Watch: Mayor Kicks Sharia Law To The Curb With A Tough Message


Last week, the city of Irving, Texas, supported a bill pending in the state House that would ensure that state laws would trump all foreign laws. Muslims in the community saw this as an obstruction of a newly established Sharia court, however.

The city council voted five to four Thursday on a resolution affirming H.B. 562 which states in part:

A contract provision involving the marriage relationship providing that the forum to resolve a dispute arising under the contract is located outside the states and territories of the United States is void if the foreign law that would be applied to dispute in that forum would, as applied, violate a fundamental right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of this state.

An Islamic court using Sharia law was established in nearby Dallas earlier this year, Breitbart reported in January. One of its “judges” said that taking part in the court is “voluntary.” One who observes the Muslim faith cannot obtain a divorce, or “Talaq,” without the approval of the Islamic court.

“[W]hile participation in the tribunal is voluntary, a married couple cannot be considered divorced by the Islamic community unless it is granted by the tribunal,” Dr. Taher El-badawi, one of the judges, explained to Breitbart.

“The courts of the United States of America are costly and consist of ineffective lawyers. Discontent with the legal system leads many Muslims in America to postpone justice in this world and opt for an audience on the Day of Judgment,” per the description on the Islamic Tribunal’s website:

It is with this issue that Muslims here in America are obligated to find a way to solve conflicts and disputes according to the principles of Islamic Law and its legal heritage of fairness and justice in a manner that is reasonable and cost effective.  These proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the law of the land; local, state and federal within the United States.

Through effective mediation and arbitration, decisions can be made that are stipulated in the Shari’ah and adhering to the binding, ethical and legal code that exists within this country with the final approval of the relevant courts and judges. Islamic Tribunal or IT is established exactly for this purpose.

“This bill does not reference Sharia, Islam or even religion. It has nothing to do with preventing any tribunal,” Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne said at the meeting. Van Duyne has been a vocal proponent of the bill. “Why anyone would feel this is hatred or bigotry is absolutely beyond me.”

In a Facebook post ahead of the vote, Van Duyne made her point clear. “[T]he fundamental principles that formed our nation, protect our rights and guarantee liberties unmatched anywhere must not be sacrificed as our nation embraces other cultures. Reaffirming that our courts will consider matters based on AMERICAN laws and statutes is, therefore, necessary,”

Over 500 people came to debate the bill ahead of the vote, including many in the Muslim community who raised objections. “[The bill] fuels anti-Islamic hysteria,” Zia Sheikh, imam at the Islamic Center of Irving told the Dallas Morning News. “Her whole point was to rile up her supporters…The problem is we become the whipping boys.”

h/t: BizPac Review


Last week, the city of Irving, Texas, supported a bill pending in the state House that would ensure that state law… in Polls on LockerDome



This post originally appeared on Western Journalism - Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Is This Texas Republican Enabling Police Brutality?

a katz /  a katz /

At a time when the entirety of Western civilization is focused on eliminating police corruption and ending the suffering that unlawful police departments inflict upon citizens, a Texas State Representative, Jason Villalba (R-Dallas), is ramping up his crusade against civil liberties, seeking to diminish public oversight of police action.

This month, Representative Villalba introduced a bill that would prohibit:

  • filming, recording, photographing, or documenting the officer within 25 feet of the officer; or
  • filming, recording, photographing, or documenting the officer within 100 feet of the officer while carrying a handgun

(thereby criminalizing basic rights enumerated in the first and second amendments to the US Constitution.)

Villalba has included language in the bill that provides an exception for government-defined “members of the press,” mimicking the failed attempt by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein to curtail free speech with her amendment to the 2013 Free Flow of Information Act.

Activists within the Texas Liberty Movement indicate that Viallba’s bill will be opposed in the House, although no legislators have gone on record to confirm this yet.

Critics of the bill say that it is a continuance of a frightening trend in government to criminalize lawful behavior, limit human rights, and eliminate citizen oversight.

On Friday, Murdoch Pitzgatti, the President and co-founder of Come and Take It Texas, said:

When filming anything in public becomes illegal, the First Amendment has died. Where the First Amendment is restricted, the Second Amendment will be used to remedy the situation.

