US or Them

I eat an un-traditional breakfast. A toasted cinnamon raisin bagel (Kroger’s store brand) spread with Skippy peanut butter and 2 big mugs of coffee (freshly ground Stabucks). When the coffee runs out becuase I forgot to stock an extra bag of coffee beans, I settle for tea. Lipton tea for some unexplained reason. Branding has its benefits.

No more. At least for the Skippy peanut butter and the Lipton tea.

Atlas Shrugs had the story months ago and I overlooked it, but now Diana West reminds us about the CEO of Unilever and his cowardly, anti-western - pro Islamic politics that now lead me to my own personal boycott of as many Unilever products that I can remember. There are quite a few brand names that most will recognize from the list below but I only see two brands on the list that I use regularly.

What did Unilever CEO say that gets me so pissed off that I will now change a 16 year breakfast routine?

Unilever is a Dutch company. Mainstream Dutch dhimmi politicians are trying to shut down Geert Wilders. (his speech before the Dutch Parliment is an excellent read- see here). Wilders is the lone European Politician with enough courage to call out the inherent incompatibilities when sharia observant muslims try to inhabit countries, such as the Netherlands, stepped in western culture and values. For his courage in speaking out against the unassimable muslim immigrants, Wilders is under constant death threat. The government provides him with 2 full time security guards at government expense. Now the cowardly dhimmi political opposition is trying to withdraw that protection and Doekle Terpstra, the CEO of UNILEVER, a Dutch Corporation, is fully supportive of that effort.

From West’s bog:

“Geert Wilders is evil, and evil has to be stopped,” Terpstra (henceforth known as Twerpstra) said. The Unilever director, anticipating a worldwide Muslim boycott of Unilever products, has called upon the Dutch to “rise in order to stop Wilders from preaching his evil message.” They are listening all too well.

Terpstra has decided that Unilver’s bottomline in more important than addressing the threat of global jihad. A threat that would, if carried out, ultimately lead to the elimination of multinational corporations such a Unilever. he is concerned that Wilder’s film, which exposes the Koran as an evil and vile book, so upsetting to Muslims worldwide that they will reduce purchases of Unilever products.

I say we give UNILEVER a taste of what Western consumers can do to Corporate executives who enjoy the freedom to trade and prosper and refuse to join in efforts to defend that freedom against those who seek its modification. If Terpstra is concerned about a boycott over Wilder’s evil message, I one all too willing to indulge his fears. But for totally different reasons.

Here is a list of Unilever brands and products now banned from my household:

All Detergents, Axe, Ben and Jerry’s, Bertoli, Breyers, Caress, Degree, Good Humor, I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter , Best Foods, Brooke Bond, Colman’s, Cif, Glidat Strauss, Heartbrand, Hellmann’s, Imperial Margarine , Knorr , Lipton, Lawry’s , Lever 2000, Lipton, Slimfast, Snuggle, Suave , Wish Bone, Wisk, Ponds, Popsicle, Promise , Q-Tips, Ragu , Country Crock, Skippy, Pepsodent, Sunsilk, Unox, Vaseline.

is the right for Islamist to call for the death of artists who dare offer criticism about their pedophelic, misogynist, war-mongering, booty plundering Prophet, and for the right to threaten to kill Dutch and Danish soldiers by suicide bombing attacks.

The full story at Fox News Online

The military needs to build those madrassas quickly (see previous posts). The Afghan masses need to be re-educated in their entirety, becuase, you know, the softer and gentler version of Islam, will be taught in a way that would allow cartoons of Mohammed.

Part I

A Constitutional Issue

In a post several weeks ago I commented about several construction projects that the U.S. has committed itself. One specific project is the building of 2 “super madrassas” in Afghanistan. The U.S. has a history of building mosques and madrassas in foreign lands. The direct involvement by the U.S. government in this project, and similar ones throughout the middle east, is clearly in violation of the Establishment Clause contained in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This article explains why a legal challenge to these projects can, and should, be made immediately.

Madrassas

Madrassas are Islamic religious schools. The Congressional Research Service defines a madrassa as follows:

The Arabic word madrasa (plural: madaris) generally has two meanings: (1) in its more common literal and colloquial usage, it simply means “school”; 2) in its secondary meaning, a madrasa is an educational institution offering instruction in Islamic subjects including, but not limited to, the Quran, the sayings (hadith) of the prophet Muhammad, jurisprudence (fiqh), and law.

