The Angry Muslim: Signs We Need to Stop Islamization and Sharia

For those who are unsure of the aggressive behavior of Muslims in the world and the associated misogyny, this debate can illustrate a strong picture of what the Muslim ideology can do to women.

Robert Spencer illustrated a rather eloquent argument in comparison to his opponent.  His opponent would sooner antagonize his opponent rather than dissect the argument, causing criticism from both non-Muslims and Muslims on his part in the debate.

Self Evident Truths: The Stinky Award: MSNBC News Investigative Report:...

Self Evident Truths: The Stinky Award: MSNBC News Investigative Report:...: "Today's Stinky Award goes to both MSNBC's Martin Bashir and psychologist Stanton Peele who defy all rationality in their analysis of the Tea..."

Crimes that are Heinous Enough: Why the Death Penalty Should Be Considered

Amid revolutions, war, and riots in the Middle East, the West faced terrorism in Norway.  It consisted of two attacks.  The first was of a car bombing of government buildings in Oslo that killed eight, while the second consisted of a    If Jared Loughner was a left-wing, radical socialist, Anders Behring Brevik was the opposite.  The liberal media has covered its share of the attacks, due to Anders' affiliation and defection of the English Defense League, and produced its inflammatory remarks towards anti-Islam groups such as the English Defense League (EDL), Norwegian Defense League (NDL) and Stop Islamization of Europe (SIOE).  The EDL, the NDL, or SIOE all replied that there were no affiliations with a militant extremist, as all three of these groups emphasize human rights over cultural supremacy.  

The question now remains.  What should the Norwegian government do about Anders Behring Brevik?  The maximum time for imprisonment is twenty-one years, possibly thirty if newer legislation allows for it.  Legal efforts are to determine whether he is declared sane in order to stand trial.  However, it is rather straightforward that the insanity defense will fail, as it has for most nations' legal systems.  The preparation, transportation, and execution of these acts are too complicated for a clinically insane individual, with Brevik even confessing that he did, for years, prepare for the attacks.  His ability to discriminate right and wrong is also apparent, because he refused to execute an 11-year-old boy who stood up and said he was two young to die and a 22-year-old who begged for his life.

What do I, the author, have to say about this?  All I do have to say is that there are crimes so heinous and indifferent towards human life to warrant an execution, and incarceration is insufficient for the crime committed.  Although Norway signed on to protocol 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which banned capital punishment during peacetime, it should include an exception cause that excludes Brevik from such a legal loophole that allows such an egregious minimization of his punishment.  Allowing Brevik to face a comparable slap on the wrist for a tragedy and its undue ripple effect.  Such extremes are the reason why some nations, including the United States, refuse to collectively eliminate the death penalty.  Although nations without the death penalty have lower murder rates, such causative arguments by capital punishment dissenters fail to take into account other variables in murder rates.  What nations need to comprehend is that the death penalty is a method of punishment and a legal bargaining tool, as is incarceration and parole.  It better serves justice towards the victims than the accused, and prevents parole of criminals and another chance of committing further crimes.  The only reason it is considered a financial burden to taxpayers is because of the accommodations governments provide to the condemned, such as lethal injection and incarceration prior to execution.  Firing squads and hangings are cheaper, and the pain produced provides even more due justice.  Allowance of multiple life sentences is unnecessary and ridiculous.  If we are to progress as a society, we need to utilize any means necessary for law and order.

Sonoran Science Academy: Honest School or Muslim Gatekeeping?

Sonoran Science Academy has earned international acclaim for its academic performance and its contributions to science and math, as well as allowing advances in the humanities. These series of small schools have allowed an alternative avenue of education, an avenue of small-class, individual-focused attention with provision of higher-order education access. Awards have been given to students and faculty for their various pursuits in engineering, science, cultural studies and mathematics.

