Ground Zero Mosque: Denmark – A Country Who Is Finally “Getting” It

Comments Off

I am not a racist, nor against anyone freely practicing their religion. Where I draw the line is when someone works, however gradually, to replace the system of laws in my country with a system that is all-encompassing in religion, government, daily living, etc. That is Sharia law. Too many other countries …- Canada, England, France, among others – have dropped trou and allowed their tiny Islamist minority communities to ignore their local, regional, and natonal legal system in favor of Sharia law. The police don’t even go into those neighborhoods, folks!

That can’t even be allowed to gain the smallest foothold here, people, as it has already has in small ways. As Gandalf said in “The Fellowship of the Ring”: “You shall not pass!”. We cannot let these small things pass, innocuous as they may seem.

Here’s another good article on this subject:

“Ground Zero” Mosque is a mistake

August 7, 2010 - Star Parker

Hooray For Denmark – A Country Who Is Finally “Getting” It

This is another one of those articles that I think needs to be passed along in its entirely; it points out the growing threat that a thoroughly socialized country faced through it’s open-door immigrant, generous-welfare-benefit-policy-for-all system was abused by a certain radicalized segment of the immigrant population, and how they faced it down and started to implement reforms to protect their country from further damage. It still boggles my mind that the progressives in this country still eagerly move towards wanting this for our country when it is quite evident it is not working in other countries. In fact, in most countries that have tried it, they’re realizing the folly of such programs and taking steps to minimize the damage that has been done. Yet the knuckleheads in this country still think, somehow, they can make it work here. Unbelievable.

This was forwarded to me by a friend of mine the other day, and it never ceases to be current no matter when the original piece was written or when the data was gathered. So without further ado, I give you a very good piece, written (I think) about two years ago.

Salute the Danish Flag – It’s A Symbol of Western Freedom

By Susan MacAllen

From 1978-9 I was living and studying in Denmark. But in 1978, even in Copenhagen, one didn’t see Muslim immigrants. The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, and went out of its way to protect each of its citizens. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism, one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929; a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time.

The rest of Europe saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism. Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies – it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism. How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets, all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back  to bite?

By the 1990’s the growing urban Muslim population was obvious – and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark’s liberal way of life, the Danes – once so welcoming – began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, equality for women, tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.

In an article the New York Times by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard in 2002, they forecasted – accurately – that the growing immigrant  problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported:

A) Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume  upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.

B) Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark’s 5.4 million people but make  up a majority of the country’s convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.

C) Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less  to mix with the indigenous population.  A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.

D) Forced marriages, promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male  cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him - sometimes on  pain of death – are one problem.

E) Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic (Sharia) law once Denmark’s Muslim population grows large enough – a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim. It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws.

An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and Canada: some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while others hide in fear for their  lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark, a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden before the Nazis could  invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa – who, as a teenager, had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying  Nazi soldiers – and I wonder what she would say today.

In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70  years – one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about unfettered liberal immigration. Today, Denmark has the strictest immigration policies  in Europe. Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of  ‘racism’ by liberal media across Europe – even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.

If you wish to become a Danish citizen, you must:

1. Attend three years of language  classes.

2. Pass a test on Denmark’s history, culture, and a Danish language test.

3. Live in Denmark for 7 years before even applying for citizenship.

4. Demonstrate intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish  to bring a spouse into Denmark, you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won’t find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you.

You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen. Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark, they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren’t.

In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen,  spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare  system, and it was horrifying: the government’s welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75  percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system, as it  existed, was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually  bankrupting the government. “We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration. The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now,” he said.

A large thorn in the side of Denmark’s imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the  new policy toward immigration. “The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference,” Hvilshoj says. “There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come.” And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, “…in my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are  more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech.”

Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a  Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen, stating that the family’s  thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark.

The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All  managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first  time – in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce.

Denmark’s government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether Denmark survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and  social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with  supporters of Sharia law.

And meanwhile, Canadians clamor for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in Canada look at the enclaves of Muslims amongst  us, and see those who enter our shores too easily, dare to live on our taxes yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in  our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language,  or appreciate our history. We would do well to look to Denmark, and say a prayer for her future and for our own.
Mob Politics
Susan MacAllen is a Canadian citizen, and is a contributing editor for FamilySecurityMatters.org

A hateful hate-crimes law

Comments Off

This bill whether attached to the Defense Appropriations Bill or a stand alone bill violates the 1st (free speech),5th (double jeopardy)  and 14th (equal protection) amendments and is unconstitutional.


A hateful hate-crimes law

President Obama has signed into law the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Actually, he signed into law the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act tacked onto which was the hate-crimes legislation.

Sen. Harry Reid, our brave Democratic majority leader, slipped the hate-crimes bill into the defense authorization bill to avoid having to have our senators consider the controversial hate-crimes legislation on its own.

It’s for good reason that our Democratic legislators wanted to hide under a rock while passing this terrible piece of legislation. It may help them with the far-left wing of their party. But weakening and damaging our country is not something to be proud of. And that is exactly what this new hate-crimes law does.

The bill adds on extra penalties to violent crimes when it is deemed they were motivated by gender, sexual orientation or disabilities. It’s the first major expansion of hate-crimes legislation originally passed in 1968, targeted then to crimes aimed at race, color, religion and national origin.

After signing this new law, President Obama celebrated it by saying that in this nation we should “embrace our differences.”

But law isn’t about embracing our differences. It is about providing equal and non-arbitrary protection to all citizens.

Equal protection for every individual American under the law is what the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, passed after the Civil War, guarantees. That this nation takes this guarantee seriously – that there are no classes of individuals that are treated differently under the law – has been a justifiable obsession of blacks.

A society in which all life is not valued the same, where murder of one citizen is not the same as murder of another citizen, is a horror which black Americans have known too well.

So it is a particular irony that this major expansion of the politicization of our law has been signed by our first black president.

What could it possibly mean that the penalty for the same act of violence – for murder – may be different depending on what might be deemed to be the motivation?

Can you imagine a football game where the penalty for roughing the passer is 20 yards rather than 15 if the referee concludes that the violence perpetrated was motivated because the quarterback was homosexual?

Is it not a sign of our own pathology that we now have codified that it is worse to murder a homosexual than someone who has committed adultery, even with your husband or wife, or who has slandered or robbed? Isn’t the point murder?

Can we really believe that someone capable of murder is less likely to do so if the victim is a homosexual and the penalties are greater than for the reasons above?

It should be clear that hate-crime law has nothing to do with improving our law but rather with creating favored political classessomething that should be hateful to everyone who cares about a free society, and particularly hateful to those, such as blacks, who have been so victimized by politicization of law.

WorldnetDaily.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers