Tag Archives: Sharia law

The Left’s Continuing War on Women

New York mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin attend a news conference in New YorkHuma Abedin learned from a young age that as a woman, she’s a second class citizen. Her value is not equal to that of a man, therefore she must tolerate whatever painful, humiliating or otherwise unpleasant treatment the man in her life decides to unleash upon her. Not only must she tolerate it, she must accept it as her due. She must not question it, fight it, or be seen to be upset by it.

Many people are wondering why she is standing by her philandering, pervert of a husband, Anthony Weiner. Some assume she’s taking notes from another “feminist”, Hillary Clinton, who’s also accepted second class status in favor of her powerful husband and that is probably true to a certain degree. But there is a far more sinister reason. Not only is Abedin a practicing Muslim, she was raised by a mother who is an ardent defender of Sharia Law, supporter of female genital mutilation, and a founding member of the Muslim Sisterhood, a Muslim Brotherhood women’s group.

In addition, Abedin’s mother Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is the longtime chairwoman of the International Islamic Committee for Women and Children (IICWC) which calls for, among other things, decriminalizing female genital mutilation, child marriage, polygamy for men, and child abuse. They also seek to disallow women from registering their newborns for a birth certificate by themselves because, according to Sharia Law, a child’s lineage belongs strictly to the father.

Huma Abedin has not actively participated in such blatant anti-woman advocacy, but neither has she distanced herself from it. For that matter, neither has her “feminist” mentor Hillary Clinton. During Clinton’s trip to Saudi Arabia last year, the Secretary of State visited and spoke at the Islamic college of Dar El-Hekma along with Huma, where Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin was a vice-dean and one of its founders.

While it’s unlikely that Huma is as big a fan of Sharia Law as her mother, there is no doubt these destructive and dangerous beliefs have heavily influenced her worldview, both personally and politically. While the left pretends women having to buy their own birth control is a “war on women”, the real war is being waged by those who don’t vehemently denounce the despicable behavior of men like Weiner and the mindset of women who are coerced by a perverted religion to embrace it.

Confederate Corner with George Neat June 4th – Liberals just cannot learn


When: Tuesday, June 4th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Confederate Corner with George Neat on Blog Talk Radio

What: Yes there are Confederates north of the Mason-Dixon line, and George Neat is one of them. And we’re happy to bring his views to you in the “Confederate Corner” radio show.

For more information on George and his political views, please drop by the Confederate Corner at GoldwaterGal.com. (http://goldwatergal.com/goldwater-gal-media/confederate-corner/)

Tonight: George will be talking about public education, guns, freedom of speech, and sharia law. Of course there will also be a Soldier Salute, and a “nearly-infamous” Crack Pipe Moment.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Sharia in America: Probation for Honor Beating

Last summer a Wisconsin pastor was sentenced to two years in prison for ‘telling’ his parishioners they should spank their children when they misbehave. The judge was appalled that Pastor Caminiti would tell parents to use a wooden spoon to discipline.

This week in Arizona a Muslim family was sentenced to two years probation for an ‘honor beating’.

There seems to be a discrepancy in the US. A tolerance for the intolerable. A true War on Women.

During the police investigation it was discovered that the family became upset when their teen daughter wanted out of an arranged marriage to a 38 year old man. The mother, father and another daughter beat, bound and burned the girl on her face and chest using a hot spoon. Despite the abuse the daughter defended her family to the judge, explaining it was part of their culture.

It appears that if one is beat following Sharia Law there will be little repercussion other than to slap the wrists pf the perpetrators and explain politely that such things are not done in the United States. BUT, if one tells others of the Biblical principle of ‘spare the rod; spoil the child’ that is is a crime, not defended under freedom of speech but instead punishable with jail time.

Something is wrong here. Our country is changing right before our eyes.

Palestine: Man Jailed for Eating During Ramadan

From the Palestinian Watch: Six people have been arrested and one sentenced to a month in prison for eating in public during the month of Ramadan, according to the official Palestinian Authority daily newspaper. Under Islamic law, eating is prohibited from sunrise until sunset during the entire month.

In addition, the Chairman of the PA Supreme Court for Shari’ah Law said PA law should prohibit even non-Muslims and those who cannot fast for health reasons from eating in public during the month. Sheikh Yusuf Ida’is explained: “Our streets are Islamic,” and formal legislation should be enacted to “severely punish” anyone who eats publicly during Ramadan.

The following is a Palestine TV interview with the Chairman of the Palestine Supreme Court for Shari’ah Law, Yusuf Ida’is:

TV host: If someone doesn’t fast for some reason [during Ramadan month] because he follows a different religion or has health reasons, it’s his right. However, he breaks the spirit of Ramadan by eating or drinking in public or at work.
Ida’is: We have to monitor the streets and severely punish anyone who [eats] in public during Ramadan, and this is the responsibility of the security forces. Our [Palestinian] streets are Islamic, praise Allah. Any person caught committing this sin in public during Ramadan has to be imprisoned until the end of Ramadan, as an example to others. I call upon others [non-Muslims] to be considerate of Muslims’ feelings.