However, not every good school comes without its share of criticism. Many dissatisfied individuals and critics argue that the schools fail to provide adequate education. Others argued that it is considered unfair to hand out visas to Even more controversial are the allegations that these schools are part of an "educational jihad", in which these schools are an attempt to indoctrinate Americans with the Gulen Movement (or radical Islam), the movement which reduced the secular Turkey to an Islamic State. Others have argued that these schools promote anti-Israel sentiment through allowing Muslim students to promote hate speech and Jewish alienation. One student, who remains anonymous, had endured years of harassment by both Muslim staff and students who promoted ethnic solidarity over individualism.

"I heard a lot of Arab students preach, "Death to Israel!" or "I hate America!" and the faculty would not do anything about it. If the culprit was Muslim, the person basically wasn't going to be disciplined by the Administration, or face the bare minimum. If the teachers had any political affiliation with conservative groups, they were dismissed or placed under surveillance and mistreated by students.  If you didn't agree with them, they would label you as ignorant or un-educated and mistreated you with aggression or poor grades."  Other parents became displeased that there were denials of genocides committed in Turkey taught in schools, including the denial of the Armenian genocide.

Responses from these various criticisms were on both sides.  Sonoran Science Academy and it's affiliated charter schools went into the aggressive, legal defense. Accusers were unmoved by legal threats and criticism from faculty, current students, alumni and lawyers, stating that these methods of intimidation will not deter their efforts.  Fatih Karatas, the current principal of Sonoran Science Academy, denied any connections between the connections of the various charter schools.  However, parents and students have noticed that ex-faculty members of Sonoran Science Academy were participating in other Gulen-affiliated schools such as the Beehive Academy in Utah and the Accord Institute.  Karatas further defends by stating that any political affiliation is a violation of current regulations.

One really needs to determine whether these allegations are true and supported (or simply based on Islamophobia or other ulterior motives). The Gulen Movement was started by Fethullah Gulen, an Islamic scholar who preached interfaith dialogue, condemned terrorism, and promoted secularism. He criticized the Gaza flotilla for not attaining proper consent from Israel. Thus, this "educational jihad" is a promotion of hizmet (altruism for the common good). However, followers of the Gulen philosophy have promoted Islamization of foreign states and obedience to Sharia law, which is itself disturbing in the United States.  Other Muslim students and faculty have aggravated the political stance with anti-Semitism and anti-American preaching.

But, these individuals do have a point. In the economic climate where it is difficult for U.S. and American-born teachers to attain a job, should it be time to go immigrating teachers outside of the United States? Are these immigrants from Turkey really necessary when we can accommodate these jobs with American citizens? Recently, a few American teachers have been dismissed by Sonoran Science Academy for unknown reasons.  They also do have a strong point.  With students learning from what teachers and other students say, inflammatory remarks and controversial politics should not be taught in these schools, especially in schools that are supposed to protect and enhance American freedoms.

Bringing the American back to American Jobs: The Importance of Employer Sanctions and E-Verify

Arizona's Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act had faced several injunctions blocking several key parts of the Bill, but one part of the bill is still active.  This part allowed the imposition of strict employer sanctions and revocation of business licenses if a business has been implicated in the hiring of illegal immigrants.  It also permitted the use of electronic employer verification (E-Verify) in an effort to determine employees and their legal status.

Once again, both sides have argued for and against efforts to regulate hiring of illegal immigrants.  Most, including Governor Jan Brewer, praised this judicial decision as an effort to control economic incentives to illegal immigration.  However, ethnocentric and extreme liberals groups (such as La Raza and the Brown Berets) argue that it will create undue racial profiling and alienation of legal Latinos.  Immigration reduction activists (such as NumbersUSA) counter by saying anti-immigrant legislation (through economic or physical regulation) allow the promotion of the domestic interests and reduce American unemployment.

In order to maintain the facts, one needs to determine whether immigration is good.  Is it a humanitarian effort or a promotion of the idea that one can sell themselves to a better market?  The humanitarian argument can be construed in two different ways.  One may say it is more humane to allow to employ illegal immigrants for a better livelihood and chance to improve their families in the parent state.  However, others may counter with the idea that giving illegal aliens employment is more inhumane due to the unfairness to those who come here legally and American citizens who are also demanding employment.  On top of this, individuals who do enter the host nation (especially one that is economically and socially advantaged) do not wish to return and aid their parent nation, thus becoming an undue burden upon the host nation.  Roy Beck seems to have a point when he makes immigration analogous to gumballs.



