Monday, October 5, 2015
Obama's Gun Hate Speech Missed Some Vital Points. He Could Not Mention Them As They Would Not Help His Goal Of Total Gun Confiscation.
What Obama didn’t say in his gun-grabbing rant
For the elected and bureaucrat class, there is no problem that cannot be fixed by yet another law. If one law is in place to prevent a thing and the thing occurs anyway, two more will certainly do the trick.
If three laws don’t stop it, three more surely will. If six laws aren’t enough, surely one — or six — more is enough.
This is the way liberty is lost, one law at a time. One law leads to another and another and another. And then, one day, a once-free nation finds itself in bondage.
It’s called gradualism. It’s a time-honored practice of the ruling class. They are content to set events in motion knowing they will not come to fruition in their lifetime, but will mature 50 years or 100 years down the road.
That’s because the people rarely accept tyranny in one fell swoop. It has to come slowly and imperceptibly, or the people will resist and rebel. Gradualism reduces the shock potential and numbs the senses to the reality that is transpiring all around, no matter how serious the consequences. It neutralizes the mind and numbs the senses to reality.
Investigators were still sorting out how many were dead and wounded in the Umpqua Community College shootings Thursday afternoon and the narcissistic undocumented usurper currently despoiling the people’s House was already going before the cameras politicizing the incident — and admittedly doing so — by calling for more gun laws and blaming guns in a vacuous and fallacious self-promotional philippic.
He said little of consequence in his twelve-minute tirade. Not much of what he said was on point, and less of it was true. But he revealed that deep within his soul his goal is gun confiscation.
“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings,” said he. “Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”
And what laws did Great Britain and Australia craft to “almost eliminate mass shootings?” They passed gun confiscation laws. That is Barack Obama’s — and the gun-grabber crowd’s — ultimate aim. Yet curiously, despite those laws, mass shootings in those countries have still occurred.
But in the meantime, he’ll settle for something less, knowing that it is one more step toward tyranny. It’s sleight of hand. Look at the left hand, which holds the big thing. Ignore the right, which is doing the actual dirty work.
It doesn’t matter if the thing he gets would not prevent another mass shooting — or a shooting of any kind. He’s happy as long as he getssomething that makes it harder for the law-abiding citizen to protect himself, which would then turn him into another ward of the state. Unarmed dependents are much easier for the social Marxists and oppressors to control.
There was more that the narcissist in chief did not say than he did. Not mentioned in Obama’s charade tirade was the fact that there are already federal and state laws against murder. There are federal and state laws against using a weapon for illegal purposes. There are already federal and state laws in Oregon requiring a background check before a weapons purchase can be completed. (Not known as I’m writing is how the shooter obtained his weapons.) There is already a state law requiring a permit to carry a handgun. The campus was a gun-free zone. It had policies prohibiting carrying a weapon on campus.
In other words, the shooter (who will not here be named) likely violated half a dozen laws or more in carrying out his deed. Yet in the world of the gun grabber, one more law would surely be the one that makes a difference. Though they never say what those laws might entail.
Obama did not mention that the shooter was targeting Christians for murder: the second mass shooting in recent months in which Christians were targeted specifically (though the first was propagandized as racist rather than anti-Christian). This would qualify it as a “hate crime.” There are already federal laws against “hate crimes.”
Obama did not mention that the shooter comes from a broken home. He is British, and his white father and black mother were not married, had apparently never been, and his birth father was not in the picture from the time of his birth. Criminality and broken homes go hand in hand.
Obama did not mention that the shooter in online posts showed an affinity for a terrorist organization — the Irish Republican Army — and praised the homosexual lunatic failed reporter who shot down two of his co-workers in Virginia.
Obama did not mention that shooter was a graduate of The Switzer Learning Center in Torrance, California, which, according to the Los Angeles Times, teaches students with special needs, emotional disturbances, autism, Asperger’s syndrome and other issues. According to its website, the school “has a long history of working with children who have been unsuccessful in traditional classrooms because they need the special attention and encouragement that only a school like Switzer can provide.”
Obama did not mention that more and more evidence — despite efforts by Big Pharma, Big Food, the government and the propaganda media to cover it up — links autism, Asperger’s and other mental conditions to vaccines, FDA-approved drugs and genetically modified foods and chemicals in the packaging.
If he had emotional issues or autism or Asperger’s, the shooter was likely on a psychotropic drug. Obama did not mention that psychotropic drugs — including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — are a common denominator in mass shootings. Aurora movie theater shooter James Holmes, Columbine killer Eric Harris and a host of other mass-murdering young killers were on some type of psychotropic drugs when they committed their crimes.
