Obama Sides With Iran Over Families of Beirut Bombing Victims

Obama and his pro-Islamic Department of Justice (DOJ), have stabbed the families of the Beirut bombing victims in the back. Just like he did the families of the 911 victims, when he had the DOJ fill a brief to shield the Saudi Royal Family from any 911 lawsuits. Any questions where his loyalties lie?


Hat tip to Bare Naked Islam.

Adding insult to infamy
26 years after attack on Marine barracks in Beirut, families stymied again in bid for restitution

On Veterans Day, Christine Devlin stood in the cold in Westwood for the unveiling of a new memorial to local soldiers lost overseas, including her son Michael, one of the 241 servicemen killed in the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983.

Devlin is among 30 Massachusetts relatives of victims of the Beirut attack who have been fighting for more than a decade to get compensation for what many consider the first major terrorist attack against the United States. After a federal judge ruled in 2007 that Iran was liable for $2.65 billion in damages to be shared by 150 families seeking restitution, they believed they were on the cusp of victory.

But now, the Obama administration is going to court to try to block payments from Iranian assets that the families’ lawyers want seized, contending that it would jeopardize sensitive negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and establish a potentially damaging precedent.

In a little-noticed filing in federal court, the Justice Department is arguing that giving the money to the victims “can have significant, detrimental impact on our foreign relations, as well as the reciprocal treatment of the United States and its extensive overseas property holdings.’’

The Obama administration’s position is a blow to those like Devlin, who is still waiting for some measure of justice for her son, who was 21 when Hezbollah terrorists rammed a suicide truck bomb into the peacekeepers’ headquarters.

“It is offensive that our government - the government that [the Marines] were fighting for, who sent them there - are against us collecting from Iran,’’ Devlin said in an interview this week. “I felt justice was going to be served, but so far it hasn’t.’’

“We can’t go on with our lives,’’ said Marlys Lemnah, 62, of St. Albans, Vt., whose husband, Richard, a Marine sergeant nearing his 20-year retirement, was killed in Beirut. “It’s not about the money. We need something tangible: responsibility and accountability. We will fight until we have no more fight left.’’

SNIP

The Justice Department declined to comment further on the administration’s position, but as the congressional analysis stated, “The issue has pitted the compensation of victims of terrorism against US foreign policy goals and some business interests.’’

Link to Article

CAIR Behind Abercrombie & Fitch Hijab Lawsuit

The Council on American Islamic Relations is at it again. Once again they are trying to get companies across the country to fall in line and cater to Islam. If things do not change, Islam will eventually win by taking over from within.

Hat tip to The Religion of Peace.

Teen at center of rights suit
A federal agency alleges that a retailer did not hire her because of her hijab.

By GINNIE GRAHAM World Staff Writer
Published: 9/18/2009 2:25 AM
Last Modified: 9/18/2009 4:33 AM

A popular national chain of clothing stores is being sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for allegedly not hiring a Muslim Tulsa teenager because she wears a hijab, a religiously mandated head scarf.

The EEOC filed the lawsuit Wednesday against Abercrombie & Fitch in U.S. District Court in Tulsa, citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, modified in 1991, as the basis for the action.

The suit says that Samantha Elauf, 17, applied in June 2008 for a sales job at the Abercrombie Kids store in Woodland Hills Mall.

A district manager allegedly told her that the hijab, which Elauf wears in observance of her religious beliefs, did not fit the store's image.

"Defendant refused to hire Ms. Elauf because she wears a hijab, claiming that the wearing of headgear was prohibited by its Look Policy, and, further, failed to accommodate her religious beliefs by making an exception to the Look Policy," the lawsuit states.

Elauf went to the Council on American-Islamic Relations-Oklahoma, which helped her file a complaint with the EEOC in Oklahoma City.

The Civil Rights Act protects people from discrimination based upon religion in hiring and in the terms of their employment, an EEOC press release says.

The law requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee unless doing so would create an "undue hardship" for the employer.

Link to Article

Native Iraqi Muslim Sues Michigan Court over Headscarf

A native Iraqi Muslim woman is suing a Michigan Judge because he asked her to remove her headscarf. Recently a Michigan Supreme Court ruling gave judges the power to dictate what witnesses can and cannot wear while testifying .

Muslim woman told to remove scarf sues Mich. judge
By BEN LEUBSDORF

SOUTHFIELD, Mich. — A Muslim woman on Wednesday sued a Michigan judge for telling her to remove her headscarf in his courtroom, claiming he violated her First Amendment right to practice her religion.

Raneen Albaghdady, 32, says she felt humiliated when Wayne County Circuit Judge William Callahan ordered her to remove her hijab at a June 16 hearing in his Detroit courtroom. The headscarf, which does not cover the face, is worn by many Muslims in the U.S.

"This is the country and the land of freedom, and we're not supposed to be treated like this for the scarf," the Dearborn Heights woman said at a news conference Wednesday at the Southfield headquarters of the Council on American-Islamic Relation's Michigan chapter, which joined in the federal lawsuit against Callahan and Wayne County.

A courtroom video of the hearing shows Albaghdady appearing before Callahan wearing a loose headscarf.

"No hats allowed in the courtroom," Callahan told her.

"This one?" she asked, touching her scarf. "Ah, OK. It doesn't matter."

Albaghdady pushed back her headscarf for the rest of the hearing on her request to change her name. Callahan denied the request on technical grounds.

"Judge Callahan and the court have the greatest respect for spiritual practices and all religious preferences," Callahan said in a statement released by the court. "Had he been informed that the head covering had some religious significance, the judge would have permitted Ms. Albaghdady to continue wearing it in court."

Albaghdady, a native of Iraq, said Wednesday she was intimidated by Callahan and feared she would be arrested if she refused to remove her hijab.

"I come from a country where you can't say no to a judge in a courtroom," she said.
Some Muslims believe Islamic law requires women to wear a headscarf, veil or burqa in the presence of a man who is not a close relative.

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to order judges in Wayne County to allow the wearing of the headscarf in court.

Wayne County, which includes Detroit, is home to one of the nation's largest Muslim populations.

In another situation involving veils, the Michigan Supreme Court voted June 17 to give judges wide authority over the appearance of witnesses. The rule was adopted after a Muslim woman refused to remove her niqab, or face veil, while testifying in a 2006 small-claims case. Hamtramck District Judge Paul Paruk dismissed Ginnnah Muhammad's case as a result.

Albaghdady appeared before Callahan the day before the state Supreme Court approved the rule. Her lawsuit does not challenge it or address the issue of face veils, said her attorney, Nabih Ayad.

"That's for a later case," he said.

Link to Article

2nd Muslim in Colorado Supermax Prison on Hunger Strike

Just this morning I posted about convicted Islamic terrorist the "shoe-bomber" being on a hunger strike and having a lawsuit pending against the prison that he is in. Today a report has come out stating that there is another convicted Islamic terrorist in the same prison who is also on a hunger strike. This is a plan to get attention, garner sympathy and an attempt to make our prison officers look like the bad guys. Maybe it is time to give all convicted terrorists the death penalty. They are not worth the hassle.

Hat tip to True Prophet.

Canadian hunger striker being force fed in U.S. prison
Stewart Bell, National Post
Published: Tuesday, June 09, 2009

A Canadian serving a life sentence in the United States for terrorism is being force-fed through the nose after going on a hunger strike, his lawyer said on Tuesday.

Mohammed Mansour Jabarah has refused to eat since mid-April and prison officials are allegedly pumping food into his stomach using a tube inserted in his nose.

The convicted al-Qaeda terrorist is protesting restrictions on his mail, his lawyer said, but his father said Jabarah and other Muslim inmates also want to pray together.

The U.S. Bureau of Prisons declined to comment for privacy reasons. Prison officials can intervene when a hunger striker's life is at risk but the force-feeding of inmates is controversial.

"They shove a tube up your nose down into your throat," said Kenneth Paul, the lawyer who represented Jabarah at his trial in New York. "It's like torture."

He said the prison officials begin force-feeding once an inmate has lost a certain percentage of body weight. The feeding is done by a physician or a physicians' aide, he said.

Jabarah, 27, immigrated to Canada from Kuwait as a boy. After graduating from high school in St. Catharines, Ont., in 2000, he travelled to Afghanistan, where he trained at Osama bin Laden's camps.

He was one of a small core of dedicated terrorists who formally joined al-Qaeda by swearing an oath to bin Laden. In 2001, Bin Laden sent Jabarah to Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks, who gave him additional training in Pakistan and tasked him to bomb the American and Israeli embassies in Singapore.

