager but later found to be completely innocent. In that case, the Ninth Circuit harshly criticized California’s Child Abuse Central Index. The CACI lists hundreds of thousands of Californians, preventing them from getting jobs, when many of them have never been charged – much less convicted – of child abuse or any other crime.
Dacus noted, “There is no question our society has a problem with child abuse that should be aggressively prosecuted and punished. The problem is that, unlike every other type of crime, parents are presumed guilty until proven innocent, and the government often destroys good families based on unfounded allegations that are never proved. We are hopeful the Supreme Court will restore the balance that is currently missing in this important area of the law.”
The amicus brief filed on behalf of Pacific Justice Institute was authored by prominent California parental rights attorneys Dennis Atchley, Donnie Cox, Shawn McMillan, David Beauvais and Paul Leehey.
Pacific Justice Institute
Back
I want to join a Union
Until I saw the thousands of loyal union members expressing solidarity by their courageous protests in Wisconsin, I had no idea of the great perks union membership entailed. Now that I do, I want in.
And not just any union – I want to join either a teacher's union or the government workers union. Imagine – if I belonged to either of those unions I would never be able to be fired. Not only that, no-one could complain about my work, or lack of work. And even if they did, the grievance process is so long that it wouldn't impact me for several years. My union brothers would stand beside me, no matter what. Even if they found out about that old felony conviction. (That conviction was totally unfair!)
In Arkansas, they're even paying a teacher to do nothing after they found out she had been convicted of prostitution. It's called "paid leave." How cool is that?
If I belonged to either of those unions, I would only have to pay for a fraction of my own health care, and I would even be exempt from Obamacare. Cradle to grave security. Where do I sign up? (Did I mention free Viagra?)
If I belonged those unions, my pay would be around 40 percent higher than those saps who work in the private sector. And if someone threatened to lower it, I'd have the President of the United States speak out on my behalf. Totally awesome!
If I belonged to those unions, I would have more power than my stupid boss. I'd be able to take him to task for oppressing the workers (me!) and everyone would automatically believe me and take my side. After all, everyone knows capitalism is evil and bosses profit off my misery. I'd be a victim, not an exploiter. My mom would finally be proud of me.
If I belonged to those unions, I'd be able to take the moral high ground. (Finally!) If you don't believe me, than you must be one of those idiots that watches Fox News. In case you haven't heard, Fox News lies. (I saw that on TV so I know its true)
I want to join one of those unions because then I'd be part of the community of man, a "worker of the world." I'd instantly be accepted as a valiant warrior fighting for the underdog. I'd have lots of new friends. Sure, I might have to actually work, but that's OK by me. As long as my rights are respected.
In return for all this, all I have to do is toe the union line. Hey, I don't have any problem being bussed to other states to picket when required. And the dues they take out of my paycheck will be used to buy politicians who are guaranteed to support the union cause. Small price to pay...
I won't even mind spending work time on political campaigns in order to elect officials that back unions. Going door to door might even help me lose the weight I gained right before my unemployment benefits ran out.
I want to be part of something important. I've been lonely too long. I yearn to fight for a righteous cause, like I did in the 60's. I want in. And just to let you know how serious I am, I'll even promise to vote for Obama, even though I think he's a joke.
Where can I sign up and when do the health perks kick in? I feel a cold coming on. (Just so you know, I don't need the Viagra)
Nancy Morgan | RightBias.com | South Carolina
Back
Labor Unions have become the Ku Klux Klan of yesteryear
It is becoming apparent that Labor Unions are losing more support in America. Now, Labor Unions and other radical left-wing groups have turned to intimidations as practiced by the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) of yesteryear.
The KKK first appeared in the South and practiced as a small group primarily following a bitter Civil War. That practice seemed to go away after some 10 to 20 years as America healed its' wounds. The KKK reappeared in the 1920s in a fight against Communism and any others whom KKK members believed to be attached to the Communist movement.
Again, that activity seemed to decrease and/or just went away. After World War II, the KKK reappeared in a fight against the Civil Rights movement and specifically, the black community. It was after President John F. Kennedy appointed his brother, Robert Kennedy, who formed a task force made up of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigators. With that team, Robert Kennedy legally confronted the KKK. After some aggressive investigations, prosecutions, and convictions on felonious crimes, the KKK seemed to vanish in the late 1960s and into the early 1970s.
It appears that the intimidations have reappeared under the names of Labor Unions rather than under the names of the Ku Klux Klan. These terrorists do not wear robes, do not burn crosses, but the acts of intimidation terrors practice the same. These terrorists end up under the names as Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and others.
In May, 2010, some 500 screaming SEIU members went onto Bank of America's General Counsel, Greg Baer's personal property and even on his front porch terrifying his 14 year-old son who was at home alone.
In January, protestors went to the home of Dick Knapp, an executive developer of a new Walmart store in Washington, D.C.
On February 17, at 7:30 a.m., some two dozen protestors swarmed onto Speaker of the House John Boehner's personal home chanting messages.
Folks, these are frightening intimidations.
These radical left-wing protestors went onto "personal property."
Where are the "main-stream" medias? Why are these acts of terror not the lead stories on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, etc.? Where are President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and his FBI? If the main-stream medias could create these accounts as conservatives intimidating liberals, there is no doubt that these stories would be the lead reports on a daily basis.
These radical left-wing protestors have decided to carry "Freedom of speech" beyond the business and political areas. These radicals are now imposing on personal properties as acts of terror. This continued activity will leave to deaths, either by the terrorists and/or the victims. It must end now!
Have we reached a time when Labor Union activities may be designated as acts of terror? Should their tax-status be re-evaluated and/or revoked? There is no room in a civil society for Labor Union activity or any other radical left-wing group(s) to deteriorate into history as the Ku Klux Klan.
Oscar Y. Harward | Monroe, North Carolina
Back