Pitzgatti added: “Under this bill, concealed handgun license holders must stay even further away while filming. We will not follow an unconstitutional law, especially one that singles out law-abiding citizens that have been vetted and have undergone extensive background checks and treats them like criminals.”

The bill stands in marked contrast to the efforts made by Texas citizens, including police and lawmakers, to increase oversight of police actions through the use of body cameras and other measures. Similar initiatives, put forth on the national level, have received nearly universal support in the wake of Ferguson and other highly publicized incidents involving police shootings.

Like Feinstein, Villalba would have the legislature ignore the ways in which technology has enabled journalism to evolve, narrowly defining “journalist” in such a way that would criminalize the work done by many of today’s most powerful and influential members of press.

Sadly, these attempted end-runs around the First Amendment are far from isolated occurrences. Over the past decade, a multitude of evidence has surfaced that reveals an increasing animosity towards the press on the part of government–though this animosity has not gone unchecked.

In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled unanimously in favor of Simon Glik, who was arrested and charged with illegal wiretapping for making a video recording of police actions in Boston. Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney for ACLU Massachusetts, called the case “…a resounding victory for the First Amendment right to openly record police officers carrying out their duties in a public place.”

The right to a free press is an American principle that predates the founding of the republic. In an Appeal to the Inhabitants of Quebec (1774), the First Continental Congress wrote:

The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honorable and just modes of conducting affairs.

Fifteen years later, the people’s right to criticize government specifically compelled the Founders to include within the Bill of Rights the statement that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Americans have long cherished the right to a free press–and rightfully so. Efforts by those in government to flout this basic premise of our constitutional republic clearly recalls the Nazis’ Reichstag Fire Decree, which in 1933 made criticism of the government a criminal offense in Germany and paved the way for the terror of national socialism.

But what terrorizes minions of big government, like Jason Villalba, is a free people exercising their natural rights unimpeded by regulation.

Another highly publicized bill filed by Villalba this session, under the guise of protecting religious liberty, would amend the Texas constitution to allow state and local governments to “burden” a person’s free exercise of religion if “the burden is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest…” Villlalba has since folded under the pressure coming from both sides of the issue and withdrawn support for his own bill, leaving Representative Matt Krause (R-Fort Worth) to pick up the slack.

Last year in US News & World Report, Jason Stverak wrote:

The term “public servant” has become the vogue euphemism that career politicians and government employees use for themselves, but it more aptly applies to people working for the common good and the betterment of their community. Journalists fit under this umbrella because they are a check on those in power, and our government should be applauding anyone who puts in the legwork to uncover the truth instead of drawing arbitrary lines to hinder them.

Take note, Villalba; that’s the way real Texans think.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Oops! Look Who Was Just Revealed As The Guy Behind Those Explosive ‘Whites Only’ Store Stickers


Sometimes the tables are turned in a way that clearly shows how quick –and how wrong — liberals can be to accuse and condemn…only to find that the truth of a situation is not at all what it first appeared to be.

Case in point, as far-left sources such as The Huffington Post were so eager to report a few days ago:

“At least six businesses in Austin, Texas, have been plastered with stickers reading ‘Exclusively For White People,’ drawing condemnation from the state’s residents, lawmakers and NAACP representatives.”

Whites sticker

But now it turns out that a liberal activist is reportedly the person who created and posted the stickers in store windows without the knowledge or permission of the targeted businesses.

KXAN-TV reports that an Austin-area lawyer named Adam Reposa is claiming responsibility for the stunt that he says was an attempt to draw attention to the issue of gentrification in East Austin. Reposa says that small minority-owned businesses are being pushed out in favor of white-owned stores.

In a profanity-laced video, as KXAN notes, Reposa rants:

“They’re getting pushed out, and pretty quick. This area of town is turning into white’s only,” Reposa said in the clip. “Not by law like it used to be, and everyone’s going to jump on, ‘that’s racist!’ ‘that’s racist!’ Man, this town, the way **** works is racist! And I knew I could just bait all of y’all into being as stupid as you are.”

Prior to the admission from Reposa that he plastered the controversial stickers in store windows — trying to make a point that backfired — liberal media were quick to raise cries of racism and suggestions that a hate crime had been committed.

