PIC 1: Boots and kits born 3 days ago. She was hanging close and I hated to interrupt. (She also found a great hiding place for them! Smart cat!)
PIC 2: Mouth's kittens born 5 days ago.
PIC 2: Mouth's kittens born 5 days ago.
Friday, April 13, 2012
From ACT! for America: Publisher dismisses textbook report
Remember, "freedom" is what allows this to happen.
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 1:47 PM
Subject: Publisher dismisses textbook report
Subject: Publisher dismisses textbook report
       | |||||
 |
Dear Lee, A common omission in the textbooks reviewed in our report was any reference to the perpetrators of 9/11 being Muslims engaged in the cause of Islamic jihad. It is difficult to conclude this omission was accidental or inadvertent. How are students to understand what motivated the 9/11 terrorists and why it happened if they are not told who they were and why they did it? It's like writing about the attack on Pearl Harbor and never informing students that the Japanese Imperial Navy launched the attack. In an April 11th Washington Beacon news story (below, highlights added), we see the first response to our report from one of the textbook publishers:
Did Blumenfeld read or even skim the report? Given his dismissive attitude and response, we doubt it. If you haven't yet reviewed this eye-opening report, we urge you to do so by clicking here. When you do, ask yourself if exposing what amounts to indoctrination of middle and high school students is "a waste of time." Revisionist History Education consultants working to whitewash history of Islam in public schools BY: Bill McMorris - April 11, 2012 http://freebeacon.com/revisionist-history/ Under pressure from a well-funded Muslim education group, the nation's public school textbooks increasingly present a politically correct portrait of Islam, according to a new report. ACT for American Education, a non-profit organization dedicated to raising awareness of Islamic fundamentalism, said it found examples of historical revisionism in 38 of the most popular history textbooks used in public schools. ACT traced the new approach to Islam to a non-profit group that employs education consultants with links to political Islam, draws money from controversial donors, and has promoted glaring inaccuracies about the religion's history. The Institution on Religion and Civic Values—which recently changed its name from the Council on Islamic Education—is working to conduct a "bloodless" revolution in the school system according to founder Shabbir Mansuri. One of the IRCV's former leading scholars has been associated with groups that have raised questions in the past for their ties to radicalism. Susan Douglass, who served as IRCV's curriculum specialist for more than 10 years, taught social studies at the Islamic Saudi Academy in Alexandria, Va., a school funded by Saudi Arabia. The class of 1999's valedictorian was convicted of plotting to assassinate former President George W. Bush in 2005. At the time, liberal Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) questioned whether the school is "another example of the Saudi government turning a blind eye to terrorism." "I hope that the ISA is not another madrassa in the United States," he said. Douglass has also worked for an Islamic think tank—the International Institute of Islamic Thought—that was raided by federal officials in 2002. The group was founded with the backing of former Muslim Brotherhood members in the 1980s and had financial ties to anti-Israel terrorist groups in the early 2000s. Douglass now works as an education consultant at Georgetown University's Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, which was renamed in 2005 after Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal donated $20 million to the center. She did not return calls for comment. One of the IRCV's patrons, California defense contractor Rahim Sabadia, has funneled millions to Islamic organizations in the U.S. Sabadia sent more than $300,000 to IRCV from 2008 to 2010, according to documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. He also pumped more than $300,000 to the radical Council on American Islamic Relations during that same time period, and gave a $300,000 check to the left-wing Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors in 2009. His wife, Nafees El Batool, contributed nearly $60,000 to the Democratic National Senatorial Committee in the 2006 and 2008 cycles. Sabadia has split his six figure political donations evenly between both parties. Sabadia lost his security clearance in June, reportedly claiming in an email to a colleague that his charity work was to blame, according to the Orange County Register. Sabadia did not return calls for comment. The six figure donations are aimed at pushing an agenda, rather than good scholarship, according to ACT executive director Guy Rodgers. He said textbook companies are eager to turn to groups like the