How many kicks in the head will it take for western nations to learn that Muslim immigration is worst public policy ever?
Today’s example is the terror attack on a Sydney cafe where a couple dozen people were taken hostage by an Iranian, Man Haron Monis, who was accepted as a refugee in Australia in 1996.
Below, a hostage delivers a message from the terrorist that he was attacking Australia in the name of the Islamic State (ISIS):
The guy has a rap sheet filled with violence including dozens of sexual assaults on women through his spiritual ministrations as a sheikh and arranging the murder of his ex-wife. Why was such a violent man allowed to walk the streets?
Below, Sheik Haron apparently likes media attention.
The spin coming out is that Monis is mentally disturbed, and he may well be from a western psychological viewpoint. But Islam encourages violence against infidels, and for that reason is attractive to the criminally minded.
Australians came out Monday in solidarity with the Muslim community following a siege at a Sydney cafe, as tens of thousands tweeted the hashtag #illridewithyou to counter concern about an anti-Islam backlash.
The hostage-taking at the Lindt chocolate cafe triggered a security lockdown in the heart of Australia’s biggest city, with the government and Muslim leaders condemning the attack and calling for unity.
Amid uncertainty about the hostage-taker’s motives and fears of reprisals after an Islamic flag was raised in the cafe, an Australian woman reportedly started the #illridewithyou hashtag to show solidarity with Muslims who might feel threatened on public transport.
The danger to the public would not exist if the government had not allowed thousands of Muslims to reside inside the gates.
Here’s a local report about the jihadist’s background:
But when Obama wants the citizens to lay down and passively accept his unconstitutional executive amnesty, suddenly the American people have a “good heart” toward invasive foreign lawbreakers. Funny how that works.
Actually, the statement was part of a threat to a future president not to rescind Obama’s temporary free stuff and work permits — the moochers will be miffed! It is indeed politically difficult to remove a major freebie.
President Obama insisted Tuesday that his successor won’t take the political risk that would come with reversing his recent executive action on immigration reform.
Speaking at a town-hall meeting in Nashville, the president said it’s “theoretically” possible that the next administration could undo the amnesty Mr. Obama has granted to more than 4 million illegal immigrants, but he assured a supportive crowd that such a step it is extremely unlikely.
“It’s true a future administration might try to reverse some of our policies. But I’ll be honest with you — the American people basically have a good heart and want to treat people fairly and every survey shows that if, in fact, somebody has come out and subjected themselves to a background check, registered, paid their taxes, the American people support allowing them to stay. So any future administration that tried to punish people for doing the right thing, I think, would not have the support of the American people,” Mr. Obama said. “It’s true, theoretically, a future administration could do something that I think would be very damaging. It’s not likely, politically, that they reverse everything we’ve done.”
Last month, the president unveiled long-awaited executive action on immigration reform. He granted de facto amnesty to more than 4 million illegal immigrants, freeing them from the threat of deportation and allowing them to legally compete for jobs.
The move sparked a major backlash on Capitol Hill and in states across the country; at least 18 states are suing the president over his steps on immigration.
Some in the West, like Canadian TV host Michael Coren, have voiced disapproval that Muslims residing in free nations do not protest the behavior of the active beheaders in their faith, particularly when Allah’s loyal acolytes routinely complain loudly about the smallest perceived slight from Europeans or Americans.
Following the recent beheading of French mountaineer Herve Gourdel (pictured), some France-residing Muslims apparently showed up with some #NotInOurName sentiments. The Associated Press interpreted the rallies as exhibiting “heartsick fury among Muslims in France.” Who knew?
PARIS — In tweets, in street gatherings and in open letters, moderate Muslims around the world are insisting that Islamic State extremists don’t speak for their religion. Many are also frustrated that anyone might think they do, and a backlash has already begun.
This week’s videotaped beheading of a French mountaineer by militants linked to the Islamic State group prompted heartsick fury among Muslims in France and elsewhere in Europe, torn between anger at the atrocities committed in the name of Islam and frustration that they have to defend themselves at all.
Herve Gourdel was the fifth Western hostage decapitated in recent weeks by Islamic extremists — this time, the militants said, as revenge for France’s decision to join airstrikes against the Islamic State group. [. . .]
If Europe-residing Muslim immigrants are truly “heartsick” about Islam being misrepresented, they are a little late to the parade. TheReligionOfPeace.com website keeps a running total of Allah-inspired deadly attacks since 9/11 — and counts more than 23,920 as of today.
