Monday, August 9, 2010

Maybe We Should Change Our Name

Apparently, we don’t live in the United States of America anymore.

We’ve had very strong hints of that before with the illegal immigration debate and the liberal tendency to put the needs of outsiders above the good of citizens. And newly sworn in Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan – supported fully by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – thinks it’s a great idea to look outside of the U.S. “when seeking solutions for trying questions” to court cases.

In other words, they think that the American judicial system should consider legal precedence from other nations.

That’s all very disturbing, but as a woman, I think that the following example is much, much worse. I believe that New Jersey Judge Joseph Charles opened the U.S. to a flat-out revolting amount of negative foreign influence last year.

In June 2009, he denied an immigrated Moroccan woman her request for a restraining order against her Muslim ex-husband who allegedly:

“forced [the] 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.’”

Charles seemed to have no problem with her account of abuse. In fact, he admitted that the evidence was strongly in her favor. However, he ruled that the defendant, her deranged and disgusting ex-husband, “was operating under his belief that… as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”



Unfortunately, he was, as the case had to be taken to a higher authority in order for common sense and decency to prevail. Fortunately, New Jersey’s Appellate Court overruled his sorry excuse for justice last month. But the fact still remains that an educated and licensed American “professional” deliberately looked outside of U.S. law in order to render a legal verdict.

Just for the record, I’m not trying to downplay or ignore the Muslim factor here. I don’t hold to the PC standards of ignoring when somebody commits a crime in the name of Islam. In fact, I think it is very important to take such factors into consideration considering the alarming number of cases that do involve Muslims forcing their will on others in the name of their religion.

However, I have never read the Koran. I haven’t studied it to any extent. So I can’t say whether or not it actually does condone or support misogynistic tendencies or murdering infidels.

What I do know, however, is that the Declaration of Independence was written to reinforce “certain unalienable Rights” including citizens' “Life, Liberty and… pursuit of Happiness” as “endowed by their Creator.” There are no clauses in the historic document that say “except in the case of Muslims wanting to rape their wives.”

I also know that the 13th amendment of the United States Constitution declares that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude… shall exist within the United States.” I would say that includes treating one's wife as property instead of as a human being.

I also know that rape in any form is on the U.S. legal records as being a 100%, flat-out, criminal violation.

We’re in the United States of America, so how about our guests, citizens, judges and leaders learn to abide by our own rules.


  1. Very good point this is a disturbing new trend. As a fellow former student abroad, we can both appreciate that once we left U.S. soil that we were no longer under the same set of rules as our family back home. If we got in trouble abroad the State Department would do nothing more for us than ensure we are treated no worse than the local citizens who broke the same law, without regard to "is this illegal in the USA?"

  2. Agreed! Also, if we're not meant to enforce any of our laws, then what in the world are we paying our representatives at all levels for?