Saturday, June 3, 2017

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to restore national security immigration ban ( God,Please Save America From Radical Islamic Terrorism?

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to restore national security immigration ban

JUNE 2, 2017 10:50 AM BY ROBERT SPENCER32 COMMENTS

This isn’t really a hard case. The Supreme Court should (which doesn’t mean it will) strike down all the blocks on Trump’s immigration bans, in light of the statute that gives the President sweeping authority to restrict immigration:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

The courts are supposed to determine whether or not new measures are in line with existing laws. That’s all. In light of that law, the courts should all have found Trump’s executive orders on immigration to be perfectly valid. Instead, none of the courts that blocked his executive orders even mentioned this law, not even long enough to explain why it didn’t apply in this case. They all just ignored it and struck down the immigration orders on the basis of Trump’s supposed animus against Muslims: “the executive order ‘speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination,’ Judge Roger Gregory wrote.”

In reality, even if it did drip with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination, which it doesn’t, it wouldn’t thereby become illegal. The question of a measure’s legality is not based on the President’s mindset or feelings, but on whether it complies with or violates existing statutes. The above statute clearly gives the President the authority to restrict immigration. And to brush aside so cavalierly the issue of national security, which Trump and his team have made quite clear from the beginning that these executive orders are all about, is irresponsible in the extreme, and could very well end up getting Americans killed.

We can only hope that the Supreme Court will recognize all this and rule in favor of the national interests and security of the American people. But these days, you never know.

“Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Restore Travel Ban,” by Greg Stohr, Bloomberg, June 1, 2017:

President Donald Trump’s administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to immediately reinstate his stalled travel ban, aiming to reverse a string of courtroom losses and setting up the biggest legal showdown of his young presidency.

The request puts a Trump initiative before the Supreme Court for the first time and brings the nine justices into a national drama over claims that the president is targeting Muslims and abusing his authority. The case will give the first indications of how Chief Justice John Roberts’s court will approach one of the most controversial presidents in the nation’s history.

Trump is asking the court to hear arguments on an expedited basis and to reinstate the executive order in the interim.

At issue is Trump’s executive order temporarily barring entry into the U.S. by people from six predominantly Muslim countries in an effort to protect the country from terrorists. The administration asked the court to let the ban take effect while the justices decide whether to review a lower court ruling that said the policy was “steeped in animus and directed at a single religious group.”

As a practical matter, the request for immediate action could determine the fate of the policy, given that the ban would be in effect only for 90 days. The court acts on such requests based on the legal papers without hearing arguments.

A Virginia-based federal appeals court voted 10-3 to uphold a nationwide halt to the policy, saying the travel ban was driven by unconstitutional religious motivations. The majority pointed to Trump’s campaign vow to bar Muslims from entering the country and to the special preference for religious minorities included in an earlier version of the ban. The appeals court’s May 25 opinion also faulted the White House for rushing out the first version without consulting with the national security agencies.

The executive order “speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination,” Judge Roger Gregory wrote…..

Facebook Twitter Google+LinkedIn Digg Blogger Post Delicious StumbleUpon Diaspora Email Print

Baroness Cox: “Of course, you immediately run the risk of being called ‘Islamophobic,’ but we speak the truth” (what is the truth any more?)

Baroness Cox: “Of course, you immediately run the risk of being called ‘Islamophobic,’ but we speak the truth”

JUNE 2, 2017 10:21 AM BY ANDREW HARROD16 COMMENTS

“Of course, you immediately run the risk of being called ‘Islamophobic,’ etc.” but “we speak the truth in love,” stated Baroness Cox of Queensbury while recently addressing her political activism at a private Washington, DC, gathering. Her work in her native United Kingdom and beyond shows that the wider world needs much more such loving truthfulness concerning all matters Islamic.

