The Department of Justice is Privileging Mosques

The Department of Justice is Privileging Mosques

( Muslims do not assimilate! They infiltrate! )

Source: The Department of Justice is Privileging Mosques

By Karen Lugo

The Department of Justice has become an advocate for the establishment of mosques in America. It is as if there were some congressional affirmative action mandate. The DOJ’s own statistics reveal a sharp escalation in intervention efforts on behalf of Islamic complainants, mostly involving mosque disputes with local zoning authorities.  Alarmingly, these interventions reveal a pattern of generous settlements that benefit mosques while bypassing municipal laws and disregarding legitimate neighborhood concerns.

During the Obama Presidency, DOJ lawyers ran roughshod over local officials, as long as the complaining party was a mosque.  Trump’s Justice Department must reverse these tendencies.

The atmosphere of DOJ intimidation cannot be overstated. Negotiated settlements between the DOJ, local zoning authorities, and mosque officials take place against a backdrop of DOJ threatening long, prohibitively costly litigation. The drive for ever more concessions, and more cash, confronts communities whose small governments cannot compete with DOJ’s $28 billion budget and legions of lawyers. Importantly, DOJ treats these settlements as if they were precedents even though, by sidestepping the courts, the settlements bypass judicial precedents that could protect legitimate community interests.

In two recent cases, mosque applicants in Sterling Heights (Michigan) and Basking Ridge (New Jersey), received cash settlements because they were denied permits according to local zoning procedures. These settlements failed to protect vital neighborhood interests in traffic safety, parking limits, and livability concerns.

Just one example of neighborhood hardships that result from deferential permit agreements, the Dar al Farooq mosque in Bloomington, Minnesota is currently holding services for the entire month of Ramadan with overflow parking and lighted lots until 1:00 and 3:00 a.m.—in a residential neighborhood.

The Sterling Heights settlement is illustrative of abusive DOJ meddling.

The mosque had applied to build a 28,000 square foot facility on 4.35 acres of land. The building’s dome was to be 58 feet high and the minarets 66 feet high. The surrounding neighborhood has been settled by many Chaldean Christians who fled Iraq and Islamist oppression. An imposing Islamic structure was not met with enthusiasm to put it mildly. But federal law focuses on whether the decision-makers are biased. It demands that local government officials give all sides equal consideration. It does not require that neighborhood residents greet this kind of application with enthusiasm.

In this case, there were many legitimate concerns that the local planning commission investigated, concerns that contributed to the unanimous conclusion that the mosque was ineligible for the indicated property. Indeed, the major disputes arose because mosque representatives provided incomplete information and they were unwilling to address zoning concerns.

But why would they negotiate when they know DOJ is their ace in the hole, ready to presume the assertion of legitimate community interests is a pretext for anti-Muslim bias? The strategy of making a bee-line to DOJ rather than working in good faith to address community zoning concerns proved successful. The DOJ-administered settlement disregarded dire traffic congestion, including a nearby intersection listed in the highest accident category. It ignored glaring parking issues, a massively imposing structure for the size of the lot, and vast undesignated square footage.

The settlement bypassed local ordinances and state law, allowing the mosque virtually unlimited activity, provided that arrangements for a shuttle and overflow parking lot were merely attempted. The height of the dome and minarets were left essentially unchanged. No answers were provided to show how, and when, 25,000 square feet of the building would be utilized.

The terms of this settlement were so egregious that the American Freedom Law Center has filed a lawsuit challenging the disregard for neighborhood residents, local zoning authority, and state law.

Announced in late May, the Basking Ridge settlement was also a blow to community members. Residents organized early to defend the residential and historic character of a neighborhood called Liberty Corner. Again, it should not have been surprising that a religious land use application would be met with controversy. And, again, the applicants equated frustrations on the part of the community with anti-Islamic bias on the part of the decision-making officials.

The years-long series of hearings and deliberations were contentious. They reflected recalcitrance on the part of the applicant and a problematic search for solutions on the part of township officials. The final settlement required the community to pay $3.25 million. It made minimal provision for 50 parking spaces and an additional allocation of at least ten non-paved parking spots. Inevitably, the residential lot will have overflow parking in all areas that are not clearly designated otherwise.