In an area where more than one-quarter of the population is Christian or Jewish should all be expected to abide by Sharia Law? Will the same happen if Sharia Law is accepted in the United States?

It is not one world.


Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty

The International Conference on Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty, sponsored by American Freedom Alliance, concluded Monday in Los Angeles CA.

The chief question posed at the Conference’s opening: Is Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty the West’s next ideological war?

John Bolton, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN gave Sunday morning’s Keynote Speech. Ambassador Bolton spoke from first hand experience, sharing front line knowledge accumulated through years of engagement in international diplomacy. He not only gave definition to the term “the Global Governance Movement”, he also described its agenda, which is to subvert national sovereignty in favor of a supranational authority through the invention and initiation of international laws and norms.

After his speech, Ambassador Bolton welcomed Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for American Common Culture at the Hudson Institution, John Yoo, Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkley, Steven Groves, the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at the Heritage Institute’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, and Michael Shaw, guiding attorney for Freedom Advocates.org to the stage. The five elaborated intelligently on the consequences of increasing subservience by sovereign nations to the ideology of Global Governance. Both the political makeup and the ideological activism of the UN were indicted.

Following morning breakout sessions focused on:

  • Non-governmental organizations as purveyors of Global Governance
  • The Green Movement, Agenda 21, Global Warming alarmism and Global Governance
  • Who will control the Internet and who will control the seas

The afternoon was kicked off by a Keynote Speech by President Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. President Klaus spoke directly of the prospects of Global Governance and its European variant, the European Union. Drawing upon his experience as a leader of a former Soviet bloc country, President Klaus warned against the threat of independent sovereign states surrendering control to an un-elected, unaccountable extra-national governing body in a distant capitol.

Larry Greenfield, National Executive Director of the Jewish Institution for National Security Affairs, invited Robert O’Brien, Managing Partner of the Los Angeles office of Arent Fox LLP, Donald Kochan, Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Elan Journo, a fellow in foreign policy at the Ayn Rand Institute into a discussion about the politicization of international law and its impact on national sovereignty. Global and international law were identified as both threats to and the means by which national sovereignty is undermined.

Subsequent to afternoon breakout sessions focusing on:

  • The demonization/diminishment of the United States and Israel as a chief Global Governance strategy
  • Law-fare, international humanitarian law and their role in undermining sovereignty
  • The role of Islam in fostering and encouraging Global Governance

The Honorable John Howard, Australia’s 25th Prime Minister gave the day’s concluding Keynote Speech. The former Prime Minister discussed the concept of the nation state and why it still matters to countries that enjoy governance by popularly elected representative governments.

Sunday’s last panel, featuring President Klaus, Nonie Darwish, founder of Arabs for Israel, John Yoo and John Fonte discussed whether or not liberal democracies have the strength and will to defend their national sovereignty. The endurance of strong constitutions and distinct cultural identities were viewed as key elements in an ongoing uphill struggle by sovereign nation-states against the intrusions of Global Governance. Panelists considered these elements necessary to fending off the introduction and implementation of transnational ambitions by proponents of Global Governance.

The Conference reconvened Monday morning with a spirited discussion concerned with using the political process and judicial system to thwart and defeat Global Governance activism. A distinctly academic intellectual discussion about whether Constitutional Law was robust enough to prevent the political branches of government from violating the Constitution through treaties whose provisions conflict with constitutional guarantees was initiated by Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA School of Law. Professor Volokh gave an extensive portrayal of why the introduction of Sharia Law into the American judicial system is not threatening U.S. Constitutional rule of law. His observations were challenged by Larry Greenfield, Steven Groves and by John Yoo. Professor Volokh’s defense of his position was based primarily on viewing individual situations and circumstances as singular, isolated potential constitutional violations easily rationalized away by equating Islam’s ambitions to those of other, more benign religious institutions found in America. This approach was resounding rejected by Stephen Coughlin, a fellow of the American Freedom Alliance, who successfully portrayed the fallacy of ignoring the global dominance agenda openly preached and taught by proponents of Islamic global dominance under Sharia Law. Mr. Coughlin’s remarks received applause from Conference attendees.

After an address by Professor Mike Farris of Patrick Henry University on how Global Governance threatens the nuclear family through international laws and treaties, the Conference concluded with a reading of and discussion about the Conference Declaration.

The Declaration of Los Angeles: Sovereignty, Democracy and Individual Rights are Indivisible.

We, the undersigned, do hereby append our signatures to the statement below and declare:

THAT national sovereignty, constitutional democracy and the protection of individual rights are indivisible.

THAT constitutional democratic representative government is the most successful political system ever devised by the human mind.

THAT democratic self-government has only existed—and can only exist—within the sovereign liberal democratic nation state in which the people rule themselves.