According to a study published in the journal PLoS One and based on the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System, the following mind-altering drugs are most frequently linked to violence:
10. Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq) is an antidepressant associated with 7.9 times more violence than many other drugs. 9. Venlafaxine (Effexor) is related to Pristiq and is an antidepressant also used in treating those with anxiety disorders. Effexor is 8.3 times more associated with violent behavior than other drugs. 8. Fluvoxamine (Luvox) is an antidepressant that affects serotonin (SSRI), and is 8.4 times more likely to be linked to violence than other medications 7. Triazolam (Halcion) can be addictive and is a benzodiazepine that supposedly treats insomnia. It’s 8.7 times more likely to be associated with violence than other medications. 6. Atomoxetine (Strattera) is often prescribed to tread ADHD and is 9 times more likely to be associated with violence. 5. Mefoquine (Lariam) treats malaria and sometimes products bizarre behavior, and is 9.5 times more likely to be linked to violence. 4. Amphetamines come in many forms and are often used to treat ADHD (even to children not diagnosed with ADHD). They are 9.6 times more likely to be linked to violence. 3. Paroxetine (Paxil) is an SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) antidepressant. Many users experience severe withdrawal symptoms and are more likely to produce children with birth defects as well as 10.3 times more likely to be linked to violence than other medications. 2. Fluoxetine (Prozac) is a household name for a powerful SSRI antidepressant linked with 10.9 times more violence than other drugs. 1. Varenicline (Chantix) is administered to smokers to supposedly help curb cigarette cravings, but it’s a whopping 18 times more likely to be linked to violent behavior than other drugs.
The website SSRIstories.org lists thousands of violent events carried out by people on these chemical agents and others.
Obama did not mention that a typical weekend in his adopted hometown of Chicago — which has some of the strongest gun laws in the country — sees as many killed and wounded every weekend as were killed and wounded in Oregon on Thursday.
Obama did not mention that more people are killed each year by hands and feet than by rifles and shotguns combined, and more are killed by knives than rifles and shotguns combined, but he wants to ban so-called “assault weapons,” which are used in a miniscule number of annual murders. And Obama would have you believe that guns are used to kill people at a higher rate in the U.S. than in other places, but he won’t tell you that if you take out black-on-black crime, the U.S.’s rate is among the lowest in the industrial world, as I told you in “Statistics don’t lie, but gun grabbers do.”
And finally, Obama did not mention that more than 316 million Americans and more than 108 million American gun owners did not shoot anyone on Thursday — or any other day — nor will they ever.
That’s because shootings are carried out by less than half of one-tenth of 1 percent of people. Yet Obama and the gun grabbers are targeting all of the 108 million or so law-abiding gun owners for the crimes of less than one-tenth of 1 percent. But because those who would commit a gun crime are criminals and, by definition, criminals don’t obey laws, no amount of new laws would prevent mass shootings, short of complete confiscation.
Obama claims he wants to pass “common-sense laws” to make America safer. If that were the case, he’d support laws to make it safer to be a baby in the womb by defunding Planned Parenthood, which commits mass murder on scale far greater than all the shooters in history.
But what Obama and his ilk are truly about has nothing to do with “common-sense laws” and everything to do with disarming Americans in order to make them dependents of the state. And they’re content to do it one law at a time by politicizing every shooting that serves their nefarious purpose.
As Long As Carson Continues To Speak From The Heart, Never Apologizing For His Opinions--His Popularity And Fundraising Will Continue To Grow
Ben Carson joins the big leagues
Presidential candidate and history-making neurosurgeon Ben Carson got his political start thanks to a ton of grass-roots enthusiasm. After his no-holds-barred 2013 speech at the National Prayer Breakfast — a speech that President Obama had to endure while sitting only inches from one of his strongest critics — Carson’s word-of-mouth popularity soared.
For a long time, that wave of ground-level popularity sustained Carson’s slowly germinating presidential campaign. Fundraising came largely through high-volume, low-dollar donations from regular folks who had bought in.
Then, Carson hit the GOP debate stage. And while his performance as an orator hasn’t exactly impressed the pundits, the tremendous national exposure the debates have brought him have helped to elevate his campaign fundraising power … big time.
However Carson fared in the debates, there’s no indication Carson’s grass-roots support has waned any. In fact, that very exposure has helped lift Carson’s personal fundraising effort as the Republican primary season matures and viable candidates begin to separate from the field.
Carson’s war chest, in fact, has swollen enough to make well-connected plutocrats like Hillary Clinton envious. In fact, about the only candidate from either party who wouldn’t envy Carson’s newfound fundraising prowess, at least with regular people, is the independently wealthy outlier — and polling leader — Donald Trump.
From Breitbart Friday:
GOP candidate Ben Carson’s campaign reported raising an impressive $20 million in the third Quarter reporting period.… Given their relative positions in the polls, it isn’t surprising that Carson outraised [Rand] Paul [who had raised only $4 million in cash] by such a large amount. Carson’s total, however, was also almost as much as either Hillary Clinton or Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) raised for the quarter. Considering the fact that Carson faces far more opponents than either of the Democrats, his number is especially noteworthy.Although Jeb Bush’s Super PAC lapped all candidates with a massive $100 million haul in the second Quarter, his personal campaign raised just over $11 million. Jeb’s modest fundraising for his personal campaign in the second Quarter may have been a high-water mark, however, as over 80 percent of the donations came from supporters who had maxed out their contributions.
As you can probably tell from the allusion to the Jeb Bush Super PAC, Carson’s $20 million reflects individual donations, not mammoth corporate aggregation. But he isn’t exactly hurting, at the moment, in that department either.
