Monday, June 26, 2017


by -

In Japan, they have done something that Trump might like. The Supreme Court in Japan has denied an appeal against a new blanket surveillance program that watches all Muslims in the country.

Japanese Muslims say it is a violation of their rights, and tried to sue the state after the surveillance program was revealed.

In 2010, 114 police files were leaked to the public about the mass Muslim surveillance.

In the leaked documents, it was revealed that Japan was watching places of worship, restaurants, and Muslim organizations and groups.

The information found its way on the Internet and was downloaded by twenty different countries in the first week.

A group of Muslims got together and sued the state and won close to a million dollars in compensation.

The payment was due to their information being made public in the leak. There was no payment made for the actual information gathering process, which the prosecution argued was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court decided to go with a lower court ruling, which said the surveillance was “necessary and inevitable” against the global terror threat.

While speaking through the Internet at a Tokyo symposium, NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden has his own theory why this is happening in Japan. The former NSA employee and current resident of Russia said this.

“People of the Islamic faith are more likely to be targeted… despite not having any criminal activities or associations or anything like that in their background, simply because people are afraid.”

In the past month, ISIS and their supporters have killed over a hundred people in attacks and injured over 200 in attacks around the world. The threat from radical Muslim extremists is real, but what are the Japanese giving up to feel safe?

Blanket surveillance is not constitutional here, but then again, it wasn’t constitutional when we threw all the Japanese in internment camps during World War II.

Countries do strange things out of fear, and it is important to know your enemy, but not every Muslim living in Japan is their enemy.

Do you think the blanket surveillance of Muslims is going too far? Let us know in the comments below.

by -
syrian refugees

The wealthiest countries in the Muslim world have refused to take a single Syrian refugee.
Their reason? They’re afraid doing so would open them up to the risk of terrorism. No joke.
Countries like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates–some of the richest countries on the planet, and awash in oil money–have donated small sums to help refugees in other countries, but have completely refused to open their borders themselves.
Since there’s no way to figure out which refugees are people displaced by ISIS and which refugees are ISIS fighters trying to get into foreign countries, the rest of the Muslim world has turned their back on Syrians.
But that hasn’t stopped the oil states from calling for Europe and the United States to do more to combat the refugee crisis.
Currently, the sudden influx of hundreds of thousands of Syrians have caused a refuge crisis in Europe, as countries like Germany and Sweden struggle to house refugees, and their citizens increasingly sour on the idea.
But, in poorer parts of the Middle East–the nations nearest to Syria–there’s been a crisis as well.
So far, countries like Lebanon and Jordan, which both border Syria, have had to take the biggest number of refugees. But Lebanon already has 1.1 million Syrian refugees, and Jordan has 630,000. Considering that both those countries only have a population of a few million, it’s stretched their resources to the point where both nations have now shut their borders.
But, with Jordan and Lebanon closing their borders, and increasing calls for Europe to close their borders as well, the oil states on the Persian Gulf might soon have no choice but to pitch in, and take their fair share of refugees.

by -

Janet Jackson. Muhammad Ali. Kareem Abdul Jabbar. Everlast. Dave Chapelle. Mike Tyson. Ellen Burstyn. What do all these people have in common? Simple – they are Americans who converted to Islam.

Of course, famous names are only a part of the picture. The American Islamic population is growing by leaps and bounds. According to Islam 101, between five and eight million Muslims are currently living in the USA. Pew Research indicates that by 2050, Islam will equal Christianity as the most popular religion and the world, and supplant Judaism as the second most popular in the US.

US Census Bureau data indicates that 100,000 legal Muslim immigrants enter the US every year, and the majority of the 70,000 refugees and asylees admitted yearly speak Arabic as their primary language. Over 90% of the refugees are also on welfare.

Among the most prominent illegal immigrants, Islam is also a growing trend. Pew research indicates that 4% of American Muslims are Hispanic, and conversion rates have been rising sharply since the ‘80s. PBS calls Latinos the fastest growing segment of the American Muslim population.

Given the concurrent fears of radical Islamic terror and the rise of multiculturalism and the cult of PC, these undeniable demographic trends have given rise to sharply divergent philosophies to cope with new realities.

On the one hand, Texas recently became the ninth state to pass laws that have been characterized as anti-Sharia. The bill doesn’t name a religion, country, or set of laws specifically, but mandates that no external laws will have bearing on Texas legal code. In other words, existing state and federal laws are all that matter in Texas, and attempts to appeal to other law codes, like Sharia, are explicitly outlawed.

At the other end of the spectrum, major cities like Chicago and Seattle are passing laws to accommodate Sharia and encourage Muslim population growth. Since Sharia prohibits usury, or the payment of interest on loans, those and other cities have explored lending arrangements that don’t charge interest.

Last week, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray made a proposal to require Sharia-compliant mortgages from lenders. “For our low- and moderate-income Muslim neighbors who follow Sharia law – which prohibits the payment of interest or fees for loans of money – there are limited options for financing a home,” says Murray’s plan. “Some Muslims are unable to use conventional mortgage products due to religious convictions.”

The most likely way for a bank to realize profits on a Sharia compliant home purchase is through something Islam calls ijara, in which the bank purchases a property, then leases it back to the “buyer,” with a portion of the rent payments counting toward the purchase of the property. Murubaha is another Sharia compliant finance process that allows for banks to sell property at a profit and accept installment payments.

Movement towards Sharia compliance has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers and financial experts in the past, with parties of both stripes expressing concern that Islamic friendly financing arrangements could be easily manipulated to funnel liquid funds to terror operations.

Worldwide, Sharia compliant finance has grown to over $1.6 trillion, and many financial analysts see continued growth as Islam continues to spread, especially into developed nations. International financiers have shown a habit – in Greece, China, Spain, and elsewhere – of ignoring any potential human cost in favor of profits. Sharia compliant finance is another area in which the goals of the banksters can and will be in direct conflict with national and humanitarian agendas.

As the Islamization of America continues apace, we will find out – one way or the other – whether the big liberal cities or the conservative states have the right approach.

by -

17 Muslim inmates at jails in Miami-Dade County are suing the state of Florida–because they don’t like their food.

The lawsuit is being assisted by the ACLU and a group called CAIR-Florida.

The complaint stems from the inmates claiming that they haven’t received halal meals in nearly a year–since October 2014.

Halal meals are part of Islamic law, which dictates which foods may be eaten and how they must be prepared, similar to kosher food under Jewish tradition.

The inmates claim that, by not receiving halal food, they’re being forced to violate their religion–which they claim is a violation of their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion.

Technically, according to the Constitution, these inmates would be entitled to halal meals. But here’s the thing: the Miami-Dade County Rehabilitation Department–which oversees the prisons–are claiming that the prisoners are already given the proper food, and this lawsuit is essentially frivolous.

Miami-Dade County said, in a statement, that “the [rehabilitation] department’s Imam, who has serviced the Muslim inmate population for several years… found the alternative meal currently offered to Muslim inmates to be in accordance with Muslim principles.”

The Miami-Dade County Rehabilitation Department continued that even during Ramadan–the holy month in Islam, where Muslims fast from sunrise to sunset–they continued to give them the same halal food.

The ACLU, CAIR-Florida, and the 17 inmates in the lawsuit believe otherwise. While it’s too early to tell who will prevail in this lawsuit, a successful suit could result in new changes to the United States prison system–forcing them to give more privileges and perks to special groups who demand it.


Guarding Republicans

Over the weekend, the New York Times was slammed for running a piece where the news outlet apparently tried to cover up the motives...