Posts Tagged ‘islam’

Two sentences are in the news today that are worth note.

First of all in NY we have justice for the victims of Islamic terror:

A judge had resentenced a 70-year-old civil rights lawyer to 10 years in prison for letting a jailed Egyptian sheik communicate with his radical followers.

Federal Judge John Koeltl sentenced Lynne Stewart in Manhattan after she pleaded with him to reimpose the two-year, four-month sentence he had originally given her in 2006. She said she has been diminished since her November imprisonment.

An appeals court had ordered a new sentencing, saying the judge needed to consider whether she committed perjury. Koeltl says she did and he says she lacked remorse after her first sentencing.

I suspect she will not be invited to many ethics conferences in the near future but expect to see “Free Lynne Stewart” signs at protests, for as Jules Crittenden snarks:

Dangerous trend. When they start expecting lawyers to not only uphold the law and behave morally, but to avoid actively aiding and abetting terrorists, there’s no telling where this could end. Pols who have sought to abandon entire nations to genocidal chaos, who would shrug and let mad mullahs have nukes, who would seek to put a figleaf on the religious motivation of mass killers, be afraid.

More at memeorandum but have no fear Jules, there is always Canada where an Islamic Mother’s right to kill her daughter under Sharia law is respected!

The judge rejected an argument by Crown prosecutors Mac Vomberg and Sarah Bhola for a 12-year prison term, instead accepting the position of defence lawyer Alain Hepner, saying a suspended sentence can still meet the demands of justice.

“At first blush (a suspended sentence) may sound like a get-out-of-jail-free card. It is not,” said LoVecchio.

“The court has said the act in question does not merit a period of incarceration.

And to those who cry accident lets hear from Barbara Kay of the National Post for a moment:

In 2007 Aset Magomadova, at the end of her tether in dealing with a troubled and by her account troublesome 14-year old daughter, strangled the girl to death with a scarf.

Let it be noted, before going any further into this story, that to kill a healthy human being by strangulation, you have to cut off their air supply for 2.5 to 3 minutes. They lose consciousness and go limp long before they are at risk of dying. So you really can’t argue that you have strangled someone in self-defence or by accident or in a moment’s confusion or loss of control. If a person dies after you have had your way with a scarf around her neck, you can be sure the intention behind the attack was not benign.

If you want to see what dhimmitude looks like people, this is it.

One more thought about Charles Bolden

Posted: July 13, 2010 by datechguy in media
Tags: , , ,

I think it should be emphasized that this Islamic esteem nonsense wasn’t the policy of Charles Bolden, the former Astronaut, this was the policy of President Barack Obama, the former community organizer.

As the head of NASA he didn’t make the policy of the president he is instructed to follow it.

And it took Robert Gibbs one week to come up with this:

Asked whether Bolden misspoke, Gibbs said: “I think so.”

I think so? That’s it? what kind of question is that?

That’s no denial I take exception to this headline at Michelle’s place. I don’t think the WhiteHouse has denied anything to wit, they said:

“such activities are not among Bolden’s assigned tasks.”

I’m sure there is an official list of duties and “such activities” are not on the list, but nobody asked him Gibbs the direct question: “Did the president say this to Mr. Bolden?” A nice “Yes” or “No” question. Let’s see what Gibbs says then.

BTW if I’m Bolden I don’t resign (if you were going to resign you would have done it at the start) he isn’t the one who made this policy.

I’d be really interested in DaScienceGuy’s take on this nonsense.

In my post about the fatwa on Molly Norris I mentioned that wordpress put up a post asking people to support the 1st amendment through a group called 1forall and my challenge to them to support Molly. In true first amendment fashion that comment has apparently not been approved. So in keeping with the actual spirit of the 1st amendment I am reprinting it here:

Well a good way [to support the 1st amendment] would be to support Molly Norris. Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki has declared a FATWA against her and called for her death for the “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day” event. I have in this post

https://datechguy.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/dear-mr-al-awlaki-i-formally-request-to-be-included-in-your-fatwa/

declared my support for Ms. Norris and requested that he include me in said FATWA because I vow to have a new such day if they succeed in killing her. She is a fellow American, worthy of our support.

You might not like the schools in Texas or the Oil companies etc or the patriot act George Bush but you risk nothing by opposing them. That’s not defending the 1st Amendment it’s cheap and false courage to give yourself a pat on the back.

If you believe in the first Amendment, you declare that it is very important for people to stand up for it. Well here is a real way to do it to put actual skin in the game.

The question is do you have the actual courage of your declared convictions or is the threat of radical Islam a bridge too far for the defense of freedom of speech?

Lets find out.

I guess we did didn’t we?

On Memeorandum nobody has noticed as of 7:53 but this case will decide the future of this country more than any other:

Four Christian missionaries were arraigned today on misdemeanor charges of disturbing the peace following their June 18 arrest at the Arab International Festival.

Negeen Mayel, 18, of California; Nabeel Qureshi, 29, of Virginia; Paul Rezkalla, 18 of New York, and David Wood, 34, also of New York, face fines of up to $500 each and up to 93 days in jail. Dearborn authorities said the four “chose to escalate their behavior, which appeared well-orchestrated and deliberate”emphasis mine as they handed out religious literature and talking with people at the festival. The woman and three men are members or founders of a group called “Acts 17 Apologetics.”

They deliberately choose to preach the religion they follow, horrors of horrors. If we allow that then the next thing you know people will think they have freedom of speech or assembly or the right to a jury trial or something! The Thomas Moore Law Center answers:

But Ann Arbor attorney Robert Muise, senior trial counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, said their constitutional rights were violated and they engaged in no illegal behaviors.

“The encroachment of the First Amendment is just astonishing,” said Muise, who said police confiscated the video cameras and have yet to return them, despite repeated requests. He said he would take the case to trial.

“We’re not going to plead to anything because we didn’t do anything wrong,” Muise said.

This is the whole game right here. If it is decided that Christianity can’t be preached in a majority Muslim city in the US then we are finished as a country.

This is where we will find out if our friends on the left have the love of the 1st amendment or a hatred of Christianity. We got one clue yesterday when the FATWA against Molly Norris drew yawns. This will confirm it.

On and you might noticed I tagged this under “war on terror” if you don’t understand that this case is a fight in it then you need to get a clue.

Update: Little Miss Attila gets it.