America's Slow Surrender

By Semperpapa

As the controversy continues to increase in the saga of the Ground Zero mega mosque, throughout our Nation we see the establishment increasingly surrender to the pressuring forces of radical Islam.

In New Jersey, a judge, Joseph Charles, has denied a restraining order to a Moroccan woman who had accused her Moroccan husband of sexual assault.
The woman is divorced from her husband and she has accused him of forcibly having unwanted intercourse with her, practically raping her, while they were still married.

Judge Charles, in his decision, stated the following:

"The court believes that [defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

The ruling from Charles was quickly overturned by the New Jersey Supreme Court which called the deliberation a mistake.
But what the incident clearly shows is that there are an increasing number of member of the system who appear to be invoking international law, in this case Shariah Law, to adjudicate cases within the United States, clearly setting aside the laws of the United States.

What remains to be seen is the reaction from any of the feminist groups in America, reaction that is absent as of this writing, in fact no mention of this incident is made on the National Organization for Women (NOW) on their web site, as they are too busy to acclaim Elena Kagan and the annulment of 7 million votes in California by the judge who declared Prop 8 unconstitutional.
It is clear that the organizations like NOW are more interested in keeping abortion available at all times and the achievement of power by women, regardless of qualification as long as they fit the progressive agenda.
All other issues, especially those related to Islam and the liberal agenda are of no interest.

Of course the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) chimed in about the case, with its communication director Ibrahim Hooper, who followed the usual script by saying that the use of the term “Shariah” is only aimed at increasing the paranoia of the American people in regard to the religion of peace.
“It fits into the whole extremist Muslim-basher theme that Muslims are somehow trying to replace the Constitution with Islamic law,” Mr. Hooper stated.
"That is absolute fantasy, and hateful. Islamic beliefs don't permit rape of any kind," he added, which is actually one of the Islamic double truths: in Shariah law, a husband can do with his wife all he wishes as the woman is a possession, so technically his statement is true as forced sex is not considered rape.

Robert Spencer, director of Jihadwatch.com, also chimed into the case addressing the fact that Judge Charles did not openly mentioned Shariah law, but Mr. Spencer added:

"This is a ruling that is strictly in line with Islamic law, which does indeed declare that a wife may not refuse her husband sex under virtually any circumstances. The only legal framework that would not consider marital rape to be sexual assault is Shariah."

Many Americans will dismiss this case as a localized issue of minimal impact, but as it is not an isolated incident, one should take notice and recognize the danger of the trend.
In this case the decision was reversed, but the fact that no repercussion will be felt by Judge Charles for his clearly misguided decision means that any other judge across the land will be able to adjudicate similar cases without fear of being held accountable for it. And my fear is that some of these cases will just fall by the way side, aided by the ever present smoke screen of CAIR, the consistent fear of straying out of the unspoken rules of political correctness and the general apathy of the American people.

The very existence of CAIR is, in my view, a violation of American law. This organization, which has been linked to the radical group Muslim Brotherhood and the terrorist group Hamas, has been working fevirishly to subvert the laws of the land, continuously speaking from both sides of its mouth. On one side they propone to be a indespensable tool for Law Enforcement to combat Islamic terrorism, practically forcing authorities to employ their “services” in the name of inter-faith cooperation and understanding, but in reality exploiting the politically correct crowd in power.
On the other side, CAIR is active in the defense of those who preach from the pulpit of their mosque for the destruction of the American system and its replacement with an Islamic state.
Case in point, is an incident that took place in Detroit.
As reported by the Associated Press:

DETROIT -- A Muslim civil rights group has sued the Michigan State Police for failing to release information related to the killing of a Detroit mosque leader during a shootout with the FBI.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations' Michigan chapter filed a lawsuit Wednesday in Wayne County Circuit Court. Chapter executive director Dawud Walid said today the state police was part of a task force that conducted raids leading to the death of Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah at a Dearborn warehouse in October....
Walid said CAIR plans more lawsuits against other law enforcement agencies.

Who was this Luqman Abdullah? He was an Imam from a Dearborn mosque and a disciple of Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, a former Black Panther convert to Islam who is serving a life sentence for the murder of two police officers.
Imam Luqman used his pulpit to promote Al-Amin’s message that America must fall to Islam; that it is the duty of every Muslim to use any method to cause the fall of the US government and the establishment of an Islamic state in North America; that the elimination of the infidels is a duty of every Muslim.
So this is the character in whose name CAIR is bringing law suit against the Michigan State Police and surely against the FBI in the future, the type of terror preaching imam they are alleging to be fighting against.

Well you do the math.

Just my thoughts!