In addition, Muslims are not required by Islam to tell the truth to infidels, so the statements of Muslims must be accorded proper skepticism. Taqiyya — deception — is a well discussed strategy in Islamic scriptures, particularly its use by Mohammad, considered the perfect man who should be emulated.
Also, Muslims complain about mythical “backlash” against their kind, which usually consists of a few unkind words at worst. There are no mobs of Europeans committing mass murder, as ISIS Muslims do in the Middle East.
The idea that Muslims are sad about infidels being slaughtered in the traditional style is also brought into question by the following somewhat sketchy refutation:
As Muslims demonstrated against the “barbarism” of the Islamic State (IS) group outside the main mosque in Paris on Friday, pressure on the Muslim community to denounce Islamist militancy has been described as Islamophobic “madness”.
Friday afternoon’s demonstration follows this week’s murder of French hiker Hervé Gourdel, kidnapped in Algeria by the militant group calling themselves Jund al-Khalifa, which claims links to the IS group.
Many Muslims in France reacted spontaneously to express their disgust at the brutal killing. Online, the Twitter hashtag #NotInMyName – started by British Muslims to denounce the actions of the IS group – was taken up in France (#PasEnMonNom).
But despite the widespread anguish in France’s large Muslim community – the country’s Muslim population is estimated at upwards of five million, many of them of Algerian descent – expectations in some quarters that they should collectively criticise the extremists have caused a backlash. Continue reading this article
Remember, this is the “Religion of Peace” and if you don’t agree then you’re a filthy racist Islamophobe.
Here’s Robert Spencer explaining the Australian situation, that ISIS is there and intended to act. (Too bad he couldn’t mention how so many Muslims [half a million] got there, namely through the immigration door.)
Another aspect of Muslim hostility, as Spencer notes, were the protests — not against the brutal planned attacks — but against the police raids arresting the terrorists.
Over 200 people in western Sydney attended a protest about the pre-dawn counter-terrorism raids that occurred across the country.
Rally organisers took to Facebook to encourage people to join them at a rally at Lakemba station to oppose the treatment of the Muslim community in what have been touted as the largest ever counter-terrorism raids in Australian history. [. . .]
Below, Sydney Muslims protest against the police for breaking up a terror plot.
And not to forget Backlash… No Australian has burned down a mosque or lynched a Muslim, but unfounded fears of a backlash from citizens are propagandized by Islamics into a kind of intimidation.
DURING prayers at Lakemba Mosque, the tension has been palpable.
There, and in Auburn, in Bankstown, in Liverpool, and in Greenacre, the situation is the same; Sydney’s Muslims are anxious.
They’re shocked by the allegations levelled against one of their own. They’re bracing for a backlash against innocent families. And they’re worried wider Australia will convict all Muslims of guilt by association.
“There is a palpable tension that permeates the environment,” Muslim leader Dr Jamal Rifi said. [. . . ]
Is there a more self-absorbed tribe on earth than Muslims? Their co-religionists were planning to behead an innocent Australian to make a crude statement to advance jihad, but they are concerned only about how the disrupted terrorism will affect them. Muslims residing in Australia want all the benefits of a free society with none of the responsibility.
It’s unfortunate that spying is necessary in a free country, but when the government admits enemies in the name of immigration diversity then snooping is needed to keep the public safe.
And why not chill on counter-terrorism, New York voters may have thought during the election. After all, bin Laden was dead and al Qaeda was defeated, according to Obama. It would be safe to have a far-left peacenik mayor, right? What could possibly go wrong?
Jihadis must be amazed at their luck: Obama has opened up America’s southern border so even little kids can break in and Mayor De Blasio has substantially dismantled New York City’s crack counter-terrorism system.
Now Baghdadi has an enthusiastic army of headchoppers armed with American military equipment, plus a bank balance of a couple billion dollars with an oil field income of $2 million per day. He’s got motivation, resources and a target, making ISIS a serious threat to America in general and New York City in particular.
Now former member of the 9/11 Commission John Lehman says de Blasio is “taking his eye off the ball” at the worst time — which is a kind assessment because it assumes the mayor’s eye was once on the ball of protecting the city.
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey concurred that disbanding the existing effective counter-terrorism program is bad policy, noting “I think we’re all less safe.”
Both Lehman and Mukasey agreed that De Blasio’s subversion of the federal Real ID system (recommended by the 9/11 Commission) to a lower-scrutiny city ID program for illegal aliens was dangerous.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is coming under sharp criticism for making decisions that may have undermined the effectiveness of his police department’s counter-terrorism operations.