Cox is wont to distinguish between Islam as a private faith and Islamism as an ideology in the political realm, as during her May Washington, DC, visit with appearances at venues like theDACOR Bacon House. Speaking to about 20 listeners at the National Press Club (NPC; audio recording) on May 9, she emphasized that the “vast majority of the world’s Muslims are peaceable, law-abiding, extremely hospitable, and culturally delightful people.” In contrast to Muslims like her London neighbors, she worried about dangers from a “political, strategic Islam.”

Cox’s distinction between Muslim people and politics became evident while discussing her longstanding advocacy as a House of Lords member for the Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill. Motivated by mounting public concern over private Islamic sharia bodies in Britain, her legislative proposal would increase government regulation of religious arbitration and mediation tribunals. Phenomena such as polygamy and doctrinally-justified domestic abuse demonstrate that “sharia law has inherent in it gender discrimination,” she stated at NPC.

Yet Cox’s private address linked her objections to sharia with love for its female victims; in Britain, “I love these Muslim women. I cry with these Muslim women. They come to me and they tell me their stories.” Her remarks recalled her previous public statement that she is “not arguing for the abolition of Sharia courts, because I believe in freedom of religion.” Rather, she seeks “prohibition of those aspects of the rulings which are incompatible with British law, values, policies and principles.”

Cox and others have assembled copious material supporting the Equality Bill at the website Equal and Free. Additionally, a Dutch doctoral candidate’s 2013 study of the Islamic Sharia Council (ISC) in London’s Leyton district recounted numerous wife complaints of physical and emotional domestic abuse. Nonetheless, “[n]o qadi [Islamic judge] acted surprised when a woman told about abuse, and the police are never mentioned.” Meanwhile, the “core business” (95 percent of cases) of such sharia councils is “women requesting an Islamic divorce.”

A 2016 article concerning Khola Hasan, an ISC senior Islamic scholar, gives cause for concern. Confirming Cox’s worries, Hasan noted that perhaps a third of all British Muslim religious marriages are not legally registered, meaning that the couples will have no legally recognized rights in case of divorce. Similarly, she stated that many smaller sharia councils are unregistered “private little organizations…completely below radar.”

Equally disconcerting, Hasan’s interviewer noted that “she concedes that the Quran does not rank the sexes equally, due to the fact that women carry children and men do not.” She also “openly defends polygamy,” although she personally rejects it, as do many Muslim women. In this context, her rejection of any misogynist “misinterpretation” of Islam such as Saudi Wahhabism was not completely convincing.

Hasan’s father, Sheikh Suhaib Hasan, who founded the ISC in 1982, also does not inspire confidence with his support for implementing sharia in Britain and radical background. A 2013 address by him advocated various Jewish conspiracy theories, such as a nineteenth-century Russian book that supposedly “exposed the Jews and their conspiracy to eliminate the Christians.” While arguing that Muslims, not Jews, had better claims to “Palestine,” he repeated the canard that a Jew in 1969 committed arson against Jerusalem’s Al Aqsa mosque (an insane Australian was the real culprit).

Looking beyond Britain, Cox’s NPC address discussed her visits in the past year to Syria, wracked since 2011 by a jihadist-dominated insurgency against the dictator Bashar Assad. Her travels to regime-held territory documented that Syrians

are all terrified. Of course, we all know that President Assad has done terrible things. But if we have regime change, there is no moderate armed opposition left. It will just become another Iraq, another Libya. Please do not inflict regime change on our people. Let the people of Syria choose their own future. We heard that message wherever we went.

Cox said that most Syrians shared her view that supporting Assad against his opposition, increasingly led by groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), is a classic choice between the “lesser of two evils.” She recalled one Syrian who said that “in one side you die from shellings, on the other side you die from shellings and beheadings, and we don’t want the beheadings.” A report on her visiting delegation distributed by her similarly noted a conversation with the Assad regime’s Minister of State for National Reconciliation Affairs, Ali Haidar. “The only difference between armed Opposition groups is their method of killing: One slaughters by beheadings, the other by shooting,” he said; the “atrocities perpetrated by ‘moderates’ are as bad as those of Daesh” (ISIS).