IRCV in order to avoid accusations of racism. "The IRCV gives a faulty picture, a rosy picture of Islam," he said. "The textbooks are responding to this politically correct concern that we're being intolerant to Muslims—they're rewriting history to suit those concerns." IRCV has consulted for dozens of textbooks and instructed thousands of teachers since 2000. Mansuri, who did not return calls for comment, said he founded the group because, "The U.S., like any other nation, is part of the global community. We need to know about each other." But the type of information IRCV has provided to textbook companies sheds an overly positive light on Islam, according to ACT. For example, the group played a major role consulting on Houghton Mifflin Harcourt's 2003 history book, Across the Centuries. In the textbook, ancient Islam is depicted in a very progressive manner: as tolerant of non-Muslims, in favor of equal rights for women, and unwilling participants in the fight for Jerusalem and the resulting Crusades. The textbook featured many of the talking points forwarded by IRCV, including the assertion that "under Islam, Jews and Christians had full religious freedom. They built churches and synagogues, and several were financed by the state." The book failed to mention the scholarship of acclaimed Johns Hopkins University professor Majid Khadduri, who founded the school's Middle East Studies Program. The Iraqi-born Khadduri combatted the revisionism embraced by many Muslim scholars, pointing out that Muslims barred the creation of new churches, taxed non-believers, branded them with yellow badges, and barred them from testifying in court. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt stands by the book, as well as the publisher's relationship with Mansuri, according to company spokesman Josef Blumenfeld. "We have 180 years of trusted content and we vet that content to other organizations because standards change and perceptions change," he said. "[IRCV] helped, but we reach out to a lot of different interested parties to get their input." Guidelines that have since been scrubbed from the IRCV site stated that the group would not work with textbook makers for academic review "unless a substantial and substantive revision is planned by the publisher." Although the policies prohibit textbook endorsements, the policies also said IRCV would promote textbooks that embraced its message. "IRCV may on occasion recommend textbooks that contain balanced coverage of Islam and Muslim history," the policies read. IRCV's relationship with HMH ended in 2003. Blumenfeld could not comment on the nature of the split, but dismissed the notion that HMH bowed to any kind of pressure from the Islamic group. "We'd never give anyone veto power over our work," he said. Rodgers pointed to the treatment of the term jihad, often cited by Islamists as the driving force behind the 9/11 attacks and terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. The term is defined simply as a personal spiritual struggle in many leading textbooks. "The most respected and authoritative collection of hadith contains 199 references to jihad, and every one uses the term to mean warfare against infidels," according to the ACT report. Blumenfeld said ACT is wasting its time. "Anyone who says (textbooks are pro-Islam) is just looking to make a name for themselves and should focus on doing something more productive," he said. Rodgers, a former public school teacher, said the revisions "skew" a student's ability to put the realities of Islamic terrorism in the proper context. "What teachers do and what textbooks do has a big influence on young people," he said. "You see kids who grew up in the post-9/11 era who don't know what jihad is. How can we understand our enemy in the War on Terror if we are fed historical revisionism?" "That's not just an educational problem—that's a national security problem."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.O. Box 12765 Pensacola, FL 32591 www.actforamerica.org ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America's national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure. The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website. HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION? Send a personalized version of this message to your friends. HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION? Click here to give an online donation. |
From ACT! for America--Houston: [New post] It’s Not the Arab Spring, It’s the Nahda
Excellent article. Many conservatives would do well to listen to his point about "analysis" over "optimism" (or actually, any jumping to conclusions on matters without actually looking into them).
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 11:36 PM
Subject: [New post] It's Not the Arab Spring, It's the Nahda
Subject: [New post] It's Not the Arab Spring, It's the Nahda
WordPress.com
Fw: Does CAIR support the Constitution?