Thirteen years after the 9/11 attacks on Manhattan, prominent security experts say de Blasio has made fighting terrorism a lower priority in order to appease the communities that helped elect him.
“A classic case of taking your eye off the ball at the worst possible time is Mayor de Blasio in New York,” said John Lehman, a former member of the 9/11 Commission.
He said de Blasio is failing to take seriously enough the new threat posed to New York and other major American cities by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has reportedly trained dozens of American jihadists.
“At the very time when the threat suddenly emerges in a whole new additional form focused on the U.S., he decides to end some of the most effective programs in the country in the NYPD counterterrorism unit,” Lehman said.
“He has reassigned people and vehicles and special equipment to non-counterterrorist activities,” he added.
The liberal Democratic mayor has come under fire for several controversial decisions since succeeding Michael Bloomberg, who created a massive counterterrorism unit during his three terms as mayor.
In April, de Blasio disbanded a special unit tasked with conducting surveillance of mosques and Muslim groups suspected of radical ties.
Michael Mukasey, who served as U.S. attorney general from 2007 to 2009, said the unit was instrumental in mapping out possible terrorist ties within Muslim communities.
“They weren’t simply conducting surveillance of mosques and Muslims. They were mapping communities, figuring out where someone from Lebanon or Yemen or any of the other hot spots would go if they wanted to come to this country and find refuge,” he said. Continue reading this article
The feds are particularly silent about the whereabouts of tens of thousands of illegal alien children it has redistributed all around the country, she has learned. The little lawbreakers have privacy rights, the bureaucrats argue.
Nobody cares about their individual identity, but taxpayers have a right to the facts about where the foreigners are being housed, educated and at what cost. Parents need to know whether they need to move their kids to private school if the public classrooms become too academically compromised by diversity.
Plus, there’s no guarantee that the dumped kids will be properly immunized against communicable disease by the time they appear in America’s classrooms. If the kids don’t get immediate first-class school services, then La Raza and the usual suspects will start complaining about anti-hispanic racism. Public health will be a lesser concern compared with jamming foreign kids into classrooms ASAP.
In the video below, amnesty hucksters claim that kiddies will be endangered by hateful racist Americans if shelter locations are revealed. In fact, citizen safety is far more imperiled by the so-called children, most of whom are teenaged (and older) males, some with gang tattoos.
WASHINGTON (WJLA) – Hundreds of demonstrators marched outside the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency on Thursday, demanding Congressional action on immigration reform. Many were arrested.
This comes as some states continue to struggle with what to do with the influx of unaccompanied children coming across the border.
The government has abruptly shut down operations at Fort Sill in Oklahoma and two other military bases that sheltered more than 7,700 minors the government refers to as “unaccompanied alien children.”
Thousands have been transferred to 150 shelters around the country, mostly group homes run by nonprofits. But try to find out exactly where and the government won’t answer—not the public or reporters, not even members of Congress. Continue reading this article
Muslims residing in the United States and in general are more distrusted as time goes by, because the case is rather substantial that Allah’s acolytes are not suitable residents for Western nations. As Dutch politician Geert Wilders has said, “Islam is the biggest threat to freedom today.”
(Reuters) – How Americans view Arabs and Muslims has gotten worse in recent years, with negative feelings strongest among Republicans and senior citizens, according to a poll released on Tuesday.
Only 27 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Muslims, down from 35 percent in 2010, according to the Zogby poll, commissioned by the non-profit Arab American Institute. Favorable attitudes toward Arabs dropped to 32 percent from 43 percent in 2010.
The poll also found that 42 percent of respondents believe an American Muslim’s religion would influence his or her decision making in an important government job. The same percentage believe it is justified for law enforcement to profile Arab Americans or American Muslims.
“For me, the biggest concern in the poll is not just that people don’t like us, but what not liking us translates to,” said Institute president Jim Zogby, who is of Lebanese descent. He said attitudes towards profiling and Arabs and Muslims in government posts “affect our ability to function as communities here.” Continue reading this article
On Saturday, quite a few friends of American sovereignty showed up in ultra-blue Boston (!) for a rally to save the country from the alien influx. What a pleasant surprise.
Apparently the protest was organized by Jeff Kuhner, a local radio guy (and legal immigrant from Canada). His page on WRKO-AM radio invited listeners to a “Stop the Invasion Rally.” where participants could “Join Jeff Kuhner for a major rally to protest Governor Deval Patrick’s plan to house illegal aliens from Central America in Massachusetts.”
Here’s a clip of Kuhner:
A local news report thought the participants were angry. Well, good. We are.
