Skip to comments.Muslim Judge In U.S. Court: If You Mock Muhammed You Deserve To Get Beaten
Posted on 03/03/2012 1:00:44 PM PST by Iam1ru1-2
President Obama apologized to Afghani terrorists who killed two American soldiers yesterday, saying Obama would punish any American troops who discard copies of the Koran, which were burned with the trash, upsetting the violent Muslims who killed our troops.
I assure you that we will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible, said Obama. A witchhunt will ensue, to find and punish the American soldiers Obama blames for mishandling the Muslim book. Sadly the Obama Administration defended buring Bibles in 2009, but he kowtows for the Koran.
Meanwhile another American Judge Mark Martin, a Muslim, just ruled to enforce Sharia law instead of the U.S. Constitution in a shocking case in Pennsylvania. Get this:
An atheist joker Ernest Perce dressed for a Holloween parade as the Muslim false prophet Muhammed. While walking in the parade the atheist joker was jumped and beaten by an easily offended Muslim man, Talaag Elbayomy. A video camera and eyewitness policeman captured the assault and testified for the atheist victim, who was physically beaten by the Muslim attacker, right here in the USA.
The Muslim attacker was an immigrant who claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. He also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.
But the U.S. judge was Muslim, so he threw out the video evidence, dismissed the eyewitness cop, lectured the victim for mocking Muhammed, and freed the violent Muslim attacker.
The U.S. Judge said to the atheist: Im a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but youre way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.
Let me get this straight. An American Judge enforces foreign Sharia law rather than the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? And this is happening in America?
Judges: Citizens cant stop Judges from imposing Muslim Sharia Law
The Washington Times has confirmed an LA Times report that Muslim Sharia law can be imposed by liberal judges upon the citizens of Oklahoma, despite 70% of voters demanding limits upon liberal judges, to stop them from applying foreign law above their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a ruling released Tuesday, affirmed an order by a district court judge in 2010 that prevented the voter-approved state constitutional amendment from taking effect. The ruling also allows a Muslim community leader in Oklahoma City to continue his legal challenge of the laws constitutionality.
The measure, known as State Question 755, was approved with 70% of the vote in 2010. The amendment would bar courts from considering the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or sharia law, the law reads.
The appellate court opinion pointed out that proponents of the law admitted to not knowing of a single instance in which an Oklahoma court applied sharia law or the legal precepts of other countries.
This serves as a reminder that these anti-sharia laws are unconstitutional and that if politicians use fear-mongering and bigotry, the courts wont allow it to last for long, said Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. Awad sued to block the law, contending that it infringed on his 1st Amendment rights. (Stephen Ceasar, Los Angeles Times, January, 10, 2012).
Not surprisingly, Judges dont think people have power to limit judicial tyranny.
Our friends at OneNewsNow.com broke a shocking story of how Muslim Sharia Law is privately enforced in North America with honor killings of children. This give us yet another reason to petition Congress to ban Sharia law in American courts, excerpts follow:
A jury on Sunday found an Afghan father, his wife and their son guilty of killing three teenage sisters and a co-wife in what the judge described as cold-blooded, shameful murders resulting from a twisted concept of honor.
The jury took 15 hours to find Mohammad Shafia, 58; his wife Tooba Yahya, 42; and their son Hamed, 21, each guilty of four counts of first-degree murder in a case that shocked and riveted Canadians from coast to coast. First-degree murder carries an automatic life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years.
After the verdict was read, the three defendants again declared their innocence in the killings of sisters Zainab, 19, Sahar 17, and Geeti, 13, as well as Rona Amir Mohammad, 52, Shafias childless first wife in a polygamous marriage.
Their bodies were found June 30, 2009, in a car submerged in a canal in Kingston, Ontario, where the family had stopped for the night on their way home to Montreal from Niagara Falls, Ontario.
Prosecutors said the defendants allegedly killed the three teenage sisters because they dishonored the family by defying its disciplinarian rules on dress, dating, socializing and going online. Shafias first wife was living with him and his second wife. The polygamous relationship, if revealed, could have resulted in their deportation
Judge Robert Maranger was unmoved, saying the evidence clearly supported their conviction for the planned and deliberate murder of four members of your family.
It is difficult to conceive of a more despicable, more heinous crime the apparent reason behind these cold-blooded, shameful murders was that the four completely innocent victims offended your completely twisted concept of honor that has absolutely no place in any civilized society.
The family had left Afghanistan in 1992 and lived in Pakistan, Australia and Dubai before settling in Canada in 2007. Shafia, a wealthy businessman, married Yahya because his first wife could not have children
The prosecution said her parents found condoms in Sahars room as well as photos of her wearing short skirts and hugging her Christian boyfriend, a relationship she had kept secret. Geeti was becoming almost impossible to control: skipping school, failing classes, being sent home for wearing revealing clothes and stealing, while declaring to authority figures that she wanted to be placed in foster care, according to the prosecution
The prosecution presented wire taps and cell phone records from the Shafia family in court to support their honor killing theory. The wiretaps, which capture Shafia spewing vitriol about his dead daughters, calling them treacherous and whores and invoking the devil to defecate on their graves, were a focal point of the trial.