I simply conclude by stating that the nation needs to really think twice before we start giving amnesty to a small group of humans who can do much better improving the quality of their nations. Should we allow illegal immigrants (possible criminals, fugitives, and job-seekers) to destroy the welfare of America when they have the potential to improve the nation they have left? As American citizens are losing jobs due to the ravages of illegal immigration, we need to make sure our infrastructures do not destroy ourselves and the nations we're claiming to help.

Obama and his Legal Pad: Trying to Stop an Execution?

You heard it right, folks. Obama was at it again, attempting to stall the scheduled execution of Humberto Leal, a Mexican citizen of the United States. He was caught, convicted, and executed for the rape and murder of 16-year-old Adria Sauceda, beating her repeatedly with a extremely large piece of asphalt. Unfortunately for him, he is also an illegal immigrant, which was basically the key element of his defense and the main argument to postpone his execution. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled against the stay, and executed Humberto Leal at 6:21 P.M. on July 7th, 2011.

Reactions occurred on both sides. Leal's relatives burned an American flag and feebly criticized the American justice system. Leal's attorney said that consular help would have freed him. However, the Supreme Court voted The Texas Attorney General stated officially that the attempts to review Leal's appeals were an effort to evade justice. Sauceda's family concurred in a simple, logical statement: "A technicality doesn't give anyone the right to come to this country and rape, torture, and murder anyone."


So, we all have to wonder to ourselves, who is the Obama Administration representing? The U.S. that is letting him use the White House, or the Mexican government that he's allowing its citizens to undermine and violate the rights and rules of the United States, even if the broken laws are criminal? I think that this event only shows further that he fails to even represent the interests of the American people.  If he would sooner place international relations before criminal justice, should we allow this man to continue his presidency?  He only promotes the Democrat ideal of corruption and ignorance, and continuing his presidency would doom this nation and it's citizens.

You know what, Leal's relatives? You need to learn to face facts and learn that there is law in every nation. You think that your family member should walk on a crime that violates every social norm on the grounds of his citizenship? Your argument for fairness was futile, and already has been confirmed as an attempt for him to walk on murder. He wasn't going to walk as soon as he confessed to murder. And on top of that, you burned an American flag. So I will post a picture of an American burning the Mexican flag. Actually, there are a bunch of videos of this on YouTube, but this is completely out of spite.  His death was a byproduct of law and order, not corruption.  It is more disturbing to let him walk on a crime that no man should walk.

Seneca: Understanding Illegal Immigration - Think Property...

Seneca: Understanding Illegal Immigration - Think Property...: "Recently, large demonstrations have taken place across the country, protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of i..."

How a Muslim Defines Freedom of Speech: And Who’s the Real Blasphemer?

Philosophers, Muslim and non-Muslim, have always had an extremely difficult time determining the line between freedom of speech and religious blasphemy. Current law has only defined obscenity as far as non-academic sexual exploitation, but not clarified on violence, gore, hate speech, and anarchy.

Blasphemy is defined, theoretically, as any irreverence towards Islam and its associated artifacts, including the laws, the Prophet Muhammad, and its teachings. The vagueness in the definition of blasphemy allows skepticism as to what truly defines blasphemy. However, it can be agreed that any act is considered religious blasphemy if:

1. The perpetrator is a participant in the religion and its associated activities. This will be the foundation for blasphemy, as a blasphemer is usually within the religion.
2. The perpetrator engages in the stated act in an effort to antagonize or insult other religions.
3. The perpetrator allows destruction of religious artifacts with the purpose of insulting religious followers.
4. The perpetrator forces religious coercion upon another individual, or claims religious superiority over another religion.
5. The perpetrator physically or spiritually discourages the human right to pursue other religions.

