10News: How Should NATO React to the Threat from Sweden?

Dozens of areas inside Sweden have fallen to armed Islamists and thousands of jihadis roam the country. Sweden has neither the will nor the capacity to contain this problem. The adjacent NATO-countries of Denmark and Norway are in certain danger.

Sweden is in a state of collapse. Dozens of areas are now under Islamist control, which leaves locals in the hands of violent sharia patrols. According to the Swedish police, thousands of Islamic State sympathizers are on the loose, endangering not only native Swedes, but also neighbouring countries such as Denmark, Norway, and Finland—the first two of them being NATO members.

The Swedish state has shown no genuine determination to contain the problem. Nor do they have the capacity to do so, even should they decide to act. After a century of pacifism and quasi-neutrality, the traditionally Feminist country’s military is so small that it would barely be able to defend the capitol of Stockholm, should the Islamist controlled suburbs surrounding it decide to attack. Some 80 percent of municipal police officers are prepared to quit; a horrifically high number which indicates the feelings of hopelessness and stress within their ranks.

Having taken in, and still accepting, hundreds of thousands of migrants and (supposed) refugees from the Islamic world (in particular), formerly safe and peaceful Sweden has become a real threat to security and stability to all of Scandinavia.

A considerable share of the now 10 million people living inside Sweden come from Islamist countries, or are descendants of parents from such areas. The Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) recently warned how, “the [terror]threat against Denmark can come from abroad, especially neighbouring countries (Germany and Sweden). When assessing the terror threat, we therefore also follow developments in these countries. Our assessment is that some refugees and migrants arriving in Europe and Denmark have contacts to Islamist groups or can be radicalized after arriving here.”

Read more.

Fed Court Says Criticism of Islam Can Be Punished

Via Thomas More Law Center

In a settlement agreement, which reads more like an instrument of surrender, Bernards Township (“Township”), New Jersey officials agreed that, in addition to a $3.5 million payment to Islamic Society of Basking Ridge (“ISBR”), residents and citizens of the Township are prohibited from commenting on “Islam” or “Muslims.” at the upcoming public hearing to approve the settlement. Astonishingly, a federal judge approved the prohibition as a fully enforceable Order of the Court.

As a result of this suppression of speech, the Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, yesterday, filed a lawsuit in the New Jersey Federal District Court on behalf of Christopher and Loretta Quick. The lawsuit was filed by TMLC affiliated New Jersey attorney, Michael Hrycak. Mr. Hrycak was assisted by TMLC staff attorney, Tyler Brooks. The TMLC is representing the Quicks without charge.

TMLC’s lawsuit alleges that Bernards Township’s settlement agreement constitutes a prior restraint on speech based on content, as well as, a violation of the Establishment Clause because it prefers Islam over other religions.  The lawsuit asks the court to: declare that the settlement agreement is unconstitutional; and to enter a preliminary and permanent injunction against its enforcement.