THAT the principles of liberty, national independence and democratic self-government as articulated in Britain’s establishment of parliamentary democracy, the founding of the American republic, the establishment of the state of Israel, the achievement of dominion status in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the traditional national sovereignty of European democracies, and the continuing growth of liberal democracy in Asia, Latin America and Africa, are superior to any forms of global governance.

THAT the assertion of constitutional government’s obsolescence and decline is utterly false.

THAT while international cooperation should be encouraged and international treaties respected, no supranational authority which claims jurisdiction over liberal democratic states without the consent of the governed should be accepted.

THAT non-governmental organizations which purport to represent an international constituency do not have the legal or political authority to speak for the citizens of liberal democratic nation states, only democratically elected representatives have such legitimate democratic authority.

THAT the constitutions of our respective nations remain the supreme and inalienable law of our lands and if ever a conflict arises between our respective constitutions and any form of supranational authority (such as interpretations of international law, rulings of the United Nations, judgements of international courts, etc.), our Constitutions and constitutional principles will always prevail.

THAT we call on leaders of democratic nation states to reject the demands of transnational advocates to subsume domestic law to international law and stand together with us in upholding the principles of national sovereignty while rejecting the claims and arguments of global governance advocates.


Obama Ignores Sharia in America

Much has already been said by conservatives about Obama’s apparent disdain for following the Constitution, let alone protecting it. So, it is not surprising to find out that there are no particularly vocal statements against the implementation of sharia law, in any form, in the United States coming from the White House. In fact, it is fair to say that Obama is far more concerned with extending an open hand to Islam, as opposed to lifting a finger to stop it.

Obama Quran

Richard Loyal French (CC)

This administration’s foreign policy on Islam is virtually non-existent, in the sense that it is largely handled on a nation by nation basis, as opposed to viewing the Islamic world as a single ideological entity. That is probably part of the reason why one needs to stick with media sources outside the mainstream to find out about things like suicide bomber auctions in Saudi Arabia. But, perhaps the primary reason lies in the left-wing’s belief that Islam – the moderate variety – is not a threat to the U.S.

While many on the right are harping on Obama’s publicity biography from the 1990’s, a little story probably slipped by unnoticed. Kansas is considering outlawing the recognition of sharia law, and CAIR is not happy about that. They have asked the governor of Kansas to not sign that law. It makes perfect sense that this organization should involve itself in this, because part of its mission is to protect the rights of Muslims to observe their faith. The left would be very happy if everyone would just sit back, and let CAIR do its job, too.

It is discrimination, according to the left and Obama, to prevent Muslims from freely observing their faith. Sharia law is part and parcel with that, so there should be no objections to it being legally recognized in this country. Of course the Thomas More Law Center would disagree with that. They have dedicated a great deal of time and effort to the task of protecting the rights of Americans, in particular, against the imposition of sharia law in this country. They have a problem with non-Muslim children being forced to learn the ways of Islam, and to accept those ideological tenets, for one example.

The leftist love affair with Islam, and in particular, CAIR, only serves to depict our nation as weak. In the name of being politically correct, the administration turns a blind eye to that organization, as it “demonizes” our country on Iranian television. It is no wonder that the Obama administration had to leave nuclear negotiations with Iran to Russia. The president has declared the end of the war on terror, and has heralded a new era of friendship with the Islamic world. Obama, yet again, fails to notice that the very people he is attempting to engage with peacefully are quietly getting what they wanted all along – they are engaged in stealth jihad, using our own courts against us when they can. And Obama is doing nothing to stop it.

More judicial tyranny in Sharia law ruling

When judges are deciding cases in American courts, you’d think we would want to limit them to using laws that were enacted by our elected representatives.  Not so according to U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange.  In fact, she believes it could actually be unconstitutional.

In the 2010 election, the voters of Oklahoma approved an amendment to that state’s constitution that would prohibit judges from consulting international law or religious law in making their decisions.  Of course, the primary concern for its authors – and the main source of controversy – is that this measure specifically states that it would ban the use of Islamic Sharia law in courts.

It seems reasonable that Oklahomans would want to force judges to only use laws that they had some hand in creating.  But Judge Miles-LaGrange has blocked enforcement of the “Save our State” amendment because she believes it is likely unconstitutional.  And last week, a federal court in Denver upheld her decision.

Unfortunately, this is simply a case where opponents of the Save our State amendment are upset that they couldn’t win at the ballot box.  So now they are trying to use the courts as a way to overturn the will of the people.

It’s beyond clear that this amendment is Constitutional, so let’s look at some of the objections to it and why they are absurd:

It’s unnecessary – This one is my favorite.  Some critics of this amendment claim that, since judges aren’t supposed to consult international and religious law anyway, there’s no reason to prohibit it.  As the decision from the 10th Circuit explains:

“Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted . . . that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma.”

This is interesting.  At what point did it become a judge’s job to decide if a law was necessary?  If this is a new standard that judges are going to implement, I can’t wait to see it applied to the useless environmental regulations that progressives insist on passing.  Light bulb ban? Unconstitutional!  Stopping a development to save the snail darter?  Unconstitutional!  Limits on how much energy your cell phone charger can use? Unconstitutional!!!  Wow – this is going to be fun.

The point of this amendment was to reinforce the point that – even though judges were never given the power to consult other legal systems – they people of Oklahoma seriously don’t ever want them to do it.  If that is unconstitutional, then we definitely need to go back and revisit the First Amendment.

One of the major arguments against passing a Bill of Rights was that it was unnecessary.  Why should we pass amendments that prohibit the government from doing things it doesn’t have the authority to do in the first place?

As Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist #84:

“For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?  Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed.”

Despite Hamilton’s feelings that it was unnecessary, the Bill of Rights was adopted anyway.  Shockingly enough no judge has ruled those amendments unconstitutional for violating this mysterious “necessity clause” that no one can find but Judge Miles-LaGrange.

Just because a law or an amendment is unnecessary doesn’t make it unconstitutional.  Anyone with the background to become a federal judge ought to understand that.  Then again, maybe the judges in the 10th Circuit aren’t familiar with obscure examples like the Bill of Rights.

No judges are consulting Sharia law – Those who oppose the Save our State amendment love to demand that someone give them an example of Sharia law being cited in Oklahoma to prove the need for this law.  If there isn’t one, they claim, that must mean the only reason for passing it is an evil hate-mongering desire to discriminate against Muslims.

And while they are correct that no one in Oklahoma has cited Sharia law, other U.S. courts have.  In 2010 a man was accused of sexually assaulting his wife, but a New Jersey judge found that he didn’t do it based on Sharia law:

“This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”

Fortunately, this ruling was overturned by a higher court.  But it is simply untrue to claim that “no one” is consulting Sharia law in making judicial rulings.  When you add that to the numerous times that our Supreme Court has cited international laws, it is beyond reasonable that citizens would want to make it clear that using foreign law is not a practice that is acceptable in Oklahoma.

It violates the Freedom of Religion – Apparently the argument here is, since the amendment specifically states that Sharia law is not to be used in court decisions, that unfairly discriminates against Islam.

That’s nonsense.  The relevant part of the First Amendment states that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

The purpose of this measure is to prohibit the use of all religious law in courts – so obviously it doesn’t violate the First Amendment by establishing a state religion in any conceivable way.

The plaintiff in this case, Muneer Awad, claims that as a Muslim it will restrict him from exercising his religion.  Once again, that’s nonsense.  This amendment bans judges from consulting Sharia law.  It’s not a ban on Sharia law.  If the plaintiff wants to follow Sharia law in his personal life, he has every right to do so all he wants (provided that he doesn’t break the law in the process).  But he doesn’t have a right to have his belief system codified into law or recognized as law in a court.

This amendment doesn’t establish a state religion nor does it prohibit the plaintiff – or anyone else – from exercising his religion – so it clearly doesn’t violate the First Amendment.  This isn’t complicated.

Perhaps my favorite critique of the Save our State amendment comes from University of Oklahoma law professor Rick Tepker.  He managed to combine smug, self-righteous arrogance with mind-blowing stupidity in a way that makes me smile every time I read his comments:

“Many of us who understand the law are scratching our heads this morning, laughing so we don’t cry,” said University of Oklahoma law professor Rick Tepker. “I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn’t that a precept of another culture and another nation?”

This guy has to be intentionally trying to make this issue confusing.  No, the passing of this amendment doesn’t mean that judges can no longer consult the Ten Commandments in their decision making – because they shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.

Sure, the Ten Commandments make up part of the foundation for our legal system.  Yes, they provide a great source of inspiration for the values that have made this nation great.  And they are a brilliant source of wisdom to guide us while we are making our laws.  But judges should not be citing the Ten Commandments as the basis of their decision making.  That’s why we have laws.

In other words, a judge can’t decide to convict someone of – say – adultery because it violates the 7th Commandment.  There would actually have to be a law prohibiting adultery.

Muslims won’t be able to have their wills executed properly – This argument is just outright silly.  Zombie at Pajamas Media nailed the reasons why:

In your will, you can leave your assets to anyone, for any reason. You can cite Muslim law, or your personal conscience, or a dream you once had, or baseless paranoia, or no reason whatsoever to leave all your assets to your children, or your cat, or the Flat Earth Society, or even leave instructions to have it all buried with you in your casket. If the will is determined to be a valid will, no ban on Sharia will be able to challenge it.

The only exception to that is when a person wants something done in their will that would violate the law.  In that case, it doesn’t matter if this amendment is upheld or not – the will shouldn’t be executed either way.

The fact that two courts have blocked the Save our State amendment from being enacted is simply judicial tyranny.  The only explanation for the ruling in this case is that the judges don’t approve of this law politically, so they’ve have created an excuse to block it.