In this political and social climate, and the Islamic reaction to caricatures and dedications, one must wonder who is worse: the cartoonist or the violent complainant. For one, does the cartoonist worship the religion it satirizes? If not, then is it considered blasphemy? Religious blasphemy implies that the perpetrator engages in the religion and its associated activities. Second, is the cartoonist's motive clear, or permitting the destruction of religious artifacts?  Was the purpose of the cartoons to force religious coercion or infringe on the individual's right to freedom of religion?  The only way to apply this criteria is to place it in an example.  Several examples are out there, but a prime example is from Denmark.

Take, for instance, the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad editorial cartoons.  These were a series of editorial cartoons that had images of the Prophet Muhammad, whether they were antagonistic or not.  Although one can see the offensive and inflammatory nature of the cartoons, it is difficult to determine if these cartoons are considered blasphemy. One may argue that the offensive act is towards a religion and its followers, and thus considered blasphemous. However, supporters (mainly Muslims) fail to specify what aspect of blasphemy is being perpetrated, with or without the fact that the right to free speech nullifies the aspects of blasphemy. Not only that, we cannot determine whether these cartoonists in question are even Muslim or affiliated with Islam. These cartoons were in response to a political environment where Muslim terrorists physically and psychologically harassed and destroy Western lives. These cartoonists were exercising their free speech towards a religious demographic that they did not approve of because of previous, repeated acts in the name of Allah.

And Muslims have to really step back and look at themselves for a second. As humans evaluating other humans, are they really in the right position to even question, let alone protest, the publication of free speech when they themselves also use these laws to spread their anti-Semitic, misogynistic, government-overthrowing jihad? Unfortunately, the Muslims, in an effort to silence its opposition, utilize lawfare and other aggressive measures, even at the cost of human lives. Based on the points on what defines blasphemy, one could argue that Muslims themselves are blasphemous (according to my previously stated statutes of blasphemy) in nature, as a significant portion aggressively imposes their “unsullied” beliefs upon non-Muslims, forcing the controversial Sharia law, exacerbating anti-Semitism, and even in some nations, prohibit freedom of other religions except Islam. They need to ask themselves, “Would they just laugh it off if it was 12 editorial cartoons about Jews or Christians?” Most likely they would, and this only exacerbates their hypocrisy.

Should we, as Westerners, allow the Muslim to dictate our political and social agendas of the Western States? They need to understand the difference as to what is blasphemous, what is inflammatory, and what is free speech. When will they learn? Some may argue that it is even wishful thinking for them to progress towards taking satire and criticism. Blasphemy and free speech are always going to be in conflict, but the lack of Muslims accepting the cold, hard fact that their religion is going to be ridiculed and editorialized only makes them move backwards at a faster rate than they are currently.

Senate Bill 1070: What's Right, What's Wrong, and What's Irrelevant

Not everyone against illegal immigration is angry or white.

Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 (AZ SB 1070 and HB 2162) stirred much controversy in the past, and still today causing further division among Americans, legal residents, and illegal residents.  Many individuals argue that it is a simple legislation that makes the federal government enforce what they have legislated.  Others argue the possibility of legalizing racial profiling and possible human rights violations due to the interpretation of the bill's text.  Thus, the arguments on both side are heated and violent, but one must refer to facts before drawing conclusions.

The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act requires illegal aliens (those who do not have the legal right according to law to work in the United States) who reside for longer than 30 days to carry their registration documents at all times.  It also allows the law enforcement to verify the immigration status of suspected persons, and imposed sanctions or fines on individuals who knowingly aid, hire, or transport illegal immigrants.  SB 1070 is in cooperation of federal immigration law, outside of the liberal media’s imagery.  This was further revised to restrict law enforcement officials to check immigration status at a “lawful stop, detention, and arrest”[1]. 

There is a fine line between legal and illegal immigration.