“First came the grass-roots support,” The New York Times reportedlast month. “Now Ben Carson, the retired neurosurgeon who has quietly arrived near the front of the Republican presidential field, is scooping up $100,000 a night from wealthy donors in Texas and California — evidence that he is fast transforming from a novelty candidate into one to be taken seriously by rivals and party leaders alike.”
And Carson’s campaign spokesman, Doug Watts, told the Times his grassroots-reliant candidate fully expects to be able to compete with the sort of major outside fundraising that has propelled establishment candidates like Bush.
“We think we have enough money to compete with anyone, even $100 million super PACs, all the way through the [Republican] convention,” he said. “We’re not worried about money at all.”
Rape By Muslims Is Part Of "War Booty" And Therefore Allowed.
Sexual Slavery: "Nothing to do with Islam"?
 |  |
- "They are also taught that white non-Muslims are easy, cheap, dirty sluts and that it is their right [to take them]. ... On top of this, teaching people to hate anyone who is not a Muslim -- as is done in many mosques -- will, of course, lead to a lot of people hating anyone who is not a Muslim. ... The problem, however, is also due to police, judges, lawyers, and teachers, fearing the words 'racist' and 'Islamophobe' -- and nothing is being done to stop that." -- Toni Bugle, women's rights activist, founder of Mothers against Radical Islam and Sharia, and victim of child-rape.
- "When girls are raped, they are referred to by the rapists as 'white trash,' 'white whores' and 'white kuffir.' It is said to the girls quite openly. And the girls tell the police. Yet the assaults are never recognized as 'racially motivated. ... "I am sick of being told that I matter less because, I was born white, or that someone else matters less because he was born a different color. Such terms are themselves racist. People now seem to be using the race card to behave in the most appalling manner." -- Toni Bugle.
- Many British girls still stay silent. The perpetrators threaten and intimidate them: "This would be enough to silence most girls. In addition, the police ignore the pleas of these girls, so they do not trust the police. I do think the silence of the community means it acquiesces."
- In Islam, only non-Muslims may be taken as slaves -- a rule that is unfortunately only further evidence of a supremacist doctrine within Islam: that Islam is superior to other religions, and its adherents therefore entitled to privileges not afforded to members of other religions.
The sexual abuse of non-Muslim children and women at the hands of Jihadist groups such as ISIS and Boko Haram is not only a widespread practice in the Muslim world, but, sadly, has a lot to do with Islamic teachings.
Sexual slavery is deeply embedded in Islamic law and tradition. The founder of Islam also practiced and approved of slavery, as was more common at the time. Caliphs had harems of hundreds or thousands of young girls and women brought from Christian, Hindu, Persian and African lands.
Islamic slavery also was, and is, race-based. Umar, Muhammad's father-in-law and a caliph, declared that Arabs could not be taken as slaves; he even emancipated all Arab slaves. In Islam, only non-Muslims may be taken as slaves -- a rule that is unfortunately only further evidence of a supremacist doctrine within Islam: that Islam is superior to other religions, and its adherents therefore entitled to privileges not afforded to members of other religions.
This supremacist doctrine of Islam has brought non-Muslims centuries of persecution and institutionalized discrimination. Some have been exposed to brute force and had to convert from their native religion; others have been given the status of "dhimmis": third-class, "tolerated" citizens who have to pay a tax (the jizya) in exchange for "protection," never allowed the same religious rights or freedoms as Muslims. If they cannot pay the tax, they are to be killed or have their children taken from them.
All those practices indicate what Islamic rule brings for non-Muslims: death or a state-approved position of inferiority and humiliation.[1] One of the most appalling practices of the Islamic supremacist mindset was the institution of Janissaries established by the Ottoman Empire. For hundreds of years, Ottoman Turks took away the sons of Christians in occupied Europe and forcibly converted them into Muslim warriors (Janissaries).
There are about dozens of verses in the Quran and the Hadith referring to Allah's hatred for non-Muslims and the eternal damnation and punishment awaiting them in the afterlife.[2] Once Islam establishes political superiority, there is very little tolerance for people of other faiths or atheists.
As early Muslim armies used their swords to invade and Islamize non-Muslim lands, they enslaved non-Muslims, and even other black Muslims. Islamic scriptures approve of the rape of female prisoners who have very few civil or legal rights under Islamic law.
During 1,400 years of jihad and even today, the Muslim world is mostly apathetic and silent about sexual aggression. Many Muslims even try to justify it under Islamic rule. So now this practice is common not only in the Middle East, but also in Europe, including Britain.
Women are finally refusing to accept this situation. Toni Bugle, for example, a women's rights activist, has established an organization called M.A.R.I.A.S (Mothers Against Radical Islam and Sharia), which tries to raise awareness about, and act against, sexual abuse, female genital mutilation, child grooming gangs, child marriage, domestic violence, forced marriages and honor killings.
In the midst of the complicit silence of many institutions, including the mainstream media in Britain, Bugle is trying to protect British children and women from rapists -- many of whom apparently have been Muslims.
As a victim of sexual abuse for two years from the age of eight, Bugle was homeless for a time, and later exposed to physical violence. She witnessed her friends in the streets sexually abused and forced into prostitution.