There are an estimated 10,000 - 13,000 unregistered madrassas in Pakistan teaching an estimated 1.7 to 1.9 million students according to Wikipedia and the CRS article linked above. Four years ago Pakistan President Musharaff acknowledged the problems faced by having so many of these active madrassas throughout the country. He acknowledged that some of the private Islamic schools had become breeding grounds for “intolerance and hatred” (The Asia Times).

Madrassas no doubt teach intolerance and hatred for infidel westerners and Jews, particularly American infidel soldiers in who are viewed as enemies of Allah occupying muslim lands in the Dar al-harb in Afghanistan. Madrassas are, in essence, jihad training schools.

The idea of building “super madrassas” is to prevent young Afghan muslim males from travelling to Pakistan where the more fundamental, and therefore more dangerous to western interests, version of Islam is taught. The theory is that building maddrassas in Afghanistan allows their government, along with U.S. funding sponsors, to better control the curriculum of these schools to assure that a softer and gentler form of Islam is taught and lead young Afghan muslims males to a more acceptable view of the United States and westerners. After all, we are told, that we are in a war of ideas and it is important to win over the hearts and minds of all those ordinary mom’s and dads that inhabit so many Islamic countries.

I first read of U.S. participation in the mosque and madrassa building enterprise in a JihadWatch essay last May by Hugh Fitzgerald entitled “ The Terminal Naivete’ of Westerners“. More recently, there was an update posted at the Daniel Pipes website where a section is dedicated to following the issue of U.S. involvement in madrassa construction projects (tracking since 2004). In the Telegraph article linked in the Fitzgerald essay, the reporter states that American Forces are building 2 “super madrassas that will accommodate 1,000 boys each”. It also says “The American government is also paying for the refurbishment of mosques in the area, in the hope of winning over religious leaders.” That story was updated by this Financial Times article of January 30, 2008, which is discussed at the Daniel Pipes website. It proves that these projects are still in the works.

Yes, we are involved in a war of ideas and winning hearts and minds is much less violent than winning by forceful, military means. But does winning “hearts and minds” mean that the Constitution is thrown under the bus?

In Part II of this essay I will address the reasons why such a plan is wasteful and unachieveable. For now, though, I will address the Constitutionality of these projects.

Can a Case Be Made to Enjoin further madrassa and mosque building?

Yes it can, and, it appears, quite easily so. Why no suit has yet been filed is quite a mystery. As Hugh Fitzgerald urges at the end of his essay:

“Where is the Constitutional challenge to this? There is a case to be brought. Bring it, you pro-bono-seeking lawyers you. Enter the casebooks. Enter history.”

Anyone with an urge to “enter history” take note: The law appears to be lopsidedly on your side and the chances of entering history are markedly in your favor. There is, in my opinion, and as shown below, little by way of a legal defense to these projects. Existing jurisprudence is strongly against the government and clearly in favor a challenge(r).

Why so easy? As both essayist Pipes and Fitzgerald observe, and as any non-lawyer can easily discern from a plain reading of the First Amendment to the Constitutional, there is clearly a stated prohibition against the government being involved in the establishment of religion.

The First Amendment is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion” (the “Establishment Clause“) or that prohibit free exercise of religion (the “Free Exercise Clause“), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (summary courtesy Wikipedia)

It is the Establishment Cause that proscribes the U.S. Government’s involvement in these construction projects. There couldn’t be a much clearer involvement by the government by supplying both the direct funding and supervision for the building of Islamic religious schools and places of worship. There is NO DOUBT that construction of these building would not be tolerated if occurring within in the territorial borders of United States. The fact that there is such direct and openly admitted policy in constructing these religious institutions is brazen to say the least.

Law on Topic

The Establishment Clause test:

Lemon V. Kurtzman

A Supreme Court decision that sets forth the test for determining whether a particular government action violates the establishment clause. A state action that does NOT violate the clause:

a.) has a secular purpose;

b.) has a principal or primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and

a.) will not result in an excessive government entanglement with religion.

If disallowing prayer in school, invocations before public meetings, and use of the phrase “one nation under God” can violate the first amendment under the Lemon test, certainly the direct funding and construction of mosques and madrassas fail the test as well.

Standing to sue, a special case

Of interest to anyone wondering about entering history and the qualifications needed to file a lawsuit and take on the Executive Branch, the Administration, the Pentagon and the State Department, be not afraid. If you are a U.S. taxpaying citizen you are qualified. Standing to sue is a legal prerequisite for proceeding in any lawsuit. That is, one must have a real injury or right that has been infringed to bring a case before the court. Of course, there are exceptions, or relaxations, to every rule.

In Establishment Clause cases if you are a U.S. tax payer, you qualify. Any U.S. citizen taxpayer interested in stopping the involvement of the government in building these Islamic institutions can bring such a suit. (Flast v. Cohen). One need not belong to a politically active religious group, or an anti-religous group; no requirement that the Plaintiff be an atheist. Amazingly, ANY U.S. CITIZEN TAXPAYER HAS STANDING TO SUE THE GOVERNMENT ON A ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE CLAIM!

Now that we know anyone can sue, what are the chances anyone winning and why? Getting into court to get a judge to hear your case in one thing, getting him to rule in your favor is another. But if success depends on whether the law is on your side, the odds are certainly on the side of a challenger to these construction projects.

Legal precedents

Q. What makes the direct U.S. Government participation in the construction of religious schools and places of worship so different about these projects?

A. They are being built in a foreign country. Other than that there is no difference.

Thus, the only argument in defense of these projects must be that the prohibitions against direct involvement of the government in building religious schools and places of worship set forth in the First Amendment, does not apply to such direct involvement when it takes place outside the territorial borders of the country.

The issue of the extent to which the Constitution applies beyond the physical boundaries of the U.S. has been addressed previously by the Courts, including the Supreme Court.

Reid v. Covert

In Covert a U.S. citizen spouse of a military officer stationed in England was charged with a murder committed in England and was convicted by a military tribunal. The issue in the case that was before the Supreme Court was whether the defendant lost her constitutional rights ( against self incrimination and jury trial) under the 5th and 6th Amendments because the crime occurred in England. The Court decided that the rights of U.S. citizens extend beyond the physical borders of the U.S. and are still entitled to a trial by jury even when the offense is committed in a foreign country.

Lamont v. Woods

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Woods that the Establishment Clause indeed applied to USAID expenditures on overseas programs. Woods involved the USAID program for American Schools and Hospitals Abroad. A group of taxpayers challenged a set of grants to American sponsors of specific foreign schools, many of which were religious in character. The Court of Appeals rejected the government’s argument that the Establishment Clause does not apply to overseas expenditures. Instead, the Court ruled that the Clause protects American taxpayers from having government monies spent for the purpose of promoting religion anywhere in the world. (Woods summary courtesy The Roundtable )

The Woods case did not make it to the Supreme Court because the U.S. Government decided NOT to appeal the decision. That is a common strategy for the government to take when it realizes the law is clearly NOT on their side and they prefer to allow a lower court decision stand rather than taking the risk of a wider ranging adverse decision issued from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Quite interestingly, the very topic of the propriety of the U.S. Government using American tax dollars to build religious institutions in the face of the establishment clause was addressed head-on in a Georgetown Law School student in a Law Review article entitled “Mullahs on a Bus: The Establishment Clause and U.S. Foreign Aid, by Jessica Powley Hayden. The article discusses all of the laws on the topic in a very thorough and scholarly way. Not an easy read for non-lawyers so I’ll give you the bottom-line conclusion: The practice of the U.S. Government funding religious institutions in foreign lands is ripe for Constitutional Challenge, and, if such a challenge was made, the existing constitutional law is NOT on the side of the government.

Remarkably, Hayden also wonders why no lawsuit has been filed to stop the government’s involvement with religious activities overseas. She clearly agrees that the current practice of funding religious training overseas is facially at odds with the establishment clause and existing jurisprudence, but the thesis of her article is that existing law should be ignored and a new doctrinal interpretation of the constitution should be adopted. Now THAT would be history.

Hayden seems to anticipate the very type of lawsuit I speculate about here. She attempts to provide a legal theory of defense to the government’s action. Hayden claims that only individual rights are entitled to the protection of the Constitution when those rights are violated outside the borders of the country, and so-called “structural restraints” on the government (such as the limitation on government involvement in the establishment of religion) do not apply when the executive branch creates foreign policy. Hayden also openly admits that she is in favor of the Government funding projects overseas that would otherwise be clearly in violation of the establishment clause.

Hayden’s article is nothing more than a well articulated defense in advance of a potential establishment clause challenge such as the one discussed herein. While the article is well researched and written, it’s argument is quite a stretch of logic. The writer acknowledges the difficulty the government would have in defending such an action.

The bottom-line is that given the current state of the law this area of constitutional law is ripe for a challenge. The law is definitely in favor of any challenger and if I was the U.S. Government, I would seriously worry about committing to further plans to build these mosques and madrassas.

Someone is likely to bring a lawsuit against the government soon. I hope they do. I hope they win.

In Part II, I will discuss why building mosques and madrassas in an immense waste of taxpayer dollars.

To catch up on the Paul Ray/Lionheart story click on the Lionheart category of stories in the left margin.

It has been several weeks since my last post on the LH story. Nothing much to report on as the only critical date of any concern was Febuary 19, 2008, the date in which LH was expected to appear at the Greyfriars Police Station to meet with Det. Ian Holden for an arrest and interview for charges relating to The Racial Hatred Act of 1986 as per Holden’s email to LH. Holden had made himself conveniently unavailable from the date of that email (1/4/08) until 2/19/08.

Instead of naively appearing at the police station for an “interview”, LH decided to call the police to see if some arrangements could be made to turn himself in IF he was given an assurance he would not be placed into the British prison system while awaiting charges from the CPS and/or awaiting trial.

LH recorded his conversations with Sgt. Steve Facer and Det. Ian Holden. and has now posted those actual recordings of his telephone conversations. See this story also.

Lionheart opponents in the blogosphere have called him a liar, a neo-nazi fascist ( do read those comments) , and worse. This story, you see, is entirely fabricated for some other nefarious purpose. These opponents have made it, and I should add, still make it, difficult for LH story be given the attention it deserves. His detractors have branded him a neo-nazi, racist, anti-semite, douchebag. Thanks for your contributions in fighting the global jihad guys. You know who you are.

Hopefully, these recorded telephone conversations will put the idea that LH’s story is fabricated to rest. Though I’m sure that when ego and reputation are in play, there will be those who will claim it is all still big hoax, there is no Det. Ian Holden and Lionheart is really just a cartoon character.

For those interested in knowing more about this case, please listen to all of the telephone conversations between Paul Ray, a/k/a Lionheart”, and Det. Ian Holden and his supervisor Sargeant Steve Facey.

The detractors and their ilk suggest that LH simply return to Luton and face these thought crime charges. Brave keyboard warriors they.

Paul Ray writes rather unkindly about the Pakistani muslims in his neighborhood and the Islamification of his country. A few of the chaps he writes happen to make their way into the Luton/Dunstable prison system. Some of these model citizens have issued death threats to LH.

These police officers are trying to tell LH that that they only want to interview him. They make it sound like he is being invited for a cup of tea and biscioti. They intend to arrest him and they refuse to provide assurance that he will be released pending the Crown Prosecution Service charging decision. If remanded after his arrest until that decision is made, and then kept in jail until a full trial is had, it is unlikely that LH would live to make it to trial. To those who suggest he return to face arrest for writing on his blog, will you serve his time during this time, and if he is found guilty, for the prison sentence he could receive of up to seven years?

As can be clearly heard at several points during these conversations, the Luton Police intend to arrest LH. Arrest means being placed in custody and deprived of one’s liberty. The police refuse to tell LH how long that cusody will last. They admit it could be for as long as it takes to have a trial. A single day in jail is a risk of life for LH. They say they cannot make arrangements for unconditional bail. They lie or they are being stupifyingly lazy. A conference with the CPS, who has an office in the Greyfriars Station, could easily make it so.

LH shows that he is not afraid of going back to Luton and face these ridiculous charges in a British courtroom, before his community and his countrymen, and defy the Crown prosecutors to prove he has stirred up racial hatred under the thought crimes statute. His chances of winning that courtroom battle are greater than the chances of surviving in the Luton/Dunstable prison system for the pre-trial period. His willingness to face the these charges if given a fair chance to do so, is proven at the very end of the last conversation with Det. Holden.

Going back to Luton with the prospect of lengthly pre-trial incaceration is what frightens him; not Detective Holden, the CPS, and not the Racial Hatred Act of 1986.

As proof of LH’s courage to face these charges head-on, listen to the very last part of the very last conversation when he offers Det. Holden a return to Luton to face these charges IF Holden can guarantee immdiate release on unconditional bail (conditional bail would certainly include the condition of shutting down LH’s blog.

For those thinking perhaps these calls are illegal, you may look here for yourself to see that no U.S. or S. Carolina law was broken. The call was recorded in the U.S., no U.K. law was broken.

The recordings are rather lengthly and there is much repetition. Recall though that LH will be applying for asylum in the U.S. To succeed he must prove that there is “real threat of prosecution for his political beliefs“. Thus, there is a need to have Holden and Facey confirm as much as possible about the charges. It would appear unlikely that the Luton Police are going to issue affidavits confirming the charges upon request and, therefore, assist LH in his asylum application.