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 12:42 PM
Subject: Does CAIR support the Constitution?
| |||||
|
Dear Lee, Hamas-connected CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) is desperately trying to derail legislation we've gotten introduced in some 20 states entitled "American Laws for American Courts (ALAC)." This legislation prohibits state courts from applying foreign law when doing so would infringe on the constitutional rights of any party to the case. The extent and degree of dishonesty in CAIR's attacks are extraordinary even by today's political "standards." Clearly, CAIR deeply fears ALAC becoming the law of the land. That speaks volumes about CAIR's real agenda. ALAC is one of the issues we will be highlighting at this year's National Conference and Legislative Briefing. Click here to find out more and to register. Register by April 20th and you'll receive several "early bird" benefits, including preferred seating at the gala banquet and the chance to win free registration and $250 towards your travel expenses. Below we bring you a commentary co-authored by Brigitte Gabriel, president of ACT! for America, and Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy (highlights added). Published by WorldTribune.com, the commentary directly challenges the CAIR propaganda campaign. Please read this and forward it to everyone you know. (CGNS NOTE: Use this link if other does not work: http://kajunman.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/ten-questions-for-the-council-on-american-islamic-relations/ ) Ten questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations Special to WorldTribune.com http://www.worldnewstribune.com/2012/03/22/ten-questions-for-the-council-on-american-islamic-relations/ (CGNS NOTE: Use this link if other does not work: http://kajunman.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/ten-questions-for-the-council-on-american-islamic-relations/ ) By Brigitte Gabriel and Frank Gaffney The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has launched a propaganda campaign attacking a state legislative initiative that is designed to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans, including Muslims. That initiative is known as American Laws for American Courts (ALAC). CAIR claims this bill would have the opposite effect — infringing upon Muslims' and others' right to freedom of religion. CAIR's real motivation, however, is not to safeguard the U.S. Constitution, but rather to promote the insinuation here of Shariah, a totalitarian Islamic political-military-legal doctrine. Shariah requires and enforces discrimination against women, children, homosexuals, atheists, members of other religions such as Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians, as well as Muslims who repudiate the dictates of that doctrine.  A review of the actual language of the American Laws for American Courts legislation shows that CAIR is deliberately and falsely characterizing it as anti-Shariah. As we shall see, ALAC is not targeted at either Shariah or Islam. Unlike a constitutional amendment to the State of Oklahoma's constitution that was approved in 2010 by seventy percent of the voters, neither term is mentioned anywhere in ALAC's bill language. (A complete comparison can be found here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/american_laws_for_american_courts.html .) ALAC's very different approach was vindicated when the Council on American Islamic Relations succeeded in challenging the Oklahoma amendment on the grounds that it singled out Shariah law and therefore was ruled unconstitutional. Instead, ALAC is crafted to prevent the infringement in our court system on individual liberties by any foreign laws or legal doctrines, a phenomenon known as "transnationalism." This is made necessary since America has unique values of liberty that do not exist in many foreign legal systems. Among those guaranteed rights and privileges are: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, due process and equal protection under the law, the right to privacy and the right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, increasingly, foreign laws and legal doctrines that would restrict or deny these liberties are finding their way into U.S. court cases, thanks largely to the rulings of transnationalist judges. In some instances, these judges are permitting the use of Shariah to adjudicate disputes on their dockets. The appeal of the American Laws for American Courts model for preventing such intrusions of unconstitutional foreign laws is evident from the fact that it has been enacted to date in three states: Tennessee in April 2010, in Louisiana in June 2010 and in Arizona in May 2011. And ALAC's fundamental constitutionality is evident in the fact that neither CAIR nor anyone else has filed a legal challenge to any of these three laws, let alone succeeded in getting ALAC struck down. Knowing that a legal challenge to American Laws for American Courts is hopeless, CAIR has stooped to launching dishonest and misleading attacks against an initiative designed to preserve our freedoms. How, one might ask, can an American organization oppose legislation that is crafted to form a reinforcing bulwark to protect our most fundamental freedoms against foreign laws that do not respect them? The answer lies, in part, with the nature of the Council on American Islamic Relations. The Department of Justice has named CAIR as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood (and its Palestinian franchise: the officially designated terrorist group, Hamas). Evidence introduced in the Holy Land Foundation trial established that the Brotherhood's mission in America is "a kind of civilization jihad…in destroying Western civilization from within" by our hands. Using our courts to undermine our liberties and Constitution "from within" is one of the most important and effective techniques for advancing this subversive civilization jihad. Two federal courts have refused to strike CAIR's designation as a Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas co-conspirator and/or joint venturer. Specifically: • CAIR has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism finance trial in U.S. history, the 2008 United States vs. Holy Land Foundation case in Dallas, Texas. • No fewer than four CAIR leaders have been convicted of felonies, including terrorism. • CAIR has a memorandum of understanding with the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, the world's most powerful multinational organization and, with 57 members, its largest — second only to the United Nations. The OIC is, like CAIR, dedicated to the imposition of Shariah doctrine and the criminalization of any "blasphemy" against Shariah law. • The FBI has terminated relations with CAIR as a matter of policy. • The IRS has reportedly revoked the non-profit status of CAIR's national organization. • CAIR is being sued for engaging in fraud against several of its members. With this important background on the nature of the Council on American Islamic Relations, let's analyze its critique of American Laws for American Courts by reviewing in the boxes below key passages from the legislation. (The entire model act can be found here: http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?page_id=38.) Such a review prompts ten questions concerning CAIR's opposition to this bill and we will address each, in turn. ALAC: Purpose "AN ACT to protect rights and privileges granted under the United States or [State] Constitution." Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations: 1. Why is CAIR opposing legislation designed to protect the rights and privileges granted under our U.S. and state constitutions? What is CAIR's motivation? Do they think Muslims either don't deserve or do not want to enjoy the same constitutional rights to which all citizens of this country are entitled? Or is CAIR trying to establish that Muslims are entitled to such rights (notably, freedom of religion and freedom of speech) but other people deemed inferior, for whatever reason (for example, for being "infidels") may not be allowed the same rights as Muslims? 2. Exactly which constitutional rights protected by ALAC does CAIR find offensive or "Islamophobic"? (This made-up term is used by Shariah's adherents to brand anything or anyone who "gives offense" to their doctrine or its enforcers.) The most important non-Brotherhood Muslim organization in this country, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition, has already endorsed American Laws for American Courts when it was introduced in Michigan. (http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?p=632) Does CAIR consider them "Islamophobic," as well? ALAC: Finding "The [general assembly/legislature] finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state." Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations: 3. Does CAIR dispute that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes it "the supreme law of the land" and, therefore, that all other laws, including Shariah, must be subordinated to it where there is a conflict? There are, of course, myriad areas in which Shariah is at odds with constitutional rights (e.g., women's ability to divorce, inherit property, enjoy custody of their children and engage or refuse to engage in sexual relations, homosexuality, freedom of expression, etc.) In such instances, would CAIR have the Constitution defer to Shariah? 4. Which rights does CAIR wish to have violated by or subordinated to foreign law? Does it favor unequal treatment for and/or brutalizing of women, homosexuals, apostates, Jews and others in accordance with Shariah? [CONTINUE READING THE FULL ARTICLE HERE] (CGNS NOTE: Use this link if other does not work: http://kajunman.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/ten-questions-for-the-council-on-american-islamic-relations/ )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.O. Box 12765 Pensacola, FL 32591 www.actforamerica.org ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America's national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure. The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website. HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION? Send a personalized version of this message to your friends. HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION? Click here to give an online donation. |
Caption contest -- PLEEEASE HELP!!! (HEE HEE!) From ACT! for America--Houston: [New post] Caption Contest – Keep It clean !!!
Caption contest:
My entries:
1. Bomb vest from Victoria's Burkha.
2. The latest in IEDs--"The Booby Trap."
3. WOMAN: "So, tell me again how I put this on the camel."
4. SALESLADY OUT OF PICTURE: "Oh! All the famous female suicide bombers are wearing those!"
5. When East meets West, and East wants lift and separation.
I'll keep working on it. Please contribute!
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 9:39 AM
Subject: [New post] Caption Contest – Keep It clean !!!
Subject: [New post] Caption Contest – Keep It clean !!!
From ACT! for America: Does CAIR support the Constitution?
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 12:42 PM
Subject: Does CAIR support the Constitution?
| |||||
|
Dear Lee, Hamas-connected CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) is desperately trying to derail legislation we've gotten introduced in some 20 states entitled "American Laws for American Courts (ALAC)." This legislation prohibits state courts from applying foreign law when doing so would infringe on the constitutional rights of any party to the case. The extent and degree of dishonesty in CAIR's attacks are extraordinary even by today's political "standards." Clearly, CAIR deeply fears ALAC becoming the law of the land. That speaks volumes about CAIR's real agenda. ALAC is one of the issues we will be highlighting at this year's National Conference and Legislative Briefing. Click here to find out more and to register. Register by April 20th and you'll receive several "early bird" benefits, including preferred seating at the gala banquet and the chance to win free registration and $250 towards your travel expenses. Below we bring you a commentary co-authored by Brigitte Gabriel, president of ACT! for America, and Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy (highlights added). Published by WorldTribune.com, the commentary directly challenges the CAIR propaganda campaign. Please read this and forward it to everyone you know. Ten questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations Special to WorldTribune.com http://www.worldnewstribune.com/2012/03/22/ten-questions-for-the-council-on-american-islamic-relations/ By Brigitte Gabriel and Frank Gaffney The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has launched a propaganda campaign attacking a state legislative initiative that is designed to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans, including Muslims. That initiative is known as American Laws for American Courts (ALAC). CAIR claims this bill would have the opposite effect — infringing upon Muslims' and others' right to freedom of religion. CAIR's real motivation, however, is not to safeguard the U.S. Constitution, but rather to promote the insinuation here of Shariah, a totalitarian Islamic political-military-legal doctrine. Shariah requires and enforces discrimination against women, children, homosexuals, atheists, members of other religions such as Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians, as well as Muslims who repudiate the dictates of that doctrine. A review of the actual language of the American Laws for American Courts legislation shows that CAIR is deliberately and falsely characterizing it as anti-Shariah. As we shall see, ALAC is not targeted at either Shariah or Islam. Unlike a constitutional amendment to the State of Oklahoma's constitution that was approved in 2010 by seventy percent of the voters, neither term is mentioned anywhere in ALAC's bill language. (A complete comparison can be found here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/american_laws_for_american_courts.html .) ALAC's very different approach was vindicated when the Council on American Islamic Relations succeeded in challenging the Oklahoma amendment on the grounds that it singled out Shariah law and therefore was ruled unconstitutional. Instead, ALAC is crafted to prevent the infringement in our court system on individual liberties by any foreign laws or legal doctrines, a phenomenon known as "transnationalism." This is made necessary since America has unique values of liberty that do not exist in many foreign legal systems. Among those guaranteed rights and privileges are: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, due process and equal protection under the law, the right to privacy and the right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, increasingly, foreign laws and legal doctrines that would restrict or deny these liberties are finding their way into U.S. court cases, thanks largely to the rulings of transnationalist judges. In some instances, these judges are permitting the use of Shariah to adjudicate disputes on their dockets. The appeal of the American Laws for American Courts model for preventing such intrusions of unconstitutional foreign laws is evident from the fact that it has been enacted to date in three states: Tennessee in April 2010, in Louisiana in June 2010 and in Arizona in May 2011. And ALAC's fundamental constitutionality is evident in the fact that neither CAIR nor anyone else has filed a legal challenge to any of these three laws, let alone succeeded in getting ALAC struck down. Knowing that a legal challenge to American Laws for American Courts is hopeless, CAIR has stooped to launching dishonest and misleading attacks against an initiative designed to preserve our freedoms. How, one might ask, can an American organization oppose legislation that is crafted to form a reinforcing bulwark to protect our most fundamental freedoms against foreign laws that do not respect them? The answer lies, in part, with the nature of the Council on American Islamic Relations. The Department of Justice has named CAIR as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood (and its Palestinian franchise: the officially designated terrorist group, Hamas). Evidence introduced in the Holy Land Foundation trial established that the Brotherhood's mission in America is "a kind of civilization jihad…in destroying Western civilization from within" by our hands. Using our courts to undermine our liberties and Constitution "from within" is one of the most important and effective techniques for advancing this subversive civilization jihad. Two federal courts have refused to strike CAIR's designation as a Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas co-conspirator and/or joint venturer. Specifically: • CAIR has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism finance trial in U.S. history, the 2008 United States vs. Holy Land Foundation case in Dallas, Texas. • No fewer than four CAIR leaders have been convicted of felonies, including terrorism. • CAIR has a memorandum of understanding with the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, the world's most powerful multinational organization and, with 57 members, its largest — second only to the United Nations. The OIC is, like CAIR, dedicated to the imposition of Shariah doctrine and the criminalization of any "blasphemy" against Shariah law. • The FBI has terminated relations with CAIR as a matter of policy. • The IRS has reportedly revoked the non-profit status of CAIR's national organization. • CAIR is being sued for engaging in fraud against several of its members. With this important background on the nature of the Council on American Islamic Relations, let's analyze its critique of American Laws for American Courts by reviewing in the boxes below key passages from the legislation. (The entire model act can be found here: http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?page_id=38.) Such a review prompts ten questions concerning CAIR's opposition to this bill and we will address each, in turn. ALAC: Purpose "AN ACT to protect rights and privileges granted under the United States or [State] Constitution." Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations: 1. Why is CAIR opposing legislation designed to protect the rights and privileges granted under our U.S. and state constitutions? What is CAIR's motivation? Do they think Muslims either don't deserve or do not want to enjoy the same constitutional rights to which all citizens of this country are entitled? Or is CAIR trying to establish that Muslims are entitled to such rights (notably, freedom of religion and freedom of speech) but other people deemed inferior, for whatever reason (for example, for being "infidels") may not be allowed the same rights as Muslims? 2. Exactly which constitutional rights protected by ALAC does CAIR find offensive or "Islamophobic"? (This made-up term is used by Shariah's adherents to brand anything or anyone who "gives offense" to their doctrine or its enforcers.) The most important non-Brotherhood Muslim organization in this country, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition, has already endorsed American Laws for American Courts when it was introduced in Michigan. (http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?p=632) Does CAIR consider them "Islamophobic," as well? ALAC: Finding "The [general assembly/legislature] finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state." Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations: 3. Does CAIR dispute that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes it "the supreme law of the land" and, therefore, that all other laws, including Shariah, must be subordinated to it where there is a conflict? There are, of course, myriad areas in which Shariah is at odds with constitutional rights (e.g., women's ability to divorce, inherit property, enjoy custody of their children and engage or refuse to engage in sexual relations, homosexuality, freedom of expression, etc.) In such instances, would CAIR have the Constitution defer to Shariah? 4. Which rights does CAIR wish to have violated by or subordinated to foreign law? Does it favor unequal treatment for and/or brutalizing of women, homosexuals, apostates, Jews and others in accordance with Shariah? [CONTINUE READING THE FULL ARTICLE HERE]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.O. Box 12765 Pensacola, FL 32591 www.actforamerica.org ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America's national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure. The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website. HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION? Send a personalized version of this message to your friends. HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION? Click here to give an online donation. |
Thursday, April 12, 2012
(THIS IS A GOOD'N!) From ACT! for America--Houston: [New post] Not again! Raymond Ibrahim: Islamic ‘Adult Breastfeeding’ Fatwas Return
Well, we do have a couple of females at my employment regarding whom I might accept... No, no. No way.
But I wonder, does the male co-worker have to buy her dinner first?
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 7:40 PM
Subject: [New post] Not again! Raymond Ibrahim: Islamic 'Adult Breastfeeding' Fatwas Return
Subject: [New post] Not again! Raymond Ibrahim: Islamic 'Adult Breastfeeding' Fatwas Return