"Not until years later did I realize I was reading patterns which were similar that are happening to girls all over the UK," Bugle said to Gatestone Institute. "I have also spoken to Muslim women, abused because of sharia law. I took one into my home. Her family were trying to use her to traffic people from Somalia to the UK."
A few months ago, a report found that between 1997 and 2013, at least 1,400 non-Muslim British children were gang-raped and brutalized by Muslims in Rotherham. Children as young as 11 were often gang-raped, abducted, trafficked to other cities in England, beaten and intimidated, according to the report. Authorities did nothing "for fear of being thought as racist."
Another report in May, 2015, added that the Rotherham Council and police had wanted the authorities to ban protests against child rape. "They have appealed to the home secretary for emergency special powers under the Public Order Act 1986," according to Breitbart.
Bugle remarked that not only does this political and religious ideology encourage Muslim men to rape non-Muslim children and women, but that Britain's submission to Sharia-inspired brutality seems to have several causes:
"The UK media refuse to use the term Muslim," Bugle adds. "But in London alone 27% of the inmates are Muslim, serving time for rape, drugs and violence. That is a massive percentage considering that Muslims are apparently only 4% of the overall population."
One of the few scholars who do expose the link between the two, Raymond Ibrahim, wrote in a comprehensive article about Islamic rape: "The ongoing epidemic in the UK, Scandinavia and elsewhere—whereby Muslim men sexually target white women—is as old as Islam, has precedents with the prophet and his companions, and, till this day, is being recommended as a legitimate practice by some in the Muslim world."
Despite the alarmingly widespread problem, many British girls, possibly partly from shame or concern that they might be thought complicit, stay silent. A stronger reason, according to Bugle, is that the perpetrators still threaten and intimidate them.
"This would be enough to silence most girls. In addition, the police ignore the pleas of these girls, so they do not trust the police. Also, apparently when parents were told that the girls were 'known prostitutes,' they were told that the girls 'would grow out of it.' These are just a few of the reasons they stay silent."
Bugle says she has
Bugle, a rape victim, opposes the term:
She says she would like the girls to feel free of guilt, and to take back the control that was taken from them. "Perhaps in the future we will be able to provide safe houses, phone help-lines and a sense of safety, and help them to not remain victims, but in time to become survivors. Not all will survive but those who do will one day help others."
When the organization held its first conference on August 29, two of the speakers were Muslim women, one of whom had apparently been repeatedly raped by Muslim men. The organization intends to hold another conference, also with Muslim speakers, in Rochdale around mid-November.
Britain -- with all of its institutions, says Bugle -- should act to protect children and women from rapists. No matter who may feel hurt or offended, she says, nothing is more hurtful than innocent women and children being raped, pimped, tortured and trafficked. "But first," she states, "we need a government with the moral fortitude to stop ignoring facts and constantly stating, 'This has nothing to do with Islam.'"
[1] E.g: Koran 67:6-8; 21:98; 2:191-193; 9:111; 9:5; 9:29; 5:32; 5:33; 33:50; 8:41; 22:19-22; 2:178; 8:12
[2] E.g.: Koran 6:27; 3:91
[3] A blog at Channel 4 also reported that in many other cases in the UK, vulnerable teenage girls were sexually abused:
[4] On the website, there are blogs written by the girls in their own words.
Sexual slavery is deeply embedded in Islamic law and tradition. The founder of Islam also practiced and approved of slavery, as was more common at the time. Caliphs had harems of hundreds or thousands of young girls and women brought from Christian, Hindu, Persian and African lands.
Islamic slavery also was, and is, race-based. Umar, Muhammad's father-in-law and a caliph, declared that Arabs could not be taken as slaves; he even emancipated all Arab slaves. In Islam, only non-Muslims may be taken as slaves -- a rule that is unfortunately only further evidence of a supremacist doctrine within Islam: that Islam is superior to other religions, and its adherents therefore entitled to privileges not afforded to members of other religions.
This supremacist doctrine of Islam has brought non-Muslims centuries of persecution and institutionalized discrimination. Some have been exposed to brute force and had to convert from their native religion; others have been given the status of "dhimmis": third-class, "tolerated" citizens who have to pay a tax (the jizya) in exchange for "protection," never allowed the same religious rights or freedoms as Muslims. If they cannot pay the tax, they are to be killed or have their children taken from them.
All those practices indicate what Islamic rule brings for non-Muslims: death or a state-approved position of inferiority and humiliation.[1] One of the most appalling practices of the Islamic supremacist mindset was the institution of Janissaries established by the Ottoman Empire. For hundreds of years, Ottoman Turks took away the sons of Christians in occupied Europe and forcibly converted them into Muslim warriors (Janissaries).
There are about dozens of verses in the Quran and the Hadith referring to Allah's hatred for non-Muslims and the eternal damnation and punishment awaiting them in the afterlife.[2] Once Islam establishes political superiority, there is very little tolerance for people of other faiths or atheists.
As early Muslim armies used their swords to invade and Islamize non-Muslim lands, they enslaved non-Muslims, and even other black Muslims. Islamic scriptures approve of the rape of female prisoners who have very few civil or legal rights under Islamic law.
During 1,400 years of jihad and even today, the Muslim world is mostly apathetic and silent about sexual aggression. Many Muslims even try to justify it under Islamic rule. So now this practice is common not only in the Middle East, but also in Europe, including Britain.
