Obama Enforces Sharia Law in America

	Obama Enforces Sharia Law in America
	SINCE WHEN DO WE HAVE 'SHARIA POLICE' IN THE US FOLKS?  WAKE UP!!!!  WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE FOR AMERICANS TO AFFECT THEIR OWN 'CHANGE' and get rid of - permanently - these thugs, crooks and murderers that are controlling every aspect of our lives in America??!!

      

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "truth@globalstrategicresources.com" truth@globalstrategicresources.com
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:23 AM
Subject: Obama Enforces Sharia Law in America

It wont' be long before arrests of US citizens for speaking against Islam will be a common thing as the US more and more submits and enforces Sharia law here in the United States. The tides are turning and Americans need to wake up.

Below an article from www.atlasshrugs.com:

Political Prisoner: US Sharia police pick up Muhammad filmmaker

Filmmaker Nakoula (?Sam Bacile?) was taken from his Cerritos home by L.A. sheriffs shortly after midnight Saturday  for ?voluntary? questioning by probation officials.

This is Obama sharia enforcement. If he hadn't made the video, he wouldn't be in jail. These are trumped up charges. he AP (Associated Press) outed the Muhammad filmmaker after tracing his cell phone. The film maker was hunted down like an animal and now may face jail on trumped-up charges in an act of submission and surrender to Islamic law. This is a complete abridgement of our rights of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience under the law. Jailing the filmmaker is more sharia enforcement in America. Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance

Sharia in the U.S.: Blasphemy police pick up Muhammad filmmaker Jihadwatch

Again: If Nakoula Basseley Nakoula gets sent back to jail, no matter what priors he has, no matter how checkered his past, make no mistake: he will be a political prisoner. He will be in prison not for the meth or the fraud or for the technicality of the probation violation, but for insulting Muhammad. His imprisonment will be a symbol of America's capitulation to the Sharia.

The protests are not about the film. The protests are to intimidate the U.S. into criminalizing criticism of Islam. If Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is imprisoned, he will be nothing more than the fall guy who became the first offender against the new federal crime of blasphemy against Islam.

"Suspected anti-Islam filmmaker questioned by Feds," by Samantha Tata for NBCLosAngeles.com, September 15 (thanks to BDT):

Updated at 6:25 a.m. ET: The man purported to be the filmmaker behind an inflammatory anti-Islam video being blamed for sparking violent unrest in the Middle East and North Africa was escorted by deputies from his Cerritos, Calif., home shortly after midnight Saturday morning, NBCLosAngles.com reported.
Media and law enforcement had been staking out the home at the end of a cul de sac in the Southern California city for about 48 hours when the man emerged wearing a coat, hat, scarf and glasses.
Advertise | AdChoices

According to property records, the home is owned by Nakoula Besseley Nakoula.

L.A. County Sherrif?s Department spokesman Steve Whitmore confirmed to NBCLA that Nakoula was taken to the Cerritos sheriff?s station for interviewing by federal probation officers aimed at determining whether he violated the terms of his 5-year probation by uploading a video to the Internet.

"We are in an assist mode," he said.

At least seven reported killed in regional protests over anti-Islamic video

Whitmore added that Nakoula agreed to the interview prior to the deputies arriving at his home, that the move was "entirely voluntary" and the man was "very cooperative."

Deputies in two marked cars and one unmarked vehicle pulled up to the home around midnight, according to witnesses. The group left the home through the side gate because the front door was not working, Whitmore said. NBC4 went to the home this week and saw the front door was missing a knob....

iV � o �N ��� respect, as if they’re just suggestions, or as if members of Congress are too important to follow them,” he said.

His lawsuit was filed before the Supreme Court opinion was released by Roberts, but it was on hold while that case from the National Federation of Independent Business and 26 states was pending.

The plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case alleged that a mandate to buy insurance was a violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, and the Supreme Court agreed. But Roberts’ opinion simply changed the “penalty” as it was enacted by Congress to a “tax” and deemed it constitutional for that reason.

Reid took a House-passed bill that helps veterans buy homes, eviscerated it and  inserted the Obamacare language.

“When we focus on the Origination Clause, we’re not talking about dry formalities and this isn’t an academic issue,” said Beard. “The Founders understood that the power to tax, if misused, involves the power to destroy, as Chief Justice John Marshall put it. Therefore, they viewed the Origination Clause as a vital safeguard for liberty. They insisted that the power to initiate new taxes should be left with the lawmakers who are most directly accountable to voters – members of the House, who are elected every two years by local districts.”

The Sissel complaint is being amended to challenge the entire law on that basis.

The amended complaint explains that Roberts specifically approved the “shared responsibility payment,” which the Obama administration said was not a tax, as “a tax.”

“The chief justice explained the apparent inconsistency in concluding that the ‘shared responsibility payment’ is a tax for constitutional purposes, but not for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.”

His logic was that while Congress did not have the power to require citizens to buy insurance, it could require them to pay a tax.

But Roberts’ holding that the payments are taxes “raises new questions about the tax’s conformity with other constitutional provisions,” which the court left unresolved, the legal filing said.

“Despite the fact the act raises considerable revenues, it originated in the Senate, not the House,” the brief argues. “The Affordable Care Act was not the result of a lawful amendment of H.R. 3590, because the subject matter of the one had nothing whatsoever to do with the other.”

The Obamacare law already was under attack in the courts for its “mandate” that employers pay for abortifacients for employees. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed by Christian organizations that say the mandate violates freedom of religion.

In a Michigan pending case, the government insisted it has the authority to “substantially burden the exercise of religion”on two conditions.

If it is “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”