In flagrant violation of free speech principles, moreover, residents are prohibited from uttering comments about “Islam” or “Muslims” at the final local hearing. Most offensive to the township, the settlement arrogantly included a rewrite of local zoning law. Its terms coerce the community to permit religious worship sites in institutional, commercial and residential zones on the same conditions as other assembly uses—comparable to even clubs and day care facilities."; target="_blank">“We will fight for the enforcement of <strong>sharia law</strong> till the last drop of our blood”</a></em></p> <p>Standard & Poor’s is launching a new index of Canadian companies that are compliant with Islamic Shariah law, the company said Wednesday.</p> <p>The S&P/TSX 60 Shariah index will contain firms that engage in businesses acceptable to the Islamic legal code, Standard & Poor’s said.</p> <p>The religious criteria exclude businesses that sell products such as alcohol, tobacco and pork or engage in certain types of financial lending.</p> <p>The new index will allow investors who hold stocks that reflect Islamic law to track the overall performance of their holdings, said Alka Banerjee, vice-president of S&P’s index services.</p> <p>“The index will create new opportunities for Islamic investors to benchmark their Canadian investments, and for asset managers to create new investment products serving the Islamic community,” he said.</p> <p>S&P used a Kuwaiti firm, <a href=""; target="_blank">Rating Intelligence Partners</a>, to screen various companies for the new index.</p> <p>With its Shariah indicator, Canada is up-to-date with other markets. S&P already has 24 similar indices, including in Europe and Japan.</p> <p><strong>Of course, following Islamic law has not proven to improve a portfolio’s performance any more than other indices.</strong></p> <p>India’s CNX 500 Shariah index, for example, stood at 981 in late May, down 21 per cent compared to the same month one year earlier.</p> <p>via <a href=" launches Islamic-based index</a>.</p> " data-medium-file="" data-large-file="" class="wp-image-7667" src="" alt="" width="400" height="300" />

Concerns of local residents were deemed out-of-bounds and even banned from discussion during the hearings.

Of critical importance, these DOJ settlements are used to punish cities in an accusatory and invasive fashion. The agreements typically require that cities submit to intensive DOJ monitoring for five years. Reports must be filed every six months. Compliance signs are required at city hall, in newspapers, and on the internet. In the absence of evidence that they’ve engaged in discrimination, officials must undergo training against it.

Not only does DOJ monitor a city’s actions related to the mosque and all other religious land use applications; DOJ has also required that documents on complaints to law enforcement about mosque activity and reported “harassment” of mosque participants be collected for retrieval by the DOJ.. That is, notwithstanding the centrality of mosques to several of DOJ’s own terrorism prosecutions—in which they have been proven to be used for jihadist incitement, recruitment, training, fundraising, and even the storage and transfer of weapons—DOJ implies that complaints and suspicions about mosque activity must be motivated by invidious discrimination. Law-enforcement officials like to tell the public, “If you see something, say something.” Do they mean it? Or are they actually instilling the paralysis that induced a San Bernardino resident, out of fear of being thought a bigot, to refrain from reporting suspicions about the neighborhood jihadists who later murdered 14 people?

The RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act) governs religious land use decisions. Congress passed this law unanimously for the purpose of giving religious applicants a fair shot at achieving permit approvals. Congress intended that religious applicants would not be “substantially burdened” and that they would be treated on “equal terms” with other assembly uses. The courts have been inconsistent in interpreting this law, and almost every federal appellate circuit has a different approach. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the religious land use parts of the law.

Over the last few years, DOJ has sought to make it easier for mosques to bring lawsuits.  Lawyers at the notorious Civil Rights Division have pressed arguments that would allow discrimination to be proven by tenuous circumstantial evidence—including comments made by private citizens at a public hearing, which has the obvious effect of chilling speech—notwithstanding that speech is a civil right, the kind the Civil Rights Division exists to protect. So in addition to citing unequal treatment, the mosque applicant strategy focuses on discrimination charges by compiling examples of locals expressing what DOJ calls “naked animus.”

Therefore, when officials drill down on practices that are not conventional, like peak services on Friday when traffic may coincide with school hours, or comparing Ramadan as it lasts for a month with a one-time Easter or Christmas service, it may add to the legal appearance of “animus.” In essence, DOJ has taken justifiable community angst and transmogrified it into damning circumstantial proof of discrimination.

Predictable rule-application and practical limits are critical to the compatible mixing of assembly and residential uses of land. As the courts have said, RLUIPA was passed to provide equal terms for religious institutions but “not special treatment.” DOJ has been acting like RLUIPA intends special treatment, especially for one privileged group.

Views: 19


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center



Clinton Donor And Tax Cheat Tied To Russia

“Do as we say, not as we do.”

That seems to be the slogan for Hillary Clinton and her political allies, and it’s especially apt in light of new information about one of Clinton’s largest campaign donors.