Women are finally refusing to accept this situation. Toni Bugle, for example, a women's rights activist, has established an organization called M.A.R.I.A.S (Mothers Against Radical Islam and Sharia), which tries to raise awareness about, and act against, sexual abuse, female genital mutilation, child grooming gangs, child marriage, domestic violence, forced marriages and honor killings.
In the midst of the complicit silence of many institutions, including the mainstream media in Britain, Bugle is trying to protect British children and women from rapists -- many of whom apparently have been Muslims.
As a victim of sexual abuse for two years from the age of eight, Bugle was homeless for a time, and later exposed to physical violence. She witnessed her friends in the streets sexually abused and forced into prostitution.
"Not until years later did I realize I was reading patterns which were similar that are happening to girls all over the UK," Bugle said to Gatestone Institute. "I have also spoken to Muslim women, abused because of sharia law. I took one into my home. Her family were trying to use her to traffic people from Somalia to the UK."
A few months ago, a report found that between 1997 and 2013, at least 1,400 non-Muslim British children were gang-raped and brutalized by Muslims in Rotherham. Children as young as 11 were often gang-raped, abducted, trafficked to other cities in England, beaten and intimidated, according to the report. Authorities did nothing "for fear of being thought as racist."
Another report in May, 2015, added that the Rotherham Council and police had wanted the authorities to ban protests against child rape. "They have appealed to the home secretary for emergency special powers under the Public Order Act 1986," according to Breitbart.
A protest against child-grooming in Rotherham, on October 5, 2014, organized by the group "Britain First." (Image source: Britain First)
|
Bugle remarked that not only does this political and religious ideology encourage Muslim men to rape non-Muslim children and women, but that Britain's submission to Sharia-inspired brutality seems to have several causes:
"Muslims believe they are at war with the West; and when in a state of war (jihad), they have the right to 'war booty:' that which the right hand possesses, sex slaves. They are also taught that white non-Muslims are easy, cheap, dirty sluts and that it is their right [to take them]. On top of this, teaching people to hate anyone who is not a Muslim – as is done in many mosques – will, of course, lead to a lot of people hating anyone who is not a Muslim. So the way many Muslims perceive Western women fuels the increase in rape incidents. The problem, however, is also due to police, judges, lawyers, teachers, to name but a few, fearing the words 'racist' and 'Islamophobe' -- and nothing is being done to stop that."The map on the organization's website shows the areas hit by Muslim grooming gangs in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telsley, Stevenage, Peterborough, Birmingham, Oxford, and Bradford. "This," says Bugle, "barely scratches the surface.[3]
"The UK media refuse to use the term Muslim," Bugle adds. "But in London alone 27% of the inmates are Muslim, serving time for rape, drugs and violence. That is a massive percentage considering that Muslims are apparently only 4% of the overall population."
"When girls are raped, they are referred to by the rapists as 'white trash,' 'white whores' and 'white kuffir.' It is said to the girls quite openly. And the girls tell the police. Yet the assaults are never recognized as 'racially motivated'."Despite the enormity of the problem, Bugle notes that the media virtually ignore the Muslim rape epidemic in the West: "The media will rarely speak about it for more than one day. Rotherham was the only time they did, and they insisted on calling the perpetrators 'Asian,' not Muslim. And they never mention the link between these rape incidents and the Islamic teachings."
"I get death threats, rape threats, and sodomy threats - but never from non-Muslims. Muslims follow me on Twitter and Facebook and have immediately sent messages, calling me 'white bitch' and 'white whore,' and threaten me with sexual assaults."
One of the few scholars who do expose the link between the two, Raymond Ibrahim, wrote in a comprehensive article about Islamic rape: "The ongoing epidemic in the UK, Scandinavia and elsewhere—whereby Muslim men sexually target white women—is as old as Islam, has precedents with the prophet and his companions, and, till this day, is being recommended as a legitimate practice by some in the Muslim world."
Despite the alarmingly widespread problem, many British girls, possibly partly from shame or concern that they might be thought complicit, stay silent. A stronger reason, according to Bugle, is that the perpetrators still threaten and intimidate them.
"This would be enough to silence most girls. In addition, the police ignore the pleas of these girls, so they do not trust the police. Also, apparently when parents were told that the girls were 'known prostitutes,' they were told that the girls 'would grow out of it.' These are just a few of the reasons they stay silent."
Bugle says she has
"emailed several 'feminist' organizations inviting them to speak out against sharia law, but each time they have not even answered. If you search for feminists standing against sharia law or the rape of predominantly white girls, she says, they will always tell you it has nothing to do with Islam. No matter how you try to explain that we wish to stand against all forms of misogyny, they do not want to accept facts. They refuse even to address the problem. They say 'you cannot blame an entire community.' I do not blame an entire community and I do not think all Muslims are rapists or terrorists, but I do think the silence of the community means it acquiesces. To address an issue properly, however, one must first acknowledge and accept that there is a problem."One of the main arguments of the apologists of extremist Islam in the West has been to accuse people of having "white privilege," an overtly racist term for advantages allegedly enjoyed by white people but that non-whites do not experience.
