Thread: Realizing who we’re not allowed to criticize we find who rules over us ...

Americans Can Now Be Arrested For Calling Muslims “Terrorists”
July 17, 2015

Realizing who we’re not allowed to criticize, we find who rules over us, and in the land of creeping Sharia, it’s most definitely the left’s favorite religious ideology — Islam. Although no other religions are protected from the same censure, it has quickly become considered a hate crime to even speak critically about Muslims.





The U.S. is rapidly beginning the spiraled descent into Sharia compliance with such strict political correctness, and soon every American will be refused their First Amendment right for the sake of protecting Muslims from offense.

Unfortunately, a Massachusetts man learned this the hard way when a neighbor called the police to report him over one word.



Jose Ortiz, 52, was arrested a week ago after he called his Turkish neighbor a “terrorist.” Ludlow Police Sgt. David Belanger told 22News that Ortiz, who had been drinking that evening, began shouting profanity at the neighbor, calling him a “terrorist” several times, which prompted the man to call police.

Belanger noted that there has been an ongoing dispute between the two neighbors and that only Ortiz had been arrested.

Ortiz reportedly shouted “terrorist” and other names at his neighbor several times, then he locked himself in his girlfriend’s house when authorities arrived. The girlfriend allowed police inside the home so that they could subdue Ortiz, who ran into another room. http://wwlp.com/2015/07/15/ludlow-pd...r-a-terrorist/

Belanger said that Ortiz was being charged with disturbing the peace, interfering with a person’s civil rights, and obstruction of justice for resisting arrest.

It’s understandable for a person to be charged with resisting arrest, but the real question is “why were the police arresting Ortiz in the first place?” The only initial misconduct that was mentioned by Belanger was that Ortiz had offended his neighbor with his name-calling.

Although Ortiz had been drinking, police didn’t even charge him with public intoxication. Instead, they slammed him with “interfering with a person’s civil rights.”This odd charge is found deep within the Legal Information Institute’s codes, and it is defined as the following:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

The lengthy code summarily states that a person cannot, through threat, intimidation, or physical force, deprive another citizen of voting or protection under the law, or use violence against said person.

It may be justifiable for Ortiz to be charged with this if he was indeed threatening to injure his neighbor, but so far only the word “terrorist” has been mentioned by authorities, who have taken the Turkish resident at his word.

The biggest issue regarding this particular charge is that the Middle Eastern man is now able to seek damages from Ortiz .

http://redrocktribune.com/americans-...ms-terrorists/

Atheist professor admits: Fear ‘keeps me from critiquing Islam’

Posted on November 1, 2015 by Joe Newby

While participating in a panel discussion on religious liberty at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., Phil Zuckerman, a professor of secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif., who also happens to be an atheist, admitted that fear prevents him from criticizing Islam on his blog.

He also said that it’s acceptable to criticize Christians, because he doesn’t have to worry about retaliation from those who follow Christ.

Liberty Unyielding’s J.E. Dyer wrote:

Penny Star of CNS News reports that Kirsten Powers, journalist (and Fox News contributor), was another of the panelists. During the discussion, she asked why Christians are criticized — often brutally — for their beliefs about same-sex marriage, whereas Muslims aren’t.

CNS News said:

Powers cited the hidden video recordings made earlier this year by Steven Crowder, who asked Muslim bakers in Michigan if they would bake a cake for a same-sex wedding and they refused.

“If these had been Christian bakeries, it would have been on the front page of the New York Times, so I’m wondering why we’re able to have this amicable, disagreement with Muslims for having this view,” she said. “Why are we not able to do that with Christians?

“I absolutely agree that it is okay for those on the left to critique, mock, deride Christianity, but Islam gets a free pass, which is so strange, because if you care about women’s rights, if you care about human rights, if you care about gay rights, then really Islam is much more problematic – sorry to paint Islam with a huge brush – and much more devastating,” Zuckerman said in response.

CNS added:

“I would say two things,” Zuckerman said. “I know what keeps me from critiquing Islam on my blog is just fear.

“I’ve got three kids,” he said. “So I know I can say anything about Christianity or Mormonism, and I’m not living in fear, which is a testament to Christianity and Mormonism, and that’s wonderful. Thank you.

“I would never write the same kind of stuff that I do about certain religions – Judaism, Christianity, LDS, whatever – as I would about Islam – just straight up fear,” Zuckerman said.

Dyer also observed that unlike President Obama, Zuckerman did not play the “Crusades card” and called Christianity “a great friend of secular culture.”

“I see Islam as much more of a threat, much more debilitating,” he added. “I’m not talking about Muslim individuals that I happen to sit next to on an airplane or are my neighbors. I’m talking about doctrines and those that have the power to enforce those doctrines in the form of Sharia law.”

“In one sense, I could do business with this gentleman (to paraphrase what Margaret Thatcher famously said of Mikhail Gorbachev),” Dyer wrote. She added:

But we do get into the problem that if Christians and Jews are ground down far enough, and silenced and repressed in a once-free West, there will be no one left to make a safe nest for atheists and “secular culture.” Zuckerman clarifies the seed of his own demise — and that of secular culture — in his comments. He’s not willing to speak out and defend his freedom to criticize and dissent, because he fears Muslim retribution.