There can be no betrayal, no treachery, no violation more than this, Shafia said on one recording. Even if they hoist me up onto the gallows nothing is more dear to me than my honor.
Conservative Congresswoman Sandy Adams (R-FL) has taken a stand for liberty and to defend the U.S. Constitution and US law, by sponsoring a bill that stops liberal activist judges from enforcing Muslim Sharia law, or foreign laws, in American Courts.
Adams wrote an op-ed article explaining her bill, saying in part:
Imagine waking up one Sunday morning and reading the headline in your local newspaper: Supreme Court rules that the press cant question the president, and imagine that their ruling cited international case law from nations like China or Cuba, where it is illegal to question the word of the executive branch. While this idea may seem far-fetched, it is a daunting possibility.
Foreign law poses a very real threat to the American judicial system Our Constitution laid the foundation for our nations judicial system, and referencing or using foreign law in American courts will lead to its erosion
That is why I have introduced legislation to protect our Constitution and federal court systems from this type of practice. My two-page bill, H.R. 973, simply states that in any court created by or under Article III of the Constitution of the United States, no justice, judge, or other judicial official shall decide any issue in a case before that court in whole or in part on the authority of foreign law, except to the extent the Constitution or an Act of Congress requires the consideration of that foreign law.
Not only is using international precedent a transparent disregard for the Constitution, but it could be used to advance a judges personal political agenda over the best interests of the nation. Judges have a responsibility to interpret the laws of the land, not legislate from the bench, and the practice of referring to foreign law puts their underlying motives into question. There are three particular Supreme Court cases where judges have cited foreign and international precedent: Lawrence v. Texas, where the court overturned state anti-sod omy statutes; Atkins v. Virginia, where the court held against the execution of mentally retarded capital defendants; and Roper v. Simmons, where the court outlawed application of the death penalty to offenders who were under 18 when their crimes were committed. International and foreign laws were cited in all three cases by our Supreme Court justices in reaching their decisions, setting precedent for future rulings
Adams continued: Currently there are over a dozen states that have introduced legislation banning foreign law on the state level including the state I represent, Florida [it has] become a fixture of the confirmation process for Supreme Court justices. In her 2010 confirmation hearing, Elena Kagan was questioned by Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican, who asked if she thought international law should factor into a federal courts decision-making process. She confirmed that she did, stating: I think it depends. There are some cases in which the citation of foreign law, or international law, might be appropriate.
This kind of practice begs the question: Are we going to allow our court systems to dictate our policymaking process based off of foreign sources or are we going to go through the proper channels prescribed by our Constitution? We must remember that we have an American judicial system in place for a reason; it is based off of our countrys rich history and it is intentionally unique to our great nation. As we move forward as a country, we must work to protect it.
We do have more bullets than they have rocks
we walk among them
Okay, was a long night. Sorry.
If he thought it was illegal to represent Muhammad, why didn't he find a cop?
Instead, he resorted the George Costanza defense.
Ask anyone who is offended that Korans how many were in the books stores in the WTC on 9/11.
They cannot have it both ways.
Radicals want a war. Sane Muslims need to speak up.
Why are the Sane so silent?
Maybe just the MSM just selling newspapers.
The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a ruling released Tuesday, affirmed an order by a district court judge in 2010 that prevented the voter-approved state constitutional amendment from taking effect. The ruling also allows a Muslim community leader in Oklahoma City to continue his legal challenge of the laws constitutionality
Illegal judical tyranny.
Is CWIII coming even more quickly?
I wipe a dead pig’s a$$ with the un-holy koran. Come get me, too!
Another day in Obamaland.
Now why don’t you little people go pay your taxes? Your judges need raises. :)
The same people who have callouses on their foreheads from bowing towards Mecca, perhaps..?
So, if I’m reading this miscarriage of justice correctly, the judge allowed his chosen, abortion of a religion to interpret the law. Isn’t that violating the “separation of church and state” thingy that liberals like to toss around so much. Wait a second, this is about islam, none f that matters. I wonder how the judge rules on domestic violence cases? Sharia allows a man to beat his wife. Hell a father can kill his daughter.
what do you expect for 0 in the WH?
No, they won't be exterminated, only enslaved.
IIRC, he said something like, “If the winds turn ugly, I will stand with the muslims”, or something close to that. Everything he’s done points to helping the murderous islamic caliphate establish itself very, very quickly.
People are getting fed up and won’t take much more. Then again perhaps thats what dear leader wants, an uprising so he can put off elections.
The previous story I read about this case failed to mention that the Judge was a muslim. He should be not just censured, but disbarred.
Well, that just proves it. The Beast must be a soon-to-appear resurrected French Revolutionary Empire! /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.