Before the attack could be executed, Jabarah was arrested in Oman and brought back to Ontario by Canadian Security Intelligence Service officers. He later surrendered voluntarily to U.S. officials and pleaded guilty to charges in New York.

In 2007, the Security Intelligence Review Committee scolded CSIS for violating Jabarah's rights by arbitrarily detaining him and helping transfer him into U.S. custody without consulting a defence lawyer.

U.S. prosecutors argued he was irredeemably devoted to the cause of bin Laden. As proof they cited a letter in which he wrote, "And if they release me, then I will kill until I am killed."

A sentencing memorandum claimed that while feigning cooperation with investigators, Jabarah had plotted to kill the FBI agents and prosecutors working on his case, stashing away steak knives and nylon rope as well as bomb plans.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment last January. His appeal was dismissed. He is serving his sentence at one of the country's most secure prisons, 145 kilometres south of Denver.

Last March, Jabarah filed a complained against U.S. justice and prison officials, blaming them for his depression and other health problems. In the complaint, he accused officials of withholding family mail, including a Koran, for up to 41 months.

"I know that he was objecting to mail restrictions," Mr. Paul said. "He was not getting his mail, his mail was not going out, it would take forever to get mail that was mailed to him many, many, many months earlier.

"I think that that's the basis for the hunger strike and I don't know if it's limited to just mail. I think there are several issues that are being violated by the Bureau of Prisons," he said. Canadian consular officials are aware of the hunger strike, he added.

His father Mansour Jabarah, who now lives in Kuwait City, said in an e-mail that his son wanted to be able to phone his family and attend group prayers. "He and the other Muslims in his section would like to be able to pray together, especially Friday prayer."

Link to Article

It's up to all of us to do What's Necessary to Fight Islamic Jihadism and Incremental Sharia law

This is a letter sent in from reader Ann Huggett. She had called and written to Essex County in response to the "Dept. of Justice Sues Essex County to Protect Islam!" article. I applaud her for trying to change the direction that we are heading in.

xxxxx@admin.essexcountynj.org
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 10:41 AM

Dear Xxxxx

Thank you for taking my call as I believe that an article, which I researched and wrote in 2003, may prove invaluable to Essex County in its lawsuit filed against it by the US Justice Department over the county firing a corrections officer for wearing religious head wear.

My article, Muslim Headscarves on Western Streets, takes issue with the Islamic headscarf, what it actually means, what it represents and precisely why it is being worn. In my article I provide back-up research and the following two paragraphs are crucial:

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times to anyone who will listen: that headscarf is NOT a religious requirement but a political statement and symbol of radical Islamic Fundamentalism. Egyptian student radicals dreamed up this headscarf in the 1970s as a covert political signal of Fundamentalist approval by female students for their male counterparts. This is according to Fadwa El Guindi, who is Adjunct Full Professor of Anthropology at the University of Southern California.

In her article "Veiling Resistance", which appeared in the March 1999 edition of Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body & Culture, Professor El Guindi said, "Women's Islamic dress, known as al-ziyy al-Islami, is an innovative construction that was first worn in the mid-1970s by activists. It does not represent a return to any traditional dress form and has no tangible precedent. There was no industry behind it-not one store in Egypt carried such an outfit. Based on an idealized Islamic vision gradually constructed for the Islamic community in the seventh century, it was made in the homes by the activists themselves."

Professor Fadwa El Guindi also has a book that might be of help in formulating your case. Her book is entitled, "Veil: Modesty, Privacy & Resistance" and is available through Amazon.com.

France, Turkey and Egypt all recognize the danger inherent in allowing this form of dressing and America must understand and recognize it too. Please forward this article's archived link (http://www.americandaily.com/article/3843) to the appropriate Essex County lawyers, who are handling this case. The US Department of Justice is clearly in the wrong and the Obama Administration has no business furthering Islamic political and cultural jihad here in the United States.

If you have any questions or if I can be of any further help, please call me at (xxx) xxx-xxxx.

Yours truly,

Ann Huggett

"Shoe-Bomber" on Hunger Strike

Convicted Islamic terrorist the "shoe-bomber" has been well trained as he is fully working the system and has even filed a typical Islamic lawsuit against the prison for religious discrimination. Part of Bin Laden's plan is to break us financially and these Muslim lawsuits are part of it.

"Shoe-bomber" Reid on hunger strike in U.S. prison

By Keith Coffman and Robert Boczkiewicz
DENVER (Reuters) – Convicted "shoe-bomber" Richard Reid, who was found guilty in 2003of trying to blow up a transatlantic jetliner, has been refusing food for several weeks and is being force fed, court documents showed on Tuesday.

Traci Billingsley, spokeswoman at federal prison headquarters in Washington, D.C., said the bureau does not comment on inmates' conditions and would not say whether Reid's hunger strike is related to a lawsuit he has filed against prison officials.

Reid's lawsuit alleges prison authorities have repeatedly prevented him from following the tenets of his Sunni Muslim faith. A U.S. District Court judge in Denver recently denied the authorities' request to throw out Reid's lawsuit.

Reid, 35, has refused food since March at the Supermax prison, the United States' highest-security federal lockup, 90 miles south of Denver, a federal government lawyer said in the court filings.

The government attorney, in a previously undisclosed court filing dated April 14, wrote that prison officials determined on April 7 "that medical intervention was necessary" and Reid was being force fed and hydrated.

He had refused 58 meals by April 9, the attorney said in the documents.
In an update court filing last Friday, the government attorney wrote that Reid remains on the hunger strike and that prison officials continue to monitor his condition.

Reid was sentenced in 2003 in federal court in Boston for trying to ignite two bombs in his shoes on a Paris-to-Miami flight on American Airlines. He was subdued by passengers before he could detonate the explosives.

The Supermax facility houses the most notorious federal inmates including Ramzi Yousef, convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski.

Link to Article

Lawsuit Against US Govt for Supporting Sharia Banking Moves Forward

This is an update to the
"Iraqi war vet Sues Govt for Bailout of AIG, Supporting Islam" story.

AIG, Sharia and Uncle Sam
A federal judge in Michigan has declined to dismiss an ex-Marine's lawsuit that insurance giant AIG is using tax dollars to promote Islamic Sharia law and charities that may be funneling money to terrorist organizations.

Just when you thought the government's massive bailout of AIG couldn't get more complicated or controversial.

The facts of the case "raise a question of whether the government's involvement with AIG has created the effect of promoting religion and sufficiently raise Plaintiff's claim beyond the speculative level," U.S. Dist. Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff ruled .

The judge's ruling, a surprise to many legal scholars who think the suit will never go to trial, adds a troubling religious dimension to an already troubling economic crisis. It also shines a spotlight on Sharia-compliant financing, a growing part of the $1 trillion Islamic banking industry.

Sharia, or Islamic law, encourages trade and investment, but bans interest and prohibits investments in certain areas such as gambling, alcohol, pornography, abortion, human cloning, conventional banks or insurers, and most forms of entertainment. Under Sharia, making money from money, such as charging interest, is usury and therefore not permitted. Western banks and investment companies have established Sharia-compliant accounts overseen by imams and Islamic scholars.

According to the lawsuit, filed by the conservative Christian Thomas More Law Center, at least a portion of AIG's $40 billion federal bailout has been used to support Sharia-compliant financial products. The suit claims that violates the First Amendment's establishment clause. "It is outrageous that AIG has been using taxpayer money to promote Islam and Shariah law, which potentially provides support for terrorist activities aimed at killing Americans," Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, said in a statement.

The federal judge hasn't ruled on the merits of the case, but he did acknowledge that "at least two of AIG's subsidiary companies practice Sharia-compliant financing, one of which was unveiled after the influx of government cash." He also noted "That after the government acquired a majority interest in AIG and contributed substantial funds to AIG for operational purposes, the government co-sponsored a forum entitled "Islamic Finance 101."

Many legal experts doubt that such actions constitute a violation of church (or mosque) and state.

"The government no more cares about advancing Sharia through the AIG bailout than my local Ralphs supermarket cares about advancing kosher laws by selling products that are certified kosher," UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who expects the case to be thrown out, wrote in his Volokh Conspiracy blog.

Robert Tuttle, constitutional law professor at George Washington University, told Fox News that he doubts the case will go to trial: "The question is whether the government has funded religion, not whether the religion is good or bad that the government has funded. Then the next question is whether the government is responsible for what AIG has done. I can't imagine any court saying, under existing law, that the government will be responsible for what AIG does."