And it’s not just retribution from Muslims Zuckerman and others have to worry about. As I’ve documented several times, bloggers and others can easily find themselves targeted by social media sites that claim to support free speech while severely curtailing those who may be critical of any aspect of Islam. And those who do find themselves targeted can generally forget getting any justice in the matter.

Consider Facebook, the largest social media site on the planet. Remember, CEO Mark Zuckerberg was caught on an open microphone telling German Chancellor Angela Merkel that he is working on ways to stifle negative stories about Muslim migrants.

“The truth is that to stand up to the juggernaut of Islam’s — or cultural Marxism’s — universalist logic, you have to have something you are compelled to say, more than you fear retribution — or death. Christians inherently have that. Atheists may or may not,” Dyer said.

Kudos to Zuckerman for being honest and open in his admission.


http://conservativefiringline.com/at...tiquing-islam/


He admits fear keeps him from criticizing Islam. Christianity, Judaism, however, is another story...


See also : Does Sharia Libel Law Now Apply in the U.S.?

Last week, I reported about the first American city in history to elect a Muslim majority City Council. Well, it didn’t take long for the Islamic supremacist aggression and hostility to surface — did it? It never does. Always conflict and strife.

A cell phone video, taken moments after Muslims received the word that they took over the city council, has surfaced of one of the organizers of the Muslim city council effort saying, http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/loca...45664015-story

“Today we show the Polish and everybody else…”

The town has a large but shrinking Polish community.

How ugly. How fast.

They won — are they incapable of being gracious? Don’t answer that. The message is clear: non-Muslims move or else.

Yet when the Muslims gained control of the city council last week, a local reporter, Will Jones, summarized how immigrants had “dramatically changed the face and culture of this community,” and said exultantly, “Now, the Hamtramck City Council is going to reflect that diversity.”

What’s diverse about a Muslim majority? Is there anything less diverse and more oppressive than Islamic law? What Muslim countries are diverse? Muslims won’t even let Jews pray at the most holy of Jewish sites. Muslim countries under the sharia subjugate their religious minorities.

This is not unexpected. I describe the Islamization process in my book Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

Non-Muslims should remember the lessons of Tower Hamlets. This London borough elected a Muslim mayor, Lutfur Rahman, who was ultimately removed from office by a judge “who ruled he had ‘cynically perverted’ the solidarity of Bangladeshi voters and made repeated claims of racism to silence critics.” Expect the same in Hamtramck.

Cathie Lisinki-Gordon, a former councilmember and one of the candidates who lost her bid for the council last week, expressed surprise at Ibrahim Algahim’s supremacist language. “I’m shocked that he said that,” she exclaimed. “I’m a very good friend of his. I cannot believe that he would ever profile any select group. Especially when his community has felt ostracized and profiled for many years.”

Cathie Lisinski-Gordon is a perfect metaphor for the West and its approach to the Islamization of the West. Algahim’s community “felt ostracized and profiled for many years”? How? Here again we see the victim club at work, pounding on the psyche of the host nation. But once Muslims are in power, Islamic supremacism rules.

According to a recent poll, 58% of Muslims in the United States reject First Amendment criticism of Islam as a right. Forty-six percent want blasphemy punished, 12% want “blasphemers” killed.

Muslims are the only immigrant group that comes to Western countries with a ready-made model of society and government (sharia) that they believe to be superior to what we have here, and they work to institute it.

The taqiyya merchants went into spin overdrive in the wake of Ibrahim Algahim’s candid statement that “today we show the Polish and everybody else…” Their running dogs in the media were only too happy to go into full damage control, quoting Anam Miah, one of the Muslim city council members, who said this about the new Muslim majority: “I think that sends a message not only to Hamtramck but throughout the region that people want their representation in offices.” In other words, watch for more Muslim politicians and elected officials, and more aggressive and polarizing statements from them.

Another Muslim city council member, Abu Ahmed Musa, promised to be even-handed: “My concern is to give the people, everybody, equal opportunity and be fair for everybody.” In the same vein, one of the newly elected Muslim council members, Saad Almasmari, said: “We are going to represent everybody. We are going to serve everybody, Christians, Jewish, Muslims, everybody.”

Yet everywhere Muslims have held political power, non-Muslims have suffered – suffered loss of life, or property, income, social standing, or equal rights before the law. Nowhere in any majority-Muslim country today do non-Muslims enjoy full equality of rights with Muslims. Everyone assumes that the Muslims in the U.S. are different and don’t believe in the Islamic laws that lead to that discrimination, but there is no basis for that assumption: there is no American form of Islam that is different from the form that prevails in the rest of the world.

The Muslim city council of Hamtramck, Michigan has already gotten off to a confrontational, divisive start. Perhaps their first order of business will be rename the town Hamtramckistan. Does anyone who is genuinely informed about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat really think that from here on out it is going to get better?

by Pamela Geller11 Nov 2015
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...issues-warning