US Judge Rules In Favor of Muslim Shariah Law – In America

United States Judge Joseph Charles, of the New Jersey State Superior Court — where he was appointed in 2003 — recently made a ruling in favor of Islamic Shariah Law.

A New Jersey family court judge’s decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him is sounding the alarm for advocates of laws designed to ban Shariah in America.

Judge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs — and that he did not have “criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault” his wife.

According to the court record, the man’s wife — a Moroccan woman who had recently immigrated to the U.S. at the time of the attacks — alleged:

“Defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her “this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.”

This ruling by Judge Charles was overturned.

But Shariah is here, ladies and gentlemen — and it is being considered and factored into legal rulings. It is here and it is now. Women are chattel and owned by their Muslim men. Misogyny rules. This isn’t the UK or Europe — this is the United States of America.

Be forewarned.

BZ

Racist Mexican Movie “Machete” – Promoting Racial War

I don’t always agree with Alex Jones, but he is mostly correct in this video:

Now imagine a major movie released today where whites advocate the death of blacks or Mexicans or Asians (and then do so), and which advocates the paid assassination of, say, a black or Mexican senator.

The film promotes racial warfare plain and simple.

You need to be aware, America, of that which is going on around you.

And what is coming. This movie will help to create a racial divide. Be prepared.

BZ

Rudeness vs Tolerance

So there I was.

I had decided this past Sunday to take my wife to a restaurant which advertised extraordinary ribs. It was 35 miles away and not known for its rock-bottom prices. In fact, the tab for two appetizers, one adult beverage, one iced tea, two entrees and one dessert was $94.78.

All during dinner there was a small child in the next room which would shriek at regular intervals at the top of her lungs. Not just yell; oh no. I mean shriek: the kind of ear-piercing shriek that would be typified by old Memorex ads where the speakers blow ties, lamps and martinis back. The kind of shriek that cracks glass. The kind of shriek that cannot be reproduced by human beings at any other age. She wasn’t being hurt; she wasn’t being repressed. She just wasn’t getting her way.

The kind of shriek that, at my age, literally lances my eardrums and causes me to cover my ears and become nauseous. The kind of shriek that ruins my dinner and that of all of those around me.

After an amazingly-tolerant half hour of this, I dropped my fork, stood up, and ventured into the adjacent room. There I witnessed one young well dressed white male, one well dressed white female, and one small 1.5-year-old female child in a high chair.

Most of the tables in this room were unoccupied. Three were occupied.

I strode up to their table and announced in my best “outside voice”:

“I’m sure you’re wonderful parents. But I am not paying a massive tab to hear your kid scream and disturb me and everyone else in this restaurant. I think it’s time to take your kid outside.”

I did what every other male in that restaurant wanted to do, lorded over by their females. I was the only one with sufficient balls to state the obvious. As I turned and left I could feel daggers piercing my back. I didn’t give the parents time to respond. The guy made some noise.

A short time later the male took the kid outside, then came back a few minutes after that. They left the restaurant within ten minutes. I applauded slowly and loudly. I received a number of glares and, on the other hand, a number of sly half-smiles from other tables. Mostly from men.

Oddly enough, the tables closest to the damned noise were the quietest.

But let me make this explanation if I might for those of you parents who might possibly be applicable:

My job is not to “socialize” your kid. My job is not to tolerate your kid. My job is not to look the other way or forgive.

Instead, my job is to take my wife to a nice dining experience and to expect an environment where we can enjoy the dollars we contribute to this choking economy.

To the applicable parents: if you want to socialize your kid do it on your own time and at lesser venues. Do it at McDonald’s. Do it at Denny’s. More importantly: do it at HOME.

Because, at my age, I don’t care what people think of me. Rude is rude and ignorant is ignorant. I know it when I see it.

Am I sufficiently blunt? Because I want to be clear.

BZ

Why Businesses Aren’t Hiring:


An excellent article in the Wall Street Journal by Michael P. Fleischer entitled “Why I’m Not Hiring” has the more salient subtitle of:

When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally’s pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits.

Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage, my company pays the rest—$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally.

Then the federal and state governments want a little something extra. They take $56 for federal unemployment coverage, $149 for disability insurance, $300 for workers’ comp and $505 for state unemployment insurance. Finally, the feds make me pay $856 for Sally’s Medicare and $3,661 for her Social Security.

When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally’s pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally’s job each year.

Because my company has been conscripted by the government and forced to serve as a tax collector, we have lost control of a big chunk of our cost structure. Tax increases, whether cloaked as changes in unemployment or disability insurance, Medicare increases or in any other form can dramatically alter our financial situation. With government spending and deficits growing as fast as they have been, you know that more tax increases are coming—for my company, and even for Sally too.

Companies have also been pressed into serving as providers of health insurance. In a saner world, health insurance would be something that individuals buy for themselves and their families, just as they do with auto insurance. Now, adding to the insanity, there is ObamaCare.

To offset tax increases and steepening rises in health-insurance premiums, my company needs sustainably higher profits and sales—something unlikely in this “summer of recovery.” We can’t pass the additional costs onto our customers, because the market is too tight and we’d lose sales. Only governments can raise prices repeatedly and pretend there will be no consequences.

So. You wonder why companies aren’t hiring?

Because they are the government’s bitch and the focus, from DC, of all that is bad in America.

Note to government: businesses are not in business to lose money.

This is something that you, DC, don’t have the first ability to grasp.

BZ

The Cost of NOT Building Electrical Generation


America desperately needs electrical generation stations.

More new stations and updates for the older ones.

CNN Tech writes:

Throughout New York City, about 52,000 of ConEd’s 3.2 million customers lost power during the heat wave. Triple-digit temperatures forced residents like 77 year-old Rui Zhi Chen, to seek shelter at one of the city’s 400 emergency cooling centers. “It felt like an oven in my home and on the street,” Chen said.

Should Americans view these kinds of scenarios as extraordinary circumstances — or a warning sign of a darker future?

Experts on the nation’s electricity system point to a frighteningly steep increase in non-disaster-related outages affecting at least 50,000 consumers.

During the past two decades, such blackouts have increased 124 percent — up from 41 blackouts between 1991 and 1995, to 92 between 2001 and 2005, according to research at the University of Minnesota.

In the most recently analyzed data available, utilities reported 36 such outages in 2006 alone.

“It’s hard to imagine how anyone could believe that — in the United States — we should learn to cope with blackouts,” said University of Minnesota Professor Massoud Amin, a leading expert on the U.S. electricity grid.

More than 30 years later (after the 1977 New York City blackout), the United States is still “operating the most advanced economy in the world with 1960s and 70s technology,” said Amin. Failing to modernize the grid, he said, will threaten the U.S. position as an economic super power.

And yet, not only do the Religious Left want no more electrical generation stations to be built, they also want you to turn off your air conditioner despite the fact that, during heat waves, the elderly and the young perish.

Air conditioning uses too much energy.

Yet we can’t have coal because it’s too foul; we can’t have nuclear because it’s too dangerous; we can’t have wind power because it kills birds; we can’t have solar because it chews up acreage and requires too much water to clean.

If that isn’t sufficiently arcane and ridiculous, the Religious Left and the Demorats demand that you shoehorn into electric cars which — wait for it, wait for it — run on electricity. Imagine that!

The Religious Left are absolutely insane, and they don’t care who they kill, inconvenience, bully or lie to in order to enable their unrealistic and unsustainable agenda.
BZ