Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings

Archive for the ‘Muslim teachings differ from American teachings’ Category

>Foreigners Can Do No Evil in America

>If you want to know how foreigners get away with murder in America, look at our liberal judges.

You’d be surprised to read about what the radical left is able to get away with. If you come from a Muslim country and murder someone, your lawyer can get you off with the “cultural defense.”

The defense goes something like this: “Your honor, I know my husband killed our two daughters (this actually happened recently in Texas) because they were not living the Muslim teachings regarding boyfriends. In Iran where he comes from it is legal for the man of the house to rule with an iron hand. If one of his family members is behaving badly, not living according to Islamic law, the father has the right–not not just the right, but the duty–to do something about it. In those countries, even fatal force is condoned–to avoid the sin of raising an adultrous daughter or having a sinful wife in his family.
My client was just acting in accordance with his religion.”

In his book, The Enemy Within, Michael Savage gives a different example where it is the wife the man kills, because she is having an extra-marital affair. A perfectly legitimate reaction in Muslim countries is that the man can kill the sinful wife. They’re called Honor Killings.

Are you surprised that the attorney actually got his client off in an American court? I was. In America we are supposed to live by American rules and law. Foreigners can’t plead they just did what was legal in the old country. But they do, and in many cases they get off scot free.

“According to court records, Doug Lu Chen, a Chinese immigrant, lived in New York for a year when he learned his wife, Lian Wan Chen, had an extramarital affair. Several weeks later, on September 7, 1987 Chen wached his wife in the head with a hammer.”

The defense called a professor of anthropology to the stand. He testified that in Chen’s native country Chen’s wife’s infidelity would be viewed in the traditional Chinese culture as a sign of Chen’s weakness. Murdering her could be explained by understanding his cultural background.

No one claimed insanity or irrational behavior as a defense. Chen’s lawyer stuck with the cultural differences argument, which supposedly dimished his capacity. Justice Edward K. Pincus bought this argument, saying “cultural factors lessen the defendant’s responsibility for certain crimes.”

Chen ended up with a charge of manslaughter in the second degree and was sentenced to only five years probation after murdering his wife in cold blood.

Savage said he wishes he could say this was the exception instead of the rule, but it isn’t. Read some other of Savage’s accounts which are equally as ludicrous, but not to the court.

A Hmong immigrant forcibly took a young Laotian-American woman from her job at Fresno State University. he sexually assaulted her against her will. Facing rape and kidnapping charges, he maintained his behavior was nothing more than the ‘customary” way of choosing a bride. While it sounds like this creep should have gotten thirty years, evedently the judge bought his “capture the bride’ cultural defense. He was sentenced to a mere 120 days and was required to pay a small cash fine.

In Anaheim, California, on New Year’s Day in 2002, a five–year-old boy stole a pack of gum from a local store. His father, Wellington Soto, was a Guatamalon immigrant who decided to teach his son a lesson. He held the kid’s fingers over an open gas flame. Noticing the burns, the boy’s teachers reported it as abuse. The case went to Orange County Superior Court judge James Perez who could have thrown Soto into jail for upwards of six years for child abuse. Instead, he bought the defense someone called a “crosscurrent of customs and habits” of the Latin culture.
Judge Perez fined Soto a measley $100 for torching his boy’s hand.

There are many other cases just like these. Why have our courts gone mad with this stuff? It makes no moral sense, and it is definitely not a fair way to mete out justice. There is one set of rules and punishments for one culture and one for another. We in America are supposed to be equal under the law. There is no equality when Judges misbehave so badly as this.

Here’s My Proposal: I suggest that in order to come into America and gain citizenship, one must agree on a stack of Bibles–and I don’t care if they’re Muslim or not–that they will live by the rules, mores, and commandments lived by the majority of Americans–that is Judeo-Christian law. That was the law of our founding fathers and it is the ethics of most Americans today. What’s good for one must be good for another citizen. You can’t have two or more sets of punishments for the same offense. If they won’t agree in writing to that, they don’t become citizens and must leave the country when their three-month visa is up.

In other words, if Muslims won’t or can’t live our ethics, I say we export them back to where they came from–no quesitons asked. Don’t continue on this nonesense we call justice in America. Make it a cardinal rule to become a citizen and that’s the end of your duplicity in the court system. There is a conscientious effort of courts to give preferential treatment to Muslim defendants. What happened to the rule of law and equality before the law? Everyone is equal before the law, or should be.

Advertisements