Truth versus media.

Federal Judge Protects Child Mutilation

by Lewis Loflin

If there is a reason to revile federal judges then Judge Bernard Friedman is an example why. The legal system is chaos.

On November 20, 2018 Friedman struck down federal laws against mutilating little girls. Known as female genital mutation (FGM) this:

Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision,[a] is the ritual cutting or removal of some or all of the external female genitalia. The practice is found in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and within communities from countries in which FGM is common. UNICEF estimated in 2016 that 200 million women living today in 30 countries-27 African countries, Indonesia, Iraqi Kurdistan and Yemen-have undergone the procedures.

200 million victims! This is happening in backward Muslim nations. Now they have brought this to America. Because it is a Muslim practice, liberals see this as protected behavior. To oppose this is racism or anti-Muslim bias.

This prevents sexual orgasms. The girl then becomes a baby machine devoid of normal human feelings.

Liberal judges are protecting barbaric practices in the name of diversity. They invent special rights where none exist.

This involved two doctors, two women that assisted them. Also, four mothers and nine children. Four girls are from Michigan; the others are residents of Illinois and Minnesota.

Most of the charges were dropped.

Judge Friedman claims federal laws against child mutilation overstep state laws. Good luck with enforcement in Michigan. Muslims are taking over large portions of the state.

Muslims are demanding a separate Muslim-Sharia legal system. These Islamic Sharia courts operate outside state and federal courts. Muslims would refer "family matters" to these courts.

Britain and other European nations already look the other way with polygamy, etc.

Yet the same people critical about circumcision on Jewish boys are silent on this. If child mutilation is a state issue, why isn't marriage?

Friedman is capricious. On March 21, 2014 he overturned Michigan's same sex marriage ban.

The Supreme court then concocted this new right out of thin air after Friedman's ruling.

There is no right to homosexual marriage in the 14th Amendment.

Friedman ruled against the University of Michigan's racist affirmative action program. Capricious again. He didn't rule because it was racist in general, but because it effected Jews.

Ref. 8/26/205. Jews support affirmative action racism as long as they don't suffer from it.

To quote,

"Given its liberal politics, the Jewish community...was much more supportive of his same-sex marriage decision..."

The same liberal Jewish community goes to equal extremes to defend Muslims. Even if Muslims hate Jews and Israel, leftist Jews protect them and their barbaric customs.

So much for women's equality.

Friedman wanted them to use other methods to achieve racial preferences. There is no right to equal outcome or equal rights to marriage.

In the case of Muslims and Mormons why isn't polygamy not legal? Why not child marriage? It is coming sooner or later.

To deny this and uphold homosexual marriage equality is inconsistent.

On August 22, 2015 Friedman officiated over the wedding of the plaintiffs he ruled in favor of.

Marriage is a state issue and has nothing to do with Federal anything. Protecting barbaric Sharia practices is unconstitutional. Sharia violates every notion of gender and religious equality.

Muslim communities are often self-imposed ghettos recreating the very culture many fled from.

Michigan is one of 26 states to ban the practice. Yet state efforts to ban the use of Muslim Law in courts get struck down by liberal judges.

A law passed by 70% of Oklahoma residents banning judges using Sharia or international law in courts. It was blocked by a federal judge. Muslims claim it discriminates against their religion.

Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange claims it favors one religion over another. The amendment to the state constitution assured only American law would apply equally to all. This was to have no regard to foreign law or customs.

Sharia is only partially about religion. It is a legal and cultural system more than religious.

Judge Vicki opened the door to unequal treatment under the law based on backward religion. Sharia is hostile to our customs. Sharia advocates religious violence and apartheid. Sharia directly advocates unequal treatment of women and children.

Unlike the Amish that separate themselves from society, Muslims seek to dominate it. Jew hatred among Muslims leaves leftist Jews in a quandary. How do they hold a coalition of malcontents together without turning on each other?

Or themselves? Pushing anti-white racism and pandering to Islam for political gain means Jews can become targets.

Social justice is the new Jewish identity. Rejecting social justice is not anti-Semitism as many Jews try to claim. They need to return to Judaism as a religion.

The Muslim plaintiff testified without Sharia would "make it impossible for the courts to enforce his own last will and testament..." Who cares about his burial?

So much for women's rights on issues like inheritance.

Ref. New York Times 11/30/2010.

Pandering to Muslim culture doesn't end there. Democrats are trying to overturn 200 year-old laws against religious headdress in congress.

In Europe criticism of Muslim culture and behavior are now hate crime violations. You will go to prison for violating de-facto Sharia that bans criticism of Islam. To hell with free speech.

In Britain a reporter spent six months in prison for covering the trials of Muslim rape gangs.

There is no right to mutilate children. Marriage is not a federal issue. Only U.S. law should apply in U.S. courts.

Muslims have disproportionately high rates of antisocial behavior, conduct disorder and violence. Because these deadly incidents are hidden under the guise of religion, little has been done to address the deviance-amplifying nature of Islamic Jihadi teachings...

Dr. Babu Suseelan ^