While the left is still trying to attack President Trump and his family over unproven business dealings and largely debunked connections to Russia, a new report indicates that it was Hillary Clinton’s team who were doing those exact things.

“Fox News has learned that one of the top donors to the ‘Hillary Victory Fund’ (HVF) in 2016 was a Los Angeles-based attorney who is alleged to have misused company funds to create his own $22 million real estate portfolio,” that outlet reported on Thursday.

“He has also been considered by California to be one of the state’s biggest tax cheats, and allegedly has ties to the (Russian) Kremlin,” Fox continued.

The man’s name is Edgar Sargsyan. His deep pockets greatly benefited Clinton’s campaign, with contributions of at least $250,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund in 2016.

He was also in charge of an elite fundraising dinner to benefit Clinton, where donors paid $100,000 per couple just to attend the ritzy event. But in true Clinton fashion, the money apparently went missing.

Sargsyan is now “being sued by his former company for allegedly diverting those funds to start his own real estate company,” according to Fox.

Now, people are asking hard questions about Clinton’s buddy Sargsyan, including whether his contributions were part of a pay-to-play scheme and if he had shady connections to foreign governments.

“Nobody gave to the Hillary Victory Fund out of the goodness of their heart or some generalized desire to help 33 random state parties,” pointed out attorney Dan Backer from the Committee to Defend the President.

“They did so to buy access and curry influence — something the Clintons have been selling for nearly three decades in and out of government,” he continued.

Trying to buy political influence is sadly common, especially when it comes to the Clintons. What is raising more red flags than normal, however, is the evidence that Sargsyan is no run-of-the-mill campaign donor.

“The really scary question is, what did this particular donor with this strange web of connections hope to buy for his quarter-million dollars?” Backer asked Fox News.

That web of connections is strange indeed.

The Committee to Defend the President is now alleging that SBK, a major Sargsyan-linked company “is an investment firm that is affiliated with United Arab Emirates president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, and its international affiliate has business interests in Russia,” according to Fox.

“Among its dealings was a bid to finance $850 million for a major bridge project to connect Crimea with Russia,” the group claims.

“He worked for SBK, and SBK appears to have bid on some Crimean/Russian bridge project,” Backer said. “That’s usually an indicator of political favor and connections.”

It raises several chilling questions: Was Sargsyan paying a quarter million dollars to Clinton for political favors, and — more disturbingly — was that money actually from sources in Russia in order to smooth the way for its construction plans?

Nobody knows for sure. What is clear, however, is that there is a pattern of dirty money surrounding the Clintons, with the “Uranium One” and “Clinton Foundation” scandals just two of the most well-known examples.

“It reinforces how fast and loose the Clinton machine was when it came to ‘Hoovering up’ these megadonor checks, not just from questionable Hollywood and Wall Street elites but potentially from foreign influence peddlers using who knows what money,” Backer told Fox News.

“It reinforces the need to take a long hard look at not just the unlawful money laundering process, but the way in which they were solicited as well,” he continued. “The Clintons have never shown a great deal of concern for whomever it was cutting the checks — whether it’s foreign influence peddlers or Hollywood smut peddlers like Harvey Weinstein.”

If those claims are even partially true, then America dodged a bullet in November of 2016 — and it’s worth keeping the pile of foreign-connected Clinton scandals in mind the next time the left tries desperately to tie Donald Trump to Russia. Perhaps they should look in the mirror.


Washington Post Compares
Jeff Sessions To Slaveholder’

The Washington Post compared Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “slaveholders” after he quoted the Bible on Thursday while discussing his department’s policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants who cross the border.

Sessions made the statement during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

WaPo ran a story entitled “Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families” by general assignment editor Keith McMillan and religion reporter Julie Zauzmer on Friday.

Rather than detailing the statistics Sessions cited in the speech that explain the immigration policy, the story quoted John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“This is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made,” Fea said.

Sessions spent much of the speech discussing the numbers behind current immigration policy, including separating families at the Southwest border.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said.

“Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute aliens if they came with children,” Sessions said.

“It was de-facto open borders if you came with children. The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children.”

Sessions laid out the numbers in the speech.

“In 2013, fewer than 15,000 family units were apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry in dangerous areas of the country,” he said.

“Five years later, it was more than 75,000, a five-fold increase in five years. It didn’t even have to be their child that was brought, it could be anyone. You can imagine that this created a lot of danger.”

The U.S. has the “opportunity” to fix its broken immigration system now, Sessions said.

“I believe that’s it’s moral, right, just and decent that we have a lawful system of immigration,” he said. “The American people have been asking for it.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service