According to the breathless HuffPo coverage, a Facebook user named Brianna Smith posted: “This just goes to show racism is very much alive TODAY. This was a hate crime….”

A Democrat Texas state representative named Dawnna Dukes called for stores in whose windows the stickers were displayed to explain how and why they were posted.

“If the explanation is unbelievable,” [Dukes] wrote, “they need to be put out of business, ASAP!”

A former state legislator, Gonzalo Barrientos (D-Austin), told the Huffington Post: “Institutional racism is what it points to.”

Even the mayor of Austin, Steve Adler, was quick to condemn the stickers–and equally fast in pointing to the wrong message they were intended to promote.

“…Adler called the appearance of the stickers ‘an appalling and offensive display of ignorance in our city.’”

The man who has claimed responsibility for the sticker-shock incident, activist lawyer Reposa, was quoted by The Huffington Post as saying about the rapid and incorrect liberal outrage:

“I knew I could bait all of y’all into being as stupid as you are, just allowing the issue to be framed in the most simple way.”


In your opinion… in Polls on LockerDome



This post originally appeared on Western Journalism - Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

BOOM! This Angry Federal Judge Just Did Something Extraordinary About Obama’s Amnesty Scheme

Images Credit: Wiki Commons/Fox News

For an Obama administration lawyer, it was a very uncomfortable one-hour hearing in a Brownsville, Texas courtroom on Thursday, when a clearly angered federal judge confronted the DOJ attorney, sharply scolded her and threatened to sanction the Justice Department.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, who earlier blocked President Obama’s executive orders on illegal immigration, had called the hearing to determine if the Obama administration had misled him as to whether the president’s order to ease deportation for certain young illegals was already being implemented.

Fox News reports that the hearing was testy and at times contentious, causing the Justice Department attorney to apologize to the highly annoyed Judge Hanen.

“Hanen chided Justice Department attorney Kathleen Hartnett for telling him at a January hearing before the injunction was issued that nothing would be happening with regard to one key part of Obama’s actions, an expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, until Feb. 18.”

Judge Hanen showed his displeasure about the Obama attorney’s explanation of what she said was confusion over the amnesty order and its implementation by telling her, “Like an idiot I believed that.”

The federal judge then went on to ask the flustered attorney an extraordinary question concerning President Obama’s integrity:

“Can I trust what the president says? That’s a yes or no question,” Hanen asked.

“Yes, your honor,” Hartnett replied.

The judge said if he decides to impose sanctions against the Justice Department for misleading the court and making him look “like an idiot,” according to coverage in The Los Angeles Times, “the taxpayers of the [26] states would end up paying their own damages.”

The case landed in Judge Andrew Hanen’s courtroom after 26 states, including Texas, sued the Obama administration over the president’s unilateral move to defer deportation and offer certain rights and privileges to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants.

The Times article notes that Hanen’s comments during the hearing “left little doubt that he sympathized with lawyers for the 26 states, who said they suffered ‘irreparable harm’ when federal officials granted more than 100,000 applications for deferred action after Obama announced the program Nov. 20.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Manager Was Armed And Ready When Two Robbers Targeted His Store


According to recent reports, a Dallas convenience store was the scene of a robbery attempt and shooting earlier this month.

The late-night incident occurred at an Exxon station when an unidentified store manager reported seeing a pair of men enter and approach an employee. As one of the subjects assaulted the worker, the manager stated that the other reached inside his jacket in a possible attempt to retrieve a weapon.

At that point, the armed manager grabbed his firearm and shot at both of the 30-year-old men – hitting both targets. Both were taken from the scene to a local hospital for treatment. One suspect was shot in the arm, and the other took a bullet to his face.

The manager explained that he is praying for the two men he shot, one of whom was admitted in serious condition and the other initially listed in critical condition. Subsequent reports indicate both men were later upgraded to fair condition.

As for his role in the shooting, however, detectives are treating it as an act of self-defense and are not pursuing any charges against him. The area is reportedly rife with crime, prompting the store to post a collection of photographs – known as the ‘Wall of Shame’ – depicting shoplifters.

Local resident Kerry Carter often shops at the Exxon location despite his assessment of the area.

“This is a war zone now,” he said.

Robbery charges have been filed against both of the suspects.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom