Obama Administration Paves the Way for Sharia Law
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PAVES THE WAY FOR SHARIA LAW
Send a Tip
by WILLIAM BIGELOW 6 Aug 2012 703 POST A COMMENT
The most terrifying danger Americans face from a second Barack Obama term isn’t the economy, which is scary enough.
The most harrowing prospect is the Obama Administration’s passivity in the face of attempts to introduce aspects of sharia law into our legal system. Now there is strong and open evidence of the Obama administration collaborating with Islamist activists to ensure the path toward sharia law is accelerated.
Just last week, Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, was asked this question by Trent Franks (R-AZ), a member of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution: "Will you tell us here today that this Administration's Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?"
Perez refused to answer. Four times.
And why would Franks target Perez?
Last October, at George Washington University, there was a meeting between DOJ officials, including Perez, and Islamist advocates against free speech. Representatives from the Islamist side included Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The ISNA was an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding trial in 2008, as well as functioning as a Muslim Brotherhood Front. The leader of the Islamist attack was Sahar Aziz, an Egyptian-born American lawyer and Fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a Muslim advocacy group based in Michigan. At the meeting, the Islamists lobbied for:
Cutbacks in U.S. anti-terror training
Limits on the power of terrorism investigators
Changes in agent training manuals
A legal declaration that criticism of Islam in the United States should be considered racial discrimination
Aziz said that the word “Muslim” has become “racialized” and, once American criticism of Islam was silenced, the effect would be to "take [federal] money away from local police departments and fusion centers who are spying on all of us.”
And what was the response from Perez and the DOJ officials?
That’s right: no objection, no defense of our first amendment right to free speech.
Aug 12, 2012