Anti-Islam conspiracy theorists will have a field day with this one, regardless of what happens to the lawsuit. But the case does raise some interesting questions about the application of Sharia law in western democracies and economies.

Are companies that pursue religious clients endorsing that religion? Can and should every faith group have its own financial products? Can democracy accommodate any aspect of Sharia? Could capitalism survive without interest?

For now, I'll go with On Faith panelist and Interfaith Alliance chief Welton Gaddy's bottom line on Sharia in the West: "If a conflict arises between American law and religious laws, the Constitution prevails."

Link to Article

US:Muslims win Lawsuit and get Extra Break Time

A Federal Judge has given the OK and now the Somalian Muslims will get their money from their lawsuit versus Gold'n Plump Inc. They are even being allowed an extra break each day to pray. The first thing is that they should not be allowed to have more breaks than non-Muslims and how is it religious discrimination to ask someone to sign a form stating that they will have to handle pork? If you cannot do the job, you should not be hired in the first place.

Bias suits settled with Gold'n Plump, job agency
Muslim workers receive $1.35 million under a religious discrimination settlement.

March 31, 2009

A federal judge gave approval for Gold'n Plump Inc. and an employment agency to pay $1.35 million to settle lawsuits alleging religious discrimination against Muslims at a chicken processing plant in Cold Spring, Minn.

The money will go to 128 Somali Muslims who claim that St. Cloud-based Gold'n Plump violated their religious rights by refusing to allow them prayer breaks during work hours, and to another 28 workers who said a St. Paul employment agency, the Work Connection Inc., required them to sign forms acknowledging they would be required to handle pork.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigated the allegations and said it found cause to believe discrimination occurred, according to lawsuits filed last year.

In a settlement approved Tuesday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeanne Graham, Gold'n Plump will add a paid break during the second half of each shift to accommodate Muslim employees who wish to pray. The break is in addition to one early in the shift and lunch breaks required by law.

The Work Connection has agreed to provide offers of employment to the 28 job seekers who were turned away for not signing the "pork form."

The $1.35 million settlement includes $985,000 for legal costs and $365,000 in cash payments to the 156 workers.

CHRIS SERRES

Link to Article

US:Muslim Woman Wearing Head Scarf Asked to Leave Bank Line Again

This is a follow up story about a Muslim woman who is suing a bank for refusing to serve her unless she took off her head scarf. The bank said that this was for security issues. The difference between this story and the first is that this is the second time that this same woman went into the same bank looking to break the rules. This was obviously a setup.

Hat tip to Suzanne.

Muslim Woman Asked to Leave Line at Credit Union Because of Head Scarf

By Matt Zapotosky
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
A Muslim woman was asked to leave her place in line at a credit union in Southern Maryland and be served in a back room because the head scarf she wore for religious reasons violated the institution's "no hats, hoods or sunglasses" policy, the woman said yesterday.

The incident at the Navy Federal Credit Union on Saturday was the second in a month for Kenza Shelley, and Muslim advocates fear it could become a problem nationwide as many financial institutions, intent on curbing robberies and identity theft, ban hats and similar items without appropriate accommodations for religious attire.

"This may be the tip of the iceberg," said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations. "There's got to be a way to work it out so that this security concern does not lead to violations of constitutional rights."

Shelley, 54, who runs a day care out of her home in Lexington Park, said she has used the credit union in the St. Mary's County community of California for more than 10 years. Until February, no employees had complained about her head scarf, which covers her hair but not her face. But a few weeks ago, she said, she was standing in line to deposit a check when an employee asked her to come to the back room, referring to a new policy that prohibited hats, hoods and sunglasses. She complied but asked whether she would have to go through the same process each time she made a transaction.

On Saturday, Shelley said, employees again asked her to come to the back room if she would not remove her head scarf. "No," she recalled telling them, "I want to be served like everybody else."

She left the credit union and called the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which lobbies and advocates for the Muslim community. "There was so many people there, and I was embarrassed," she said.

Tom Lyons, senior vice president for security at Navy Federal, said he was not aware of Shelley's case and could not discuss it specifically. But he defended the credit union's policy, implemented in December, saying it was designed to prevent armed robbery and identity theft. He said it would not be unreasonable for bank employees to ask customers who refused to take off their hats to move to a separate room so they could be identified.

"We want to be able to clearly identify who you are and make sure the transaction is safe," Lyons said. "This is a policy that applies to everybody in the branch. She wasn't singled out. . . . We tried to accommodate her and help her with her transaction and move on."

Lyons said that banks saw a significant increase in robberies last year, especially in the Washington area, and that many banks have instituted similar policies. Navy Federal is among the last to do so, he said. "This is not a new process. It's all over the country."

Fred Solomon, a spokesman for PNC Bank, said all branches have banned hats and other head apparel for more than a year, although the company put signs in their buildings stating as much only in the past six months. He said the reason for the ban is security. He said his tellers receive "special training on what is and isn't religious headgear" and are told not to ask those wearing religious headgear to take it off.

News reports provided by the Council on American-Islamic Relations indicate that two Muslim women in the state of California were refused service when they would not remove their scarves.

Link to Article

CAIR Sues Bank for Refusing Service

CAIR, the Islamic organization that was recently hit with racketeering charges by the US Department of Justice has turned around in an act of self arrogance and asked the Justice Dept. to investigate a California bank for allegedly discriminating against an Islamic woman. CAIR has offered the bank the “An Employer’s Guide to Islamic Religious Practices”. How kind of them.

CAIR: Calif. Muslim Denied Service at Bank over Hijab
DOJ asked to investigate possible civil rights violations by bank officials
WASHINGTON, D.C., 2/2/2009) - A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called on the U.S. Department of Justice to determine whether a California bank violated a Muslim woman’s civil rights when it denied her service because she was wearing a religiously-mandated head scarf, or hijab.

According to the woman, she was denied service Saturday at a Navy Federal Credit Union in San Diego, Calif., despite telling bank officials that she wears her head scarf for religious reasons.

In a statement, the bank said:

“‘In the interest of Security and Safety for our members and employees - hats, hoods and sunglasses must be removed when entering the branch office.’ Special consideration for cultural and religious garments is under the discretion of the branch management. Navy Federal is making inquiries into the recent incident.”

Hat to Valdtepesblogs and for the rest of the article.

US:Muslim Sues Prison for Halal Meat

As usual we get another dose of Muslims trying to force non-Muslims to accommodate Islam. This time a Muslim named Ricardo Collins is suing the Connecticut state prison because he has been denied halal meat. As of now a prison spokesman has stated that they do not have to serve halal meat. Hopefully they will stick to their guns and not cave in like they did in Wyoming.


Hat tip to The Denialator.

Conn. inmate sues to get halal meat
A Connecticut prison inmate has sued the state, claiming that his religious freedom as a Muslim has been violated by the lack of halal meat.

Ricardo Collins filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court on Dec. 23, The Hartford Courant reported.

"I am a American Muslim and I am being denied the halal meat for the two Islamic feast days," Collins said in his complaint. "The halal meat for the two feasts have great 'spiritual meaning' to the Muslim community all over the world."

The named defendants include Corrections Commissioner Theresa Lantz and other officials, including chaplains at the Corrigan-Radgowski correctional facility in Uncasville.

Collins was sentenced to 70 years after he was convicted of killing a man in Bridgeport in 2002. He recently won an appeal granting him a new trial.

Brian Garnett, a spokesman for the prison system, said that it meets the requirements set down by a court decision that ruled that New Jersey prisons were not required to serve halal meat, which has been slaughtered according to religious rules.

Link to Article

Muslim Woman Arrested in US Courtroom

Hat tip on the pic and update to TexCat.

As a Muslim woman from Georgia named Lisa Valentine, also known by her Islamic name, Miedah, tried to enter a courtroom, a bailiff told her that she would have to remove her hijab if she wanted to come in. Instead of complying she cursed the bailiff. As a result she was sentenced to 10 days in jail for contempt of court. Apparently it is OK when they tell us how to live, but no one can ask anything of them. Now CAIR has gotten in the middle of it all and has asked the Department of Justice to get involved and investigate the judge, as the judge has barred other Islamic women from his courtroom in the past for the same reason.

It is fascinating to me that CAIR even has the nerve to show their faces in front of the Justice Department after they have recently been hit with racketeering charges. Back in 2006 CAIR pursued a similar case in Tacoma and got the court to reverse its decision about Muslim women wearing headscarves in the state's courtrooms. Presiding Judge Jack Emery now allows all religious headgear into the Tacoma courts. Obviously in the past Jews had no problem following this rule. This is just another attempt by Muslims to impose Islam on our country.

Wyoming Prison Caves to Islam

The ACLU has successfully gotten the Wyoming Department of Corrections to cater to the demands of its Muslim prisoners. Originally prisoners had to eat their meals within twenty minutes of delivery of that meal. This conflicted with the prayer times of the Muslims prisoners. So now Muslim prisoners are allowed to keep their meals in their cells until the next one is served, allowing them to stick with their prayer schedule. The prison is also installing special microwave ovens which prisoners are not allowed to put pork in. As pork is considered unclean according to the rules of Islam. What is next, moving the toilets to accommodate Islam, like the UK did?



Link to Article

UPS Settles Islamic Lawsuit

The wave of lawsuits by Muslims against the companies who where kind enough to hire them continues as UPS has just settled its suit with eight Muslim women over their dress code. Terms were not disclosed but obviously this is a victory for the plantiffs and this will only encourage more lawsuits by Muslims.

Settlement reached between UPS and eight Muslim women who alleged discrimination by the company
680News staff 2008-11-17 19:47
TORONTO - Eight Muslim women who filed a human rights complaint against the United Parcel Service (UPS) over the dress code have settled with the company.

According to the Toronto Star, the case was heard before a Canadian Human Rights tribunal, Monday morning.

The terms of the settlement will not be released.

The women, all devout Muslims, lost their jobs in 2005 because they refused to hike their skirts above the knee over their long pants. They alleged discrimination.

UPS said the ankle-length skirts were a safety hazard as workers climb ladders up to six metres high.

Link to Article

UK:Muslim Twin Sisters hit the Jackpot with Lawsuit

Just two days ago I reported that the Muslims who filed a lawsuit against Swift Plant were awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now today the constantly suing Muslims have hit the jackpot in the UK with a 10 million pound payout. All that I can say is hire at your own risk.

Thanks to Joan from the UK.

Muslim twin sisters in UK get 10-mn pound payout for racism and drug abuse claims
admin November 12th, 2008 World News

London, Nov 12 (ANI): Two Muslim sisters have won a multi-million pound settlement on the verge of an explosive tribunal which threatened to make public claims of widespread drug abuse and racial bigotry in London.

Samira and Hanan Fariad, 31, had made more than 200 sensational claims like top brokers used cocaine, and subjected them to unbearable levels of race and religious discrimination.

They alleged that former bosses at Tradition Securities and Futures turned a blind eye to the deplorable behaviour.

But just days after the case began last week the two sides settled for what is believed to be a staggering 10million pound. It dwarfs all previous payouts, The Sun reported.

The French twins, who held hands during tribunal hearings, were on 50,000 pound a year salaries but earned six figures with commission.

They claimed Jewish clients were taken away from them. And they said bosses transferred these clients to non-Muslims during their two years as brokers.


Last week the French-owned firm dismissed the allegations as an utter distortion of the facts.

But yesterday an insider said: Tradition knew what was going to come out in the tribunal if this case wasn’t settled and they knew it wouldn’t look good, regardless of the truth of the claims. These things can cause uproar at the best of times but with the current economic climate there could have been a nasty backlash.

The twins quit the company in November 2006 saying that they could no longer work there. All the staff they claimed were behind the discrimination have also since left the firm the paper said.

The case at the Central London Employment Tribunal opened on last Wednesday and was scheduled to last 55 days. It would have been one of the longest-ever in the UK.

Tradition’s parent company, Compagnie Financiere Tradition, is one of the world’s largest broker firms with a turnover of 770million pound in 2007.

Samira Fariad started work in the Paris branch of the firm in 2001. Three years later she was transferred to London where her sister joined Samira. (ANI)

Link to Article

Muslims get the Last Laugh at Swift Plant

This appears to be what is the final follow up on the story of the Muslims at Swift Plant who demanded extra break times to pray for the month of Ramadan. After a back and forth struggle which saw about 100 Muslims being fired, Swift will be paying the Muslims hundreds of thousands of dollars. They were even fined for having Muslims sign a contract saying that they would be willing to handle pork, which is considered haraam in Islam or forbidden. So now we see that employers cannot even defend themselves in advance by asking Muslims if they will handle pork. For more on the hazards of hiring Muslims go here.