It is this type of ruling – where judges allow their own point of view to take over instead of staying faithful to the intent of the Constitution – that has rendered the First Amendment almost unrecognizable.  Originally, the First Amendment was intended to ensure that the government had no ability to restrict any individual in practicing their religion or to establish a state religion.  According to modern judges, that same amendment now means that a student can’t even mention the word God during a speech at his high school graduation… but hey, we must leave the door open to using the Koran as a law book in courts of law.

Gosh, I can’t imagine why the voters of Oklahoma felt the need to further instruct judges on the limits of their power.

10th Circuit Says Oklahoma’s Anti-Sharia Law Un-Constitutional

The U S 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling by U S District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LeGrange that Oklahoma State Question 755, passed on November 2, 2010, is unconstitutional. The State Question was passed by 70% of the voters of the State of Oklahoma to ban the use of Shari Law, International Law, or the laws of any foreign country in the state.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed a lawsuit saying the question discriminated against Muslims in Oklahoma. In the original filing, CAIR’s Oklahoma director called the bill a case of “anti-Muslim bigotry”.

“This is an important reminder that the Constitution is the last line of defense against a rising tide of anti-Muslim bigotry in our society, and we are pleased that the appeals court recognized that fact,” said Muneer Awad. “We are also hopeful that this decision serves as a reminder to politicians wishing to score political points through fear-mongering and bigotry.”

The 10th Circuit agreed with Judge Miles-LeGrange and upheld her ruling in an opinion released on January 10, 2012.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said that states have the right to establish their own court systems and have a say in which sets of laws are followed.

“With the decision by the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a temporary stay of State Question 755, the case will return to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to determine its constitutionality,” Attorney General Scott Pruitt said. “My office will continue to defend the state in this matter and proceed with the merits of the case.”

Muslim Brotherhood/CAIR Caught on Video Organizing Occupy Orlando

The United West investigative team recently went to the Occupy Orlando protests to try to understand just what the protesters were trying to achieve there. What they stumbled upon was quite informative, as you can tell by the following video:

This “Terror Alert” video will detail some “dots” that need connecting, in order to see the complete picture of what may be a move by a Muslim activist to take over control of “Occupy Orlando,” in the “spirit of the Arab Spring.”




For those of you whom are not familiar with Mr. Shayan Elahi , he is a Muslim activist lawyer who represented the father of the young Muslim girl in Ohio who ran away from home because she believed her parents would kill her for converting to Christianity. (Rifqa Bary) The United West folks know Mr. Elahi well, as they have had numerous confrontations with him before concerning. the Rifqa Bary case and attempts to install Sharia law into the United States judicial system.

The United West team sums up the Muslim Brotherhood’s involvement in Occupy Orlando event as follows:

Once we watched Shayan Elahi in action, running around, signing up speakers, providing direction, telling people what to do, we started to connect the dots to the stated Face Book Mission Statement of “Occupy Orlando,” which reads, “…we plan to use the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic of mass occupation to restore democracy in America.

So, here we have a Muslim attorney who collaborated with the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Rifqa Bary case, the same CAIR that is an unindicted co-conspirator, the same CAIR that is HAMAS, the same HAMAS that was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Huge hat tip to The United West team for exposing these facts about the Occupy Wall Street sister group, Occupy Orlando, whose protests  are being run by a Muslim brotherhood lawyer-activist. United West has vowed to continue to expose the Muslim brotherhood’s involvement in the Occupy Wall Street/ Occupy Orlando protests. Where is the Florida/ National media on this? They simply refuse to report on the fact that we see right on Video evidence of The Muslim Brotherhood taking over/organizing the Occupy Orland0 protests to turn it into an Egypt-style Arab Spring. (Picture at left is of Mohammed el-Baradei visiting the Muslim Brotherhood office in ..Cairo Egypt.) What say you Fox13 here in Florida? How about anyone in the media reporting on this  huge news story?






Glenn Beck Comes Out Swinging with New GBTV Show

Glenn Beck is back on the airwaves as promised, as this week he launched GBTV.

The first show was broadcast across his internet TV channel as America was revisiting the 911 Muslim terrorist attacks on America in memorials across the nation. Beck’s first target was President Obama’s fake jobs bill and our economy.

THE TRUTH About Our Economy

Next up, Beck takes on The Muslim Brotherhood, creeping Sharia law and the disgraceful perversion of the civil rights movement by the radical social engineering puppets within our society and very own government!

Glenn Beck is now free from the censorship of the big government media puppets and big corporation political correctness that masquerade as the mainstream news organizations of today. Like him or hate him, Beck delivers hard-hitting, fact-filled exposure of big government and their propagandist brainwashing of the dumbed down masses by controlling the media, with an always-present dose of historical context and reality that is hard to deny. Love him or hate him, realists can not deny the value of Glenn Beck’s shows in helping to expose the radical Socialist element of today’s fake Democratic Party in America.

Note: Glenn Beck’s new TV show is free for the first two weeks when you sign up here. Free, no strings attached, cancel at anytime.

Allen West vs. CAIR Round 2

Rep. Allen West held a town-hall meeting last night in Florida, and once again a representative from CAIR showed up with their standard leftist talking points disguised as questions. If  you missed the beginning of this ideological battle between LCT West and CAIR you can see it here. In keeping with CAIR’s leftist tactics of trying to discredit/ marginalise a true American Patriot such as 22-year military vet Rep. Allen West, we see that West does not back down an inch from the truth being told. This man has been there and done that, he has seen firsthand the dangers and oppression inherent in the Radical Ideology and no one is going to *blow smoke up his butt* and tell him otherwise.

Recently, a bus in Israel was blown up, one woman killed and many more injured by the so-called religion of peace. The Fogel family was murdered and a 3-year old baby had his throat slit by these same fanatics operating under the guidelines of Jihadist war against non-Muslims that is outlined in the Koran. CAIR can send every leftist-talking-point propagandist they have in their arsenal at West, but this true Patriot Warrior will never back down. Hold your ground Colonel, we have your back. In the meantime, tighten up your security, and keep your M1911 .45 handy, as these people do not like being exposed by infidels who will not bend to their will.  America needs true leadership, so watch your back please.

After being made complete fools of in their first encounter with Col. West, one would think CAIR would have learned from that tactical mistake, but no, in keeping with the leftist tactics of trying to discredit anyone with an opposite view, they sentanother misguided puppet of Islam to do try to engage in a battle of  will against Col. West once again last night. The results were quite the same, as we saw in round one of this battle of attrition, in the above linked video. Here is the West vs CAIR puppets round 2 video:

With true Patriotic Americans such as Rep. Allen West fighting for America, it certainly does look like we are Winning the Future for all Americans.

LTC Allen West’s Visit to Gitmo Quite Revealing

               Florida Congressman Allen West (R-FL) went down to Guatanimo Bay, Cuba recently and reports back his observations, not only as a Congressman, but also as a 22 year U. S. Military officer whom has served in Operation Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Afghanistan. Rep. West exposes the many myths and misconceptions about Gitmo today in his weekly wrap-up newsletter, in which he keeps his constituents informed of  just what he is doing each week on their behalf, and is quite detailed and refreshing. I would like to see more representatives make their weekly official-duties-performed newsletters availiable to the people they are supposed to serve. This is called accountability, and we see very little true accountability from the majority of our members of Congress today. In the Congressman’s newsletter, the following quotes pretty much summarize what he encountered in his first ever trip to Gitmo:

   “There are many misconceptions and pre-conceived notions about the detention facility at GITMO. Every American should be absolutely proud of our men and women in uniform serving at GITMO because  their discipline and professionalism is above reproach.”

   “The video footage shown on most news reels is not showing the current camps occupied in GITMO. The old Camp X-Ray, also known as Camps 1-3, is no longer in use. There are now new state-of-the-art facilities affording the detainees 21 satellite TV stations, access to Skype and cell phone, mail, bountiful food, up to 20 hours of communal living (I toured an active communal living block), and medical care.” 

     Rep. West also compares the life of Gitmo detainees, (of which 95% of them have been proven to have been waging Jihad against America, or having had ties to terrorist organizations), with the lives of our very own soldiers who have been imprisoned for alleged transgressions committed during wartime. He expresses his anger about this double standard in the following statement:

    “In contrast, I think of our own American Warriors such as Lieutenant Michael Behenna who is serving 15 years in Fort Leavenworth prison for killing a known Al Qaeda terrorist in Iraq. I also consider the plight of young Army Private Corey Claggett who has been held in solitary confinement for over a year. The conditions at Fort Leavenworth are not nearly as comfortable. Something else that deeply angers me…at GITMO, 24-year-old Omar Khadr will serve one more year before being released to his native Canada, even though he was found “guilty” of five war crimes, including killing an American serviceman in Afghanistan. Upon release to Canada, the maximum time he will serve is seven years. What message does that send to our men and women in uniform? “

      An American soldier is serving 15 years in prison in Levenworth, Kansas for killing an Al Qaeda terrorist, while Omar Khadr , whom was found guilty of five war crimes and the killing of American Soldiers in Afghanistan, will be free to kill again next year. What kind of a country have we become to let these kinds of politically correct injustices be done to our Soldiers fighting to protect America ? Private Clagett sits in solitary confinement for over a year, while these murderers sit in Club Gitmo with better medical care than the average American taxpayer can afford, with satellite tv and a custom engineered schedule taylored to their so-called peaceful religion of Islam?  The whole idea behind the  incarceration of someone is to deter them from continuing to commit the acts that landed them there in the first place, not reward them with a life of comfort. The people behind these kinds of acts of politically correct ideology in dealing with terrorists are only emboldening these Jihadists to continue murdering Americans, due to the fact that these terrorists now see that they will not be truly held accountable for their actions. America is too weak and leaderless to take swift action against terrorists, is what they see. We may as well post signs all across Iraq and Afghanistan that say, “Kill a few Americans and win a freee trip to Club Gitmo. where

Florida Moves to Stop *Creeping Sharia Law*

Florida State Senator Alan Hays and Rep. Larry Metz recently announced legislation that will protect all Floridians’ Constitutional rights against the infiltration or injection of any foreign laws or legal doctrines from other countries. While there are already many visible examples of this happening in America today, some choose to deny this reality, and the need to prevent the laws of other countries from being injected into America any further.

CAIR, or Council on American-Islamic Relations, denounces anyone who stands up for the right of Americans to live by our own laws and Constitution.

Senator Hays explains his stance and reason for proposing this legislation as this:

“I filed a bill that says in the courts of Florida the laws of no other country can be used to influence the decisions of Florida,” Hays said. “If it’s Sharia law or any other law – I don’t care what law it is – if it’s not a Florida law and if it’s some foreign law, it doesn’t belong in our courts.” (emphasis mine)

Right away, some people try to paint this as  an attack on one group or another to denounce it, such as one Mr. Nezar Hamze of South Florida chapter of CAIR, saying it is some kind of stealth attack on Muslims. CAIR is using Alisnkey-ish tactics to bully and denounce anyone standing up for American laws and culture today. An attack on Senator Hays was aided by the liberal Miami Herald in a post titled:  Lawmakers target Islamic Sharia law*. In the post, misinformation and lack of journalistic integrity are displayed throughout – a disservice to the whole State of Florida and America. Marc Caputo was busy putting the Muslim-oriented, leftist anti-American spin into the  article demonstrating the true story behind it, perhaps in a way he never intended us to see:

”   One reason Sharia isn’t mentioned in the bill is due to the U.S. Constitution’s ban on religious discrimination or favoritism. Citing the First Amendment, a federal judge recently blocked a voter-approved Oklahoma law targeting Sharia.” (emphasis mine)

A Federal Judge going against the wishes of the people who voted for this law is somehow being spun into a good thing there. Thus the danger of self-righteous appointed federal Judges sticking their noses into State law-making decisions. This new legislation will take those types of decisions out of play down here in Florida. Sen. Hays and Rep. Metz are to be commended, no matter what Mr. Hamze or the Miami Herald say about it. This is America, and if you refuse to live by American law, dont let the door hit you in the backside on the way back to your third world countries and their oppression- laden cultures.

Also found in the Herald article is Mr. Hamze looking like a foolish hypocrite when he stated the following:

“It’s absurd. I’ve never even heard of a court using Sharia law in making a ruling in a case,” Hamze said. “If it is intended to combat people’s fear of Islamic law, it does a poor job … because it does not mention Islam or Sharia but it does mention foreign law, which affects all religions, not just Islam, because you have Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu laws.”

Actually, Mr. Hamze, is the fact thatyou conviently choose to ignore several problems that have already occurred in Florida courts, due  precisely to attempts of Sharia law trying to be injected into Florida. It took all of two minutes to find an example from USATODAY.com**

A Florida judge ruled Friday that a Muslim woman cannot wear a veil in her driver’s license photo, agreeing with state authorities that the practice could help terrorists conceal their identities.

Sultaana Freeman arrives at the Orange County courthouse in Orlando
By Peter Cosgrove, AP

Attempts to inject forms of Sharia law and culture into Florida laws are obvious. There is a pressing need for Senator Hays’ leglislation to stop it from infecting Florida any further. Call up Senator Hays and the rest of your Florida representatives today and tell them you support this leglislation. It is for the good of all Floridians, and Americans across the country who tire of American culture and laws being changed to suit assorted radicals like Mr. Hamze. We are no longer going to stand by and watch our country be degraded and destroyed by these types of people. Thank you again Senator Hays and Rep. Metz.

UPDATE: 3/22/2011

Florida Judge Orders Use of Islamic Law in Mosque Case

TAMPA — A Tampa judge is under fire after ruling that he will follow Islamic law in a case against a local mosque that ultimately could decide who controls $2.2 million in state money.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Florida Judge Orders Use of Islamic Law in Mosque Case


Look out, World…It’s Burkha Barbie!

The New Oppressed Version of Barbie

I can just hear the commercials now:

“Hey, Girls!   Are you tired of having to drape a washcloth over your barbie when playing ‘Barbie and Ken love Sharia?’ Now you don’t have to!  Your Babie doll can now come complete with a hijab that covers her beautiful face lest Ken look upon her with desire….”

I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw this article, “It’s Barbie in a burkha: World-famous doll gets a makeover to go under the hammer for 50th anniversary

I remember reading about the first changes Barbie had to undergo when they marketed the doll in the Orient.  It was logical, of course. There are no five foot, eight-inch tall blond-haired blue-eyed oriental women and the doll just sat on the shelves in Chinese and Japanese toy stores.

