The Jewish Banker, The Muslim Maid and Lady Justice

On May 14th in the Sofitel Hotel in New York, an incident took place that was to lay bare the corrupt judicial system in America. A legal system that allows the Rich and Powerful to get away with murder.

A maid enters a room to clean it to find a naked man in front of her. This man then proceeds  to violently sexually assault the maid, who eventually escapes,and  informs the hotel staff. A physical examination shows bruising and confirms sexual activity had taken place. On the surface of it , what more do you need. This is about as clear-cut a convictable rape as you can get.

However when the rapist is the Jewish head of the IMF and in line for the head of the French Socialist Party, and married to the Jewish Billionaire Bridget Guillemette, then it becomes a case of the Victim becoming the lying manipulative money grabber and the rapist the victim.

However what they didn’t bargain for is that the Rape Victim was a devout Muslim, who was raised in her small town in Guinea with the fear of God. They didn’t bargain for a family that would refuse their offers of millions of dollars to drop the case, and they didn’t bargain for a women who in her words to her daughter said “I am gonna be strong for you and every other women in the world”

(its worth pointing out that most newspapers who use this image cut out the man with the muslim hat – perhaps they don’t want people to know that the lady came from a morally upstanding family)

What they would have us Believe

I know it sounds ludicrous, but Kahns (best you can buy) lawyers would have us believe that it is perfectly normal for a young women brought up as a devout muslim to give violent oral sex to every fat old pasty man who jumps out at her naked whilst she cleans the room.

But they are having a little problem as they can’t seem to explain away her moral upbringing or the physical evidence of sexual assault or the fact she reported the rape almost immediately after. So as you would expect , the (best you can buy) lawyers are doing what they do best sidestepping the law for the rich and powerful, by attempting to get the prosecution to drop the case, by painting this devout women as a harlot, and a cheat.

here are some of their scandalous accusations pumped through the (best you can buy) press. All of which have turned out to be lies, hearsay or blatant falsehoods.

  • That the victim really cried rape to get money, and this is proved by a phone conversation afterwards. It turns out that the anonymous police leak was a complete lie
  • That the victim lied on her immigration card and tax report – This somehow makes her testimony as a rape victim less worthy, so much so that the defence is asking the case to be thrown out.
  • That a large amount of money was deposited in her bank account. (maybe she was paid by secret agents to have violent consensual oral sex with this fat pasty old naked man who jumped out at her)

Lets hope that this doesn’t become another example of the rich and powerful getting away with murder, lets hope that the honesty and morality of this women prevails and she gets justice for all the women that are exploited by this kind of scum.

The Hijab and State Control

In yesterdays Independent there is an interesting article on how London is benefiting from Frances Niqab ban which is where the face is covered , as opposed to the hijab where it is not

In the article a dramatic rise in international visitors to Liberties, Selfridge and Harrods are attributed to what Jace Tyrell, the director of the new West end company, the “absolutely critical” spending of visitors from Saudi Arabia and the UAE.. Middle east shoppers spend on average £1,800 per shopping trip compared to £120 by UK Shoppers.

But that aside , the issue of France’s ban on the veil is an interesting opportunity to look at the issue of Government Control and intrusion, and why the limited role of government is essential to our Freedom.

France’s Secular Democracy

The French Revolution and the declaration of the rights in 1789 introduced into Europe the idea of man made rule. “The law is the expression of the will of the nation”, i.e not of God. Throughout Europe and especially the UK the unwritten constitution was that the King, or Queen, and Eventually parliament where bounded by Gods law, and hence the Queen who had ultimate say over what law was passed was sworn to do everything in her power to uphold gods law. Frances constitution was a distinct departure and a precursor to todays civil law system in Britain (as opposed to its common law inheritance)

This is the backdrop to France’s strange reasoning when it comes to the ban on the Veil.

What is Freedom

What does it mean to be free? Freedom to choose, not just which toothpaste you buy, but  how you are governed, freedom to choose how you dress, freedom in religion, etc.
France’s ban on the niqab is Frances States monopoly on violence used to control how a sovereign on that land should dress. Can a French citizen opt out, live on their land and be free to dress as they choose.  Leaving the issue of lewdness and the minimal criteria for modesty in public aside, this is a serious curtailment on freedom by the state.

The argument is that France is a secular country and any public display of religious symbolism must be prevented in order to protect Secular France. Because without a secular france,there would be no protection for the citizens to have the freedom to worship their religion. Secularism being the neutral umbrella protecting each religion , so that it can coexist.

The other argument is that if France does not uses its state monopoly on violence to ensure that the veil is not worn, many french women will be coerced through cultural pressure and marriage to wear the veil.

Both arguments are bankrupt . The first that you somehow protect the right to practice a religion by banning compulsory aspects of religion, and the second that you protect your citizens from coercion by using state force to coerce
If you are in a marriage and your husband insists you wear the veil but you don’t want to , then you have a choice of divorce, however hard it is, it is still a choice
If you are part of a community that pressurize you to wear a veil , then you have the choice to leave that community however hard it is.
But if the state uses its monopoly on violence to threaten you with a fine and ultimately imprisonment then what choice do you have. Leave your country and relinquish your inalienable rights of freedom?

Hijab and the Non authoritarian Islamic State

But what about the muslim countries, Iran they force you to wear hijab, and the same in Saudi.
Yes this state controlled interference in what you wear extends to the muslim world. But this is NOT how it was in Medina. When the Prophet Mohammed made Hijra to Medina and wrote the Medina Constitution, there was no state violence and control of how you dressed.

Medina was a city state, with Jews, Pagans and Muslims as its citizens. its UMMAH.
Were the jewish women forced to wear the Hijab under state coercion? NO
Each group lived under its own rules and regulations, and it was only when it came to the protection of the medina citizens against themselves and from outside that the state used its remit to lay down the law.

There is ample evidence that hijab was not forced on it citizens. There is no proscribed punishment for not wearing a hijab. the closest is lewdness and this is generally taken as fornication or adulty.

The texts and the Ulema are clear that for a beliving muslim women , the Hijab is compulosry. But there is a clear distinction in Islam between a Muslim and a Mumin. A muslim is someone who follows the five pillars and doesn’t commit shirk. A Mumin is someone who follows he Divine Law out of love of Allah and fear of punishment in the hearafter.

In addition slaves where not expected to wear the hijab, and the hadiths concerning Safiyya, the Jewish princess who married the prophet, show that it was not her custom to wear Hijab, until she became a mother of the belivers.

Conclusion

So a non authoritarian invasive government was created in Medina by the Prophet Mohammed. Religious decrees where not enforced by state violence, unless it effected the life and liberty of others.

And yet today we face both in the muslim world and the west an ever increasing encroachment on our freedom.

 

p.s this is the stats for the post before i added this sentence “This is your 13th post. Slick! This post has 911 words.”  dun dun dunnnnnnnnnnn, lol

Face Book Page of Anders Behring Breivik

Now how many newspapers will be reporting this as a christian terrorist

Anders B on culturalism

“The question you should ask yourself is, if cultural differences were too great for the Christian Norwegians and Swedes Christians could live together, how can we expect the Norwegians and Somalis can live together peacefully?

Ideology of multiculturalism (cultural Marxism) is an anti-European hatideologi whose purpose is to destroy European culture, identity and Christianity in general. I equate making multiculturalism with the other hatideologiene: Nazism (anti-Jewish), communism (anti-individualism) and Islam (anti-Kafr).

Japan, South Korea and Taiwan refused to implement multiculturalism (like the three the only Western country that still has monokulturalisme). They argued that “societal Cohesion” is synonymous with harmony within a society. They still see with amazement at this strange European experiment.”

 

 

Aussie Primeminister Gillard jumps on the anti-sharia bandwagoon

Aussie Prime Minister Julia Gilard who was born in Wales has this to say on Wednesday

“IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.. Take It Or Leave it. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians”.

“Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.”

We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why.All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us. This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE!

“If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the Country YOU accepted.”

Yep it is well documented that christians founded the nation of Australia, by genocide of the Indegenous population, none of whom where christian, and none of whom spoke English.

And As for the shariah ticket. Australia like all the other common wealth nations inherited the common laws of great britain. A common law whose foundations where inherited from Shariah established in Sicilly

SCUM Headline – Norways 9/11

The Scum newspaper in the UK headline  reads

Al Qaeda Massacre. Norways 911.

More examples of the shoddy and sensationalist reporting by the murdoch scum. The Scum needs to go the same way as the news o fthe world. In the bin

The suspect “Anders Behring Breivik” shot at the scene is the main suspect. Norweign Police Officials tells AP news Agency the attacks are not linked to international Terrorism.

Anders Behring Breivik

The Oslo bomber Anders Behring Breivik

Yet the Murdoch scum posts this headline

Presidential candidate Cain creeping shariah.

Cain has been quite vocal in his attack on Muslims, ” I will not [appoint a Muslim to my cabinet]. And here’s why. There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government. This is what happened in Europe.”

Well perhaps Cain should look deeper into Americas history. The US declared independence from Great Britain, because it was being governed by maritime law, and not the common law, that Gb was ruled by, ever since George II in the 12th century.
Maybe Cain would be aware that the bedrock of common law, things such as trust (waqf) law, the right to jury trial (lafif law) the concept of innocence until proven guilty and amongst other things the concept of duress, where established shariah principles that suddenly appeared in GB when the uk monarchy came into contact with these principles in what was Islamic sicilly. 
There is no creeping shariah in the us, as its the foundation of the us legal system, and the US declared independence for the right to be governed by shariah.

Nationl Debt Good, Personal Debt Bad

Salaam.

A few months ago I had a conversation with a family friend on the fiscal economy.  Personally I still can’t get my head around the whole fiscal thing (and it seems the bank of england can’t either). Other than knowing that they can print as much as they like, and that the idea this will cause inflation is not entirely true. as the market would have to be aware of this money creation. And the last vestige of law ensuring this was revoked. Good thing there is a movement to put a reform law in place

But he said that every time new money is created and put into the economy it is registered as a debt by the government. And this new money is used to create goods and services, which is the real wealth of a nation. So on every side of the government debt is the equivalent of goods and services. which is a good thing.. It really boils down to the fact that the nation creates the money (i.e it just prints it)

So given todays snow blog on the looming american crisis and the rush into gold. I thought i would dig around to see if anyone else shared my friends view. and lol and behold it is a well respected view

Ken Fisher we need more debt

and from the congressmen Peter Stark, bit arrogant but he explains it. National Debt is very different from Personal Debt