The highlights of the audio clips are:

Sgt. Facer Confirms that LH will be arrested when he appears at the police station.LH explains that his fear is being placed in a prison system with muslims that he helped the police arrest and who have issued death threats against him.

Facer says he cannot give Paul assurances that he will not be remanded (kept in custody pending charges filed and the following trial)

Facer confirms he is Ian Holden’s supervisor and has “invited” LH to the police station.

Facey confirms Holden will be in on 2/18 and will be waiting LH.

Ian Holden indicates he rather not speak to Lh and would rather speak to his solicitor.

Holden confirms he is aware of writings on LH’s blog

Holden confirms he has been investigating LH’s web site and has sent him emails about this case

LH offers to do the interview over the telephone. Holden refuses.

Holden says he cannot make arrangements for unconditional bail.

LH offers to turn himself in IF arrangements for unconditional bail are made.

Why the Washinton Post/ Newsweek “On Faith” forum continues to provide a platform for muslim proselytizing in beyond me.

Here is an islamist offering his arguments for why sharia law would make Britain a better and safer place to live.

The site has a comment section. I encourage readers to offer you comments there, not here. Let Newsweek know they are providing a platform for the enemy and they don’t even realize it.

Here is a taste:

Feisal Abdul Rauf

The Archbishop of Canterbury Was Right

The recent and controversial call by Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, primate of the Church of England and spiritual leader of 80 million Anglicans, for incorporation of Sharia law into British law will not be the last utterance in favor of Islamic law. Nor should it be. The addition of Sharia law to “the law of the land”, in this case British law, complements, rather than undermines, existing legal frameworks. The Archbishop was right. It is time for Britain to integrate aspects of Islamic law

It is really madness when you think about it.

Madrassas teach Islam in its’ purest, and therefore, most dangerous form. They train future violent Jihadists, like the very Taliban U.S. Forces are trying to wipe out. And the U.S. taxpayer is funding the training schools for our future enemies.

And what are the chances this America built madrassa in the middle of Afghanistan is ever actually used? No way a mosque and madrassa built by the dirty “kafir” (the derogatory term used to described non-muslims) will be frequented by muslims. As Daniel Pipes report here in 2004, the U.S. Army built a madrassa to replace one blown up in the 2002 invasion. No one ever uses it. It has to be because it is “unclean” and “unpure” and built by non-muslims.

And then there is the questionable constitutionality of it. Funding of a mosque and religious school with taxpayer funds would never see the light of day here in Downtown, U.S.A. Yet it is done without a second Continue Reading »

MOTOON MANIA

With thanks to Michelle Malkin for the great idea.

Months ago I reported how the jihadists in the Phillipines successfully wore down the Nationa Philippine Government to the point where a large portion of southern part of the country were ceded over to the islamists (Abu Seyef) upon promises of no further military action.

Now, using the same startegy of attrition and offering similar promises, the government of Thailand is considering an offer of souther lands to Jihadists in return for promises of peace.

Thailand is considering granting partial autonomy to its Muslim-majority southern provinces, which for the past four years have been the scene of a bloody Islamic insurgency, the new interior minister said Tuesday. from AP story

Continue Reading »

Last week it was ecstasy to learn Islamic Law expert Stephen Coughlin was retained by the DoD over objections of the Islamist Hesham Islam and his boss, Gordon England. Now, behold the wonders of a free press and the first amendment, HESHAM ISLAM IS OUT!

Continue Reading »

UPDATE: I am still steaming mad at WordPress for disabling the SIOE Blog for alleged “hateful or racially or ethnically objectionable” content.

I hesitate to even mention this because no matter how truly despicable the writings of Islamic Jihadist Samir Khan, who blogs and writes out if his mommy’s basement in CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA location, the remedy here is NOT to complain to WordPress so that they evaluate Kahn’s blog for acceptable content, the remedy is to get WordPress to re-establish the SIOE Netherlands blog with apologies and stop acting as the world’s thought control police.

Look at Khan’s latest article REJOICING IN THE TRAGEDY that befell innocent victims of recent tornadoes in Tennessee! According to Khan, the tornado victims got what they deserved since they are disbelivers and “So whatever goes around, comes around.” (thanks to Jawa Report for the story on this).

Khan’s blog runs on WordPress too, yet, rejoicing in the deaths of innocent Americans is apparently acceptable, or , the thought police haven’t evaluated Khan’s blog yet.

*********************

Original post:

Continue Reading »