I remember when Barbie began to emulate women from all over the world in appearance and costume. It was a good thing. Often times the doll would wear the traditional costume of that culture and it was a learning experience for our daughters all over the world. I know I loved them. They were beautiful; but this is taking it too far.

Barbie has always represented the progressive American woman. She had her own mansion, she had her own jeep, she had various careers and an amazing wardrobe. Barbie also had a Ken doll, but he never really made it as her husband in our culture.  He was just kind of a “boy-on-the-side”, wasn’t he?  While I played often with my Barbie dolls, and even played Barbie “goes on a date” with Ken, I never really needed Ken to be happy with my Barbie collection. It was all about the clothing and accessories.

Well now some lucky little Italian girls will be able to play with their Barbies “appropriately”.

Clothing: Check!

Accesories: Check!

Amazing Shoes for Perfectly Arched and Dainty Foot: Check – infinity! (oh, yes, it is all about the shoes…)

Now dress her up, kids, but don’t forget to drape her underneath her Hijab. We don’t want anyone to actually SEE your Barbie.  They might like the way she looks.

In the article referenced above, they used a clever phrase to describe hidden-from-view Barbie. She’s going “under cover”. Isn’t that cute? Well, here’s a wake-up call, Italy.  Spies go “under cover”. Strong independent warriors who work overseas to keep our country informed and policemen who are trying to infiltrate crime rings go under cover.

Muslim women under the Hijab are not “under cover”. They are oppressed. Shrouded. Secluded. Mistreated.

From the article:  “The company director of Laird Assessors from The Wirral, Cheshire, said: ‘Bring it on Burkha Barbie, I think this is a great idea.  I think this is really important for girls, wherever they are from they should have the opportunity to play with a Barbie that they feel represents them.”

Really? Even if what their playing with represents a life of bondage???

While I tend to agree with Cheshire in regards to the importance of girls identifying with their toys, I think she is out of touch with the realities of Islam. How this is possible is beyond my understanding when Italy’s own Oriana Fallaci wrote continuously about the dangers of the invasion of Islam and Sharia law upon her soil.  Cheshire must have never read any of Fallaci’s works, or Fallaci was tragically correct when she said that her society was in danger.  Why else would a career woman like Cheshire be so deceived that she would encourage the glorification of a symbol of sorrow?

Shouldn’t a girl play with a toy that gives her hopes and dreams to become something wonderful? A girl should have a doll that encourages her, not condemns her to a life of non-identity. Women are only allowed to remove the coverings within their homes, or in the houses of women friends whose husbands are not presently at home.

{Already that causes my eyes to sting with the tell-tale signs of tears.  They are “allowed”…} Does no one see what an imprisoned life this is?

You may be seen in your house, but nowhere else. Prison.

If you leave, you must cover yourself with this cloth. Prison.

Can you hear the women now, so brainwashed into thinking that it is appropriate that they are thanking their husbands for the generosity of providing the revealing eye screen so they won’t trip over things wherever they go?

Why is it that so many Islamic women are condemned to this lifestyle?

To quote cleric Nasser Al-Huneini, “If revealing a woman’s face might lead to temptation and other things, it is forbidden. In addition, even when they permitted the revealing of the woman’s face, they placed restrictions on this.  Even Sheik Al-Albani did so.  The woman is not allowed to expose her neck or her hair. She is not allowed to appear with make-up or jewelry.”

In essence, women are draped in coverings for the sake of men who refuse to control their cravings and lust. Instead, they punish the woman for being. She is punished for being beautiful. She is punished for being attractive. She is punished for being lovely.

Every honest man would say that it isn’t what is seen that drives men wild. It is what is NOT seen.  To wonder at what lies beneath a woman’s clothing is the very thing that gets his blood pressure going, and anyone who has done a modicum of research knows that it is what is left to the imagination that men are attracted to. It is my personal opinion that seeing women walk around underneath such concealing items will only push a man to imagine himself into a frenzy. And now we are going to teach our little girls that it is appropriate to punish the woman for being born pretty instead of teach our little boys to control their eyes. It’s always been rude to stare, remember?

While I do not endorse skimpy clothing, and have even had my concerns about the non-realistic body of the Barbie doll, I have never prevented my own children from playing with them and I would certainly never endorse the shrouding of even a doll’s body and face in cloth.

What is next? Will Ken now come with his own stick to beat Barbie when he doesn’t know what else to do with her independent ways, and his own jeep to run her over in an attempt at an honor killing if she becomes “too western”?

The Hijab is a violation of women’s rights.  A cruel creation designed to keep a woman’s unique appearance, delicate grace, and loveliness hidden from view.

It is NOT a toy.

And Heaven help us if this idea comes to America.

Ms. Eliana Lorena with her designs.