By contrast, Cox’s NPC comments called Assad the “one president who does and will protect the rights of religious minorities” such as Syria’s Christians and she referenced the report’s documentation of her delegation’s meeting with him. He claimed therein that his “priority was to promote culture and individual freedoms and to open the minds of citizens so they can accept differences such as a woman with a bikini working alongside a woman in a burka.” A young Damascus woman in the report agrees that Syrian women under Assad “have the total freedom to dress the way we want, to eat what we want and to get appropriate education and medical care.” As Cox noted at NPC, the report cites one Syrian who “never voted for him [Assad] but now I would fight and die to support him.”

Critics might contend that Cox’s rhetoric sometimes veers too far towards Assad in her choice of evils, such as when at NPC she spoke of Syria having a “right of a democratic future” under Assad. Her report also lacks critical commentary on the regime supporters who met with her and other delegation members, thereby omitting their dangers that surely must weigh upon her realpolitik calculations. Syria’s Sunni Grand Mufti Mufti Ahmed Badereddine Hassoun, for example, has threatened the West with terror attacks, slandered Israel, and manifested Assad’s alliance with perhaps the Middle East’s greatest jihadist threat, Iran.

Accordingly, in response to her NPC address, audience member Akbar Shahid Ahmed from theever Islamophile Huffington Post attacked her “affection” for Assad. He maligned Cox as part of an internationally growing “fear of Islam” that is prone to “exaggeration and bigotry.” He particularly noted her role in bringing Dutch politician Geert Wilders in 2010 to the House of Lords for a screening of his film Fitna despite strenuous attempts at censorship.

Yet stubborn facts, not fear, support Cox in being what Ahmed unflatteringly calls an “Islam skeptic.” If objective observers believe that Egyptian strongman Abdel Fattah el-Sisi enjoys the support of the majority of his countrymen even amidst enormous human rights abuses, then support for Assad in similar circumstances is no surprise. Meanwhile at home in Britain, theManchester Arena ISIS attack a week after her private address made her discussion of a gynecologist friend appear prophetic. The friend had related how a Muslim woman paid an office visit with a schoolboy guardian who then discussed his madrassa teaching about blowing up a soccer stadium full of non-Muslim kuffars (infidels). Muslims and non-Muslims alike need more critical inquiry from courageous individuals like Cox, not less.

Facebook Twitter Google+LinkedIn Digg Blogger Post Delicious StumbleUpon Diaspora Email Print

Germany: Muslim migrants kill another Muslim migrant for smoking during Ramadan

JUNE 2, 2017 3:56 AM BY ROBERT SPENCER27 COMMENTS

Smoking during Ramadan is forbidden, but killing someone who is smoking during Ramadan is pleasing to Allah.

What will these “Arab nationals” be like in five or ten years, when they’re out on the streets in Germany (and don’t kid yourself, they will be)? Will they be loyal and productive citizens of the Federal Republic? Germany is staking its future on the hope that they and others like them will be. How wise a bet is that? We shall soon see. In fact, we are already seeing, in this incident and others.

“Kurdish Refugee Killed by Arabs in Germany for Smoking during Ramadan,” BasNews, June 2, 2017:

ERBIL — A group of Arab nationals reportedly killed a Kurdish refugee in Germany’s Oldenburg on Thursday over refusing to fast during Ramadan.

Social media activists published graphic photographs showing a man covered in blood with emergency personnel attempting to save him.

A Syrian Kurdish refugee resided in Germany, stated on his Facebook account that a group of Arab men stabbed Abed Hannan Yaghoub to death after they found him smoking cigarette and refusing to fast as it is Ramadan, the Muslim’s holy month during which they avoid eating, drinking and smoking in daytime….

BasNews has learned that one more suspect is still at large.

Facebook Twitter Google+LinkedIn Digg Blogger Post Delicious StumbleUpon Diaspora Email Print

The New Under Ground Church-THE TRUTH MUST BE TOLD

Saturday, June 3, 2017