Bugle, a rape victim, opposes the term:
"I am sick of being told that I matter less because, I was born white, or that someone else matters less because he was born a different color. Such terms are themselves racist. People now seem to be using the race card to behave in the most appalling manner and because people fear being termed racist. I do not see skin color. Yet skin color is used to shut down debate and discussion. 'White guilt' is being manipulated to silence the masses. Whether you are black or brown or white, you should be proud of the skin you were born with; it was not a choice."Bugle says her organization aims eventually to give a voice to every woman abused by sharia law, and a place to girls who are targeted -- first for being non-Muslim, and second for being white -- a place to come to. There, they will be able to talk with people who will believe them and will not blame them.[4]
She says she would like the girls to feel free of guilt, and to take back the control that was taken from them. "Perhaps in the future we will be able to provide safe houses, phone help-lines and a sense of safety, and help them to not remain victims, but in time to become survivors. Not all will survive but those who do will one day help others."
When the organization held its first conference on August 29, two of the speakers were Muslim women, one of whom had apparently been repeatedly raped by Muslim men. The organization intends to hold another conference, also with Muslim speakers, in Rochdale around mid-November.
Britain -- with all of its institutions, says Bugle -- should act to protect children and women from rapists. No matter who may feel hurt or offended, she says, nothing is more hurtful than innocent women and children being raped, pimped, tortured and trafficked. "But first," she states, "we need a government with the moral fortitude to stop ignoring facts and constantly stating, 'This has nothing to do with Islam.'"
Uzay Bulut, born and raised a Muslim, is a Turkish journalist based in Ankara.
[1] E.g: Koran 67:6-8; 21:98; 2:191-193; 9:111; 9:5; 9:29; 5:32; 5:33; 33:50; 8:41; 22:19-22; 2:178; 8:12
[2] E.g.: Koran 6:27; 3:91
[3] A blog at Channel 4 also reported that in many other cases in the UK, vulnerable teenage girls were sexually abused:
"We have evidence of such exploitation taking place in Keighley (2005 and 2013), Blackpool (2006), Oldham (2007 and 2008), Blackburn (2007, 2008 and 2009), Sheffield (2008), Manchester (2008 and 2013) Skipton (2009), Rochdale (two cases in 2010, one in 2012 and another in 2013), Nelson (2010), Preston (2010) Rotherham (2010) Derby (2010), Telford (2012), Bradford (2012), Ipswich (2013), Birmingham (2013), Oxford (2013), Barking (2013) and Peterborough (2013)."The report also says that "Of the 306 offenders whose ethnicity was noted, 75 per cent were categorized as Asian."
[4] On the website, there are blogs written by the girls in their own words.
- Follow Uzay Bulut on Twitter
© 2015 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
Alabama Soldiers On Against Supreme Court
SUPREMES SNUBBED: 1 MARRIAGE CASE STEAMS ON
State positioned to defy federal court mandate for 'gay' recognition
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/10/runruh.jpg
Supreme Court that created ‘same-sex marriage’
In what could become a precedent for court power, one state is set to defy the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition of “same-sex marriage” more than three months after “five lawyers” defied the wishes of a majority of voters in dozens of states.
The fight over marriage in Alabama had reached the boiling point before the Supreme Court issued its Obergefell opinion in June, with a federal judge demanding acknowledgement of same-sex marriage and the Alabama Supreme Court issuing a permanent injunction against the order.
But when the Supreme Court decision was announced in June, Alabama did not, like other states, suddenly declare the issue resolved. Instead, it invited submissions of arguments over the applicability of the ruling in the state.
And the decision on whether the injunction remains in effect hasn’t been released.
It’s coming to a head now because several probate judges – the only people in Alabama authorized to issue marriage licenses – are becoming concerned about their own constitutional protections and have asked the state’s high court to issue its decision.
Opponents pose a number of problems with the Obergefell decision.
Two of the justices in the majority were asked to recuse themselves from the case because they had openly advocated for same-sex marriage, violating standards to preserve judicial impartiality.
Then there was the U.S. Supreme Court’s own opinion just two years earlier, in the Defense of Marriage Act case, in which the court said states have exclusive power over marriage.
And there are those who point out that the Constitution doesn’t mention marriage but does dictate that everything not mentioned in the document is left to the states and the people.
Eunie Smith of the Eagle Forum of Alabama and John Killian Sr., former president of the Alabama Baptist State Convention contend in a newly published commentary that the judicial branch doesn’t have the constitutional power to legislate a right to same-sex marriage.
“Five ‘unelected judges’ – as Chief Justice Roberts called them in his criticism of Obergefell – dealt an arrogant blow to God, the family, nature, the rule of law, the Constitution of the United States and the democratic process,” they write. “Simply because their opinion has been accepted as the ‘law of the land’ by the media and the left, doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to close our eyes to the truth or pretend that the Constitution allows the judicial branch to legislate a new right to same-sex marriage.”
The Alabama Supreme Court declined a WND request to comment on the issue.
The dispute now centers on a request by Washington County Probate Judge Nick Williams and Elmore County Probate Judge John Enslen to the state Supreme Court for an emergency “protective order” to address their sincerely held beliefs.
The request comes in light of the prosecution and jailing of Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis, was who imprisoned by U.S. District Judge David Bunning for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The commentary by Smith and Killing noted the petitions from Williams and Enslen haven’t been answered.
“Alabamians elected justices to the Alabama Supreme Court with confidence that they would judge rightly in the fear of God, in step with the Constitution of the United States and the Alabama Constitution, and representative of the traditional values that Alabamians cherish. We anxiously await their decision,” they wrote.
“Duty to God, the preservation of our constitutional republic, and the future of families and children require no less than a prompt and resolute decision in this case. The Alabama Supreme Court should act immediately to protect the sincerely held religious beliefs of our citizens and the sanctity of the institution of marriage – as adopted by 81 percent of Alabama voters. They should not leave the citizens of Alabama to wonder, ‘Where is the Supreme Court of Alabama?’”
The two noted the problems that already have been created by the marriage decision.
“Confusion has reigned in the wake of Obergefell. A Christian clerk [Davis] was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses. A physician was found guilty of warning patients about the dangers of homosexuality. Leading LGBT activist groups rallied for the legalization of prostitution. The Browns, of ‘Sister Wives,’ cited Obergefell in their fight to legalize polygamy. Protests are erupting over transgender boys being allowed in the girls’ bathroom. The Southern Poverty Law Center is pumping funds into their ‘Teaching Tolerance’ curriculum – aimed at brainwashing children to accept perversion in our public schools. Alabama probate judges who uphold what Alabama’s law demands when it comes to marriage, receive frequent hate mail and threats designed to intimidate them into violating their religious beliefs about marriage.
“This is only the beginning. Obergefell will be a catalyst for the further deterioration of the family, religious liberty and the values and principles that have made America great. Massive litigation fees will be incurred as Christians in Alabama stand firm on their convictions in businesses, churches, and in the public square. Judicial activism following Obergefell will only intensify as the sentiments of men and women – no matter how ‘supreme’ – are allowed to trump the rule of law found in the plain text of the Constitution and the ‘law of Nature and of Nature’s God.’”
In Alabama, the case was filed in the state Supreme Court, which took original jurisdiction when the Alabama Policy Institute and Alabama Citizens Action Program asked the high court to affirm its original injunction and disregard Obergefell, a decision further undermined by the fact the U.S. Supreme Court minority court opinion said the majority was completely disconnected from the Constitution.
Existing precedent
Dean Young, a former congressional candidate and pro-marriage activist, told WND there are probate judges in Alabama who are following the state Supreme Court’s ruling and not issuing licenses to same-sex couples.
“They don’t want to get treated like Kim Davis,” he told WND.
And that, he said, means a state Supreme Court decision is needed.
See Young take the state Supreme Court decision to federal court:
WND reported after the Obergefell decision was released that Liberty Counsel, in a brief on behalf of several family groups, contended there
The brief explained to the Alabama judges there is precedent in the U.S. for a state Supreme Court to reject a "U.S. Supreme Court mandate which is unlawful."
"There is existing precedent for a state's highest court to reject an unlawful mandate from the U.S. Supreme Court," said Liberty Counsel's founder and chairman, Mat Staver. "The hope of our constitutional Republic rests upon state officials and American citizens who will refuse to allow five, black-robed judges to rob us of our free, representative form of government.
"A judicial opinion without constitutional basis is not law and should not be followed by any state or citizen," he said.
The brief submitted by Liberty Counsel to the state court notes that the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to follow the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Dred Scott, which "said that blacks were not entitled to full protection as citizens."
The brief also argues for the state court to protect religious liberty there. It seeks protections for the constitutional rights of Alabama probate judges, some of whom have declined to issue any marriage licenses during the fight, and Christian business owners.
"Never before in America has a religious requirement been required to hold office or own a business, and it cannot begin now," Staver said. "To require Christians to pull out pages of their Bible in order to hold office or own a business is anti-American and it is unconstitutional, despite what any judge may say otherwise."
The brief notes that in his dissent from the marriage opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas warned, "Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority's decision threatens the religious liberty our nation has long sought to protect."
And, it states, "Chief Justice John Roberts said it best: '[For] those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening. ... Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.'"
Justice Antonin Scalia warned, "This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine … robs the people of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."
The brief explains the U.S. Supreme Court's decision "is an assault on the rule of law … on Alabamian and American democracy … on natural law … on the constitutional right of free exercise of religion."
"The willful act of the five lawyers in the majority is particularly egregious in light of what the same majority said only two years ago," Liberty Counsel noted.
There, the Washington court said: "The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. The definition of marriage is the foundation of the state's broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the protection of offspring, property interests and the enforcement of marital responsibilities. The states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce and the Constitution delegated no authority to the government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce."
The brief said that as the court stated, the one man, one woman characteristic of marriage is "immutable."
'Not a judgment'
In the Wisconsin case, the brief explains that even though the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the state Supreme Court, "in a final act of defiance," the state court "never filed the mandates" which required people to return "fugitive slaves" to their owners.
At that time, the Wisconsin court opined, "I believe most sincerely and solemnly that the last hope of free, representative and responsible government rests upon the state sovereignties and fidelity of state officers to their double allegiance, to the state and federal government; and so believe, I cannot hesitate in performing a clear, an indispensable duty."
The court also declared the federal law unconstitutional.
The Wisconsin court said, "Here is a distinct recognition of the power and duty of state judges, not to be bound by all the acts of Congress, or by the judgments and decrees of the supreme federal court, or by their interpretation of the constitution and acts of congress, but by 'this constitution' 'and the laws made in pursuance thereof.'"
Simply put, they found, a Supreme Court opinion that wasn't founded in the Constitution was not a judgment.
Impeachment
As WND reported, Ruth Ginsburg has performed same-sex wedding ceremonies and made supportive public statements. Justice Elena Kagan also has performed same-sex weddings and promoted "gay" rights at Harvard's law school while she was at its helm.
Critics contend the two justice appear to be violating judicial ethics rules that require recusal from a case in which there is even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
A brief from the Foundation for Moral Law explained that Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides: "A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court." 28 U.S.C. sec 455(a) mandates that a justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
The foundation pointed out in a submission to the Supreme Court: "Four weeks after this court granted certiorari in these cases, Justice Ginsburg was asked whether parts of the country might not accept same-sex marriage being constitutionalized. She answered: 'I think it's doubtful that it wouldn't be accepted. The change in people's attitudes on that issue has been enormous … It would not take a large adjustment.'"
Ginsburg's interview was with Bloomberg News on Feb. 12.
The controversy resurfaced, because even after being told of the appearance of a conflict of interest, Ginsburg again officiated at a same-sex wedding, as the New York Times reported.
The paper said that with "a sly look and special emphasis on the word 'Constitution,' Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States."
The decision, and the path the Supreme Court justices took to get to the point of mandating same-sex "marriage" across the nation, already has drawn warnings that God's judgment has been delivered to other nations who flout his will, and it might happen again.
WND reported when Franklin Graham of Samaritan's Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association hinted that Barack Obama is deliberately setting himself up in opposition to God.
On his Facebook page, Graham, who has kept up a steady stream of comments on the "gay"-rights agenda, brought up the subject again.
He noted Obama's decision to promote homosexuality with colored lights at the White House after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 26 the Constitution grants same-sex couples a right to marriage.
"He had the gall to disgrace the White House by lighting it up with the gay pride rainbow colors," Graham wrote. "This is arrogantly flaunting sinful behavior in the face of Almighty God. My advice? He might want to have some extra lightning rods installed on the roof of the White House."
His complete statement: "A lot has changed in three short years! Just three years ago, the president was on record as holding to the biblical definition of marriage. Now he can't say enough about his support for the LGBT agenda – and right after the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage, he had the gall to disgrace the White House by lighting it up with the gay pride rainbow colors to celebrate. This is arrogantly flaunting sinful behavior in the face of Almighty God. My advice? He might want to have some extra lightning rods installed on the roof of the White House."
'Go to hell'
Graham is not the only leader to warn God will judge a nation that openly and willfully flaunts what the Bible for millennia has defined as sin.
Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, author of the New York Times bestseller "The Harbinger" and the inspiration behind the "Isaiah 9:10 Judgment" movie, criticized the Supreme Court's assumption that it has the authority to redefine marriage.
At a prayer event in Washington, he said: "The justices of the Supreme Court took up their seats [in a hearing] on whether they should strike down the biblical and historic definition of marriage. That the event should even take place is a sign this is America of [George] Washington's warning … a nation at war against its own foundation."
Washington warned the smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation "that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself hath ordained."
"Justices, can you judge the ways of God? There is another court and there is another judge, where all men and all judges will give account," he warned.
"If a nation's high court should pass judgment on the Almighty, should you then be surprised God will pass judgment on the court and that nation? We are doing that which Israel did on the altars of Baal," he said.
See Jonathan’s Cahn’s message at Washington: Man of Prayer event at the Capitol.
Cahn said America's biblical foundation was affirmed throughout history, and the nation came into existence "solely for the glory and purposes of God."
"No historian can rewrite that. No president can expunge that," he warned. "If a thousand angels swore on a thousand Bibles that this was not the case, it would in no way alter the fact. … America was brought into existence for the will and purposes of God."
He explained ancient Israel turned away from God.
"They drove God out of the government. They worshiped idols and served other gods. They celebrated immorality and they persecuted righteousness. The blessings of God were removed and replaced with judgments," he said.
Now, he said, "America has made the same mistakes."
Moving to directly confront President Obama, whose pro-abortion and pro-homosexual agenda has been unparalleled in American history, he questioned what happens when a leader places his left hand on the Bible to assume to highest office in the land but with his right hand "enacts laws that violate the laws of God."
"Mr. President, when you address the House, look up above the senators and the representatives, above the Supreme Court justices, you'll see a face, the only full visage in that wall. It is the face of Moses. ... It would say this, 'No man can overrule the laws of God. No judgment of man can stand against the judgment of God'."
America, he warned, is faced with a critical decision: "Choose you this day whom you will serve … if the Lord be God, then follow Him. If Baal, then follow him and go to hell."
Copyright 2015 WND
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/supremes-snubbed-1-marriage-case-steams-on/#4uw161ZpVorDGRc7.99
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)