Minnesota Plant That Fired Muslims for Taking Prayer Breaks Will Pay $365,000
Tuesday, November 11, 2008

MINNEAPOLIS — Under a settlement to a federal lawsuit, up to 100 Somali Muslims who are current or former workers at Gold'n Plump Inc. will receive a total of $365,000.

The settlement was filed in Minneapolis on Friday. It sprang from allegations of religious discrimination at the company's chicken processing plants in Cold Spring and Arcadia, Wis.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed lawsuits against St. Cloud-based Gold'n Plump and the Work Connection Inc., an employment agency in St. Paul, which handled some hiring for the plant.

Under the settlement, Gold'n Plump agreed to pay $215,000 to workers who were terminated for taking prayer breaks.

The Work Connection will pay $150,000 to workers who were asked to sign a form acknowledging that they might be required to handle pork, which many Muslims consider unclean.

The EEOC estimates that 40 to 100 workers will qualify for the payments.

Link to Article

UK:Muslim who Sued Supermarket Because he had to Handle Alcohol Loses Suit

Here is an update to this story. About Muslim man from the UK who sued the Tesco Supermarket chain because he had to handle cases of alcohol. Thankfully he has lost his lawsuit and he has said that it is unfair. Well Mr. Ahmed, what is unfair is that so many Muslims think that the non-Muslim world has to change to suit Islam. One for the good guys.

Thanks to Joan from the UK.

Muslim worker loses out in Tesco booze bid
Wednesday, October 29, 2008

A DERBY Muslim who sued Tesco for religious discrimination after he was asked to handle crates of alcohol has lost his case.
Mohammed Ahmed, who worked in a warehouse, said the job was against his Islamic beliefs. The 32-year-old, of Upper Dale Road, Normanton, also accused Tesco of victimisation and harassment during a three-day employment tribunal in Birmingham.

His job at the supermarket giant's Lichfield depot involved the transportation of various goods, including alcoholic drinks, on fork-lift trucks.
The Saudi Arabian national told the tribunal he was not informed that he would be handling alcohol when he started the job last year.

He said he was considering appealing against the decision after being told his legal action had failed.
He said: "It's not fair but what can I do? They [Tesco] were not taking into account my religious beliefs. I will consult with solicitors."

The situation came to a head before Christmas last year, when more alcohol was ferried to the Tesco warehouse in preparation for the festive season.
Mr Ahmed told the tribunal that he was not made aware he would be required to handle alcohol when he started the job, a claim denied by Tesco.

He also said he had not visited any of Derby's three Tesco stores and was unaware alcohol was served by the shop. He admitted, however, that he had been to Sainsbury's, Asda and Lidl stores.

He refused to touch alcohol because it was against his religious principles as a Muslim, he said, and asked to be found other work.
He told the tribunal that Tesco failed to co-operate and alleged he was told by a supervisor, "You do the job or go home", a claim also denied by the store.

Mr Ahmed, who moved to Derby in 2006, complained to Tesco but claimed he was treated unfairly as a result. After eight months working for the company, he left in protest.
Speaking after the three-day tribunal in Birmingham, he had said: "It's in our religion that we are not allowed to handle alcohol. In the UK there's equal opportunities that should protect me and my beliefs."

Tesco said Mr Ahmed was made aware during his employment induction course that he would be handling alcohol, and that every effort was made to find him an alternative role in the warehouse.

Link to Article

The Hazards of Hiring Muslims

Besides all the threats and imposing that the Islamic community brings to non-Muslims there is also another problem that they bring, lawsuits. Lawsuits claiming discrimination against them. Most recently we had the lawsuit happy Muslim from Brooklyn and the UK Muslim who sued the Tesco Supermarket chain because as a stock boy he had to handle unopened bottles of alcohol. Today we have female Muslim twins that are stockbrokers from the UK who have filed over 200 allegations of religious and race bias. One of the charges is that they have had their Jewish clients taken away from them and given to a Jewish broker. The brokerage company Tradition Securities and Futures has said that many clients were reallocated to different brokers to try and get maximum results but the Muslim women are seeking the largest tribunal payout is UK history. I believe that many Muslims seek employment with the intention of looking for any reason to sue. It is clear that the Islamic way of life and non-Islamic way of life do not mix. Besides them disrupting the work place, if we do not want to cater to Islam, is it fair that we should be subjected to lawsuits from them? They are once again using our way of life against us, to destroy us from within.