Displaying much resistance and violence, the critics argue that interpretation of AZ SB 1070 would lead to racial profiling.  Racial profiling is utilizing a suspect's race or ethnicity as a factor in enforcing the law, and is in conflict with Fourth Amendment rights of protection from unlawful searches and seizures.  Both Republicans and Democrats do not explicitly approve of racial profiling, but it is an evil that resides in society (regardless of opinion).  Despite many social justice and civil rights groups' ideals, it is wishful thinking to eliminate racial profiling and promote civil rights equally.  Racial profiling is also facing criticism because of the debate on whether or not race or ethnicity is probable cause to search, seize, or detain individuals.  However, many Supreme Court decisions (such as United States v. Bringnoni-Ponce) conceded to the fact that racial profiling is a statistical inevitability, even though Supreme Court decisions prohibited suspecting individuals based on race or ethnicity alone[2].  Defeated, civil rights activists argue that they are entitled to equal protection under the law.  However, Plyer v. Doe (another Supreme Court case) argues otherwise.  The court held that since illegal immigrants made the choice of unlawfully entering the United States, they also made the choice to not be entitled to equal protection under the law[3].  Thus, they do not have to be subjected to protection from self-incrimination.  

Those who disapprove of SB 1070 (such as Mexican President Felipe Calderon) drone about the “violation of human rights” through “criminalization of migration”.  First, illegal immigration is already a criminal act, and thus already criminalized, considering that federal law made it illegal.  Second, tapping into an extremely vague area of law and ethics is extremely unspecific and requires indication as to what aspect of human rights is violated, which he has failed to provide.  But is there a human rights violation, and if so, where?

If there was a human rights violation, it would probably be held in either Article 13(2) (in which people are allowed to leave any country, even their own) or 13(3) (these rights are unrestricted unless provided by law or in the interests of national security, public health, rights and freedoms of nationals, and other rights) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[4].  In these two sections is where the conflict lies.  However, it is definitely not in the favor of illegal immigrants, as federal law and interests of national security already places restrictions on such groups, and the UDHR only provides the protections for those who are legally present.

Way to kill your argument, dude.

On top of this criticism, known Mexican supremacist groups (including National Council of La Raza and the Brown Berets) self-imposed their victimization by stating that they are the victims of White Imperialism.  Under the guise of social justice and civil rights for Hispanics, they claim that the white men are the real trespassers.  To tell you the truth, I have seen nothing more biased and inflammatory that what they have been preaching.  Their concepts of fairness and freedom are skewed by racial pride and hostile prejudice.  Their efforts in pulling the “minority card” and the “victim card” and calling supporters of the bill “Nazis” and “hate-mongers” only further displays their bigoted agenda and unveils their ulterior, hate-filled motives.  On top of this biased agenda, NCLR has promoted Hispanics to not cooperate with the law on the guise of "knowing their rights".  However, ill-cooperation only promotes legitimacy towards immigration enforcement and Republicans.

In short, Senate Bill 1070, though controversial, is considered extremely lenient.  However, the courts will have to decide the fate of this bill.  So far, the United States Department of Justice has sued Arizona and has placed an injunction on several significant provisions of the Bill, including those requiring the carry and lawful search.  However, employer sanctions and hiring regulations are legal and within the law.  As the fight continues among the courts, there is wonder as to the fate of the bill in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Sources:

State of Arizona.  Senate.  Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010.  49^th Legislature, 2^nd Session.  Ariz. SB 1070. 

Plyer v. Doe. 457 United States Reports. Supreme Court. 15 June 1982. Print.

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce. 422 United States Reports. Supreme Court. 30 June 1975. Print.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. Web. 01 July 2011. <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml>.

---

[1] State of Arizona.  Senate.  Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010.  49^th Legislature, 2^nd Session.  Ariz. SB 1070. 

[2] United States v. Brignoni-Ponce. 422 United States Reports. Supreme Court. 30 June 1975. Print.

[3] Plyer v. Doe. 457 United States Reports. Supreme Court. 15 June 1982. Print.

[4] "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. Web. 01 July 2011. <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml>.