An anti-illegal immigration rally on Beacon Hill outside the State House on Saturday, July 26 was teeming with protesters.
While Bree Sison of CBS Boston estimated that the gathering drew hundreds of people, Jeff Kuhner, the host of WRKO’s The Kuhner Report, who organized the rally, put the number closer to 10,000 people.
People carrying signs that said “Deport illegals,” and “Americans before illegals” stood just outside the State House from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Kuhner told Boston.com that he himself is a legal immigrant.
Kuhner came to the United States in the 1990s on a work visa as he worked towards a Ph. D. Still a Canadian citizen, he was issued a green card in 2006. Kuhner said he is currently in the process of becoming a naturalized citizen.
“I’ve never seen any kind of a backlash like this before on any issue ever. People in this state are livid. They feel betrayed by the political elite,” Kuhner said of Gov. Deval Patrick’s decision for Massachusetts to offer shelter to unaccompanied minors.
This week, a state official said it remained “unclear” how many unaccompanied minors crossing the nation’s southern border illegally would be coming to Massachusetts and how many could stay in the state longer. The state has offered to house up to 1,000 children at one of two secure facilities for up to four months.
Kuhner told Boston.com that he thought Saturday’s rally in Boston may well become a national story. “We made the Drudge Report.”
“These are not children. When you say child, the implication is 4, 5, 6 [years old]. They’re teenagers – many of them are gangbangers … If you’re 15, you’re not a child. A child is 12 and under.”
On Thursday, America’s Senator Jeff Sessions took the Senate floor for reflect widely on the recent demands from billionaire elites (Sheldon Adelson, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates) for more immigrant workers while this week Microsoft announced its layoff of 18,000 employees over coming months.
The six-minute video posted on the Senator Sessions Youtube channel didn’t include the whole analysis, which can be found on an office press release, posted below, where I’ve added some links. It’s long, but informative and well researched.
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor yesterday on the announced Microsoft layoffs and the displacement of American workers by the H-1B guest worker visa. A text of Sessions’ remarks follows:
“Madam President, three of our greatest `masters of the universe’—as I like to refer to them—have joined in an op-ed in the New York Times just last week to share their wisdom from on high and to tell us in Congress how to do our business and to conduct immigration reform they think should be pleasing to them. I am sure other super billionaires would be glad to join with these three super billionaires and could agree on legislation that would be acceptable to them.
Sheldon Adelson, Las Vegas casino magnate and Republican supporter; Warren Buffett, the master investor; and Bill Gates, the master founder of Microsoft computer systems, all super billionaires, apparently aren’t happy. They don’t have much respect for Congress and, by indirection, the people who elect people to Congress, it appears from the tone of their article—you know, American people, that great unwashed group; nativists, narrow-minded patriots, possessors of middle-class values. They just don’t understand as we know, we great executives and entrepreneurs.
So they declare we need to import more foreign workers in computer science, technology, and engineering, because the country is ‘badly in need of their services.’ They say we are badly in need of importing large numbers of STEM graduates. That is something we have all heard and many of us have perhaps assumed is an accurate thing.
These three individuals, all generous men, have contributed to a lot of causes, and I am teasing them a little bit. They didn’t mind sticking it to Congress, so I just tease them and push back a little bit.
They particularly praised the Senate for its elimination of any limits on the number of work visas that could be awarded to immigrants who have a degree in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and have a job offer. Continue reading this article
The project to divide America’s unwieldy, corrupt state into half a dozen chunks had disappeared from the news in recent months, but now has re-emerged, Phoenix-like, onto the political scene. If the petitions have enough valid signatures then it’s off to the election for the voters to have their say.
Of course, the only area of the current state with a robust economy is the Bay Area which includes Silicon Valley, where tech is booming. A divided California without the wealth producers of tech would be markedly poorer, and wealth redistributors wouldn’t like that. So there would be a liberal establishment backlash if the Six scheme got any traction with the voters. Plus Washington would have to agree — that would never happen.
SACRAMENTO — Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper will submit signatures Tuesday to put what could be one of the most dramatic startups ever on the ballot – a plan to divide California into six states.
Draper, a multimillionaire known as “the Riskmaster,” and his team are expected to announce in Sacramento that they’ve gathered more than enough signatures to put the “Six Californias” measure before state voters.
The measure, a constitutional amendment, needs 807,615 valid signatures to qualify. Because the deadline has already passed for this November, the plan could end up on the November 2016 general election ballot.
Supporters would not say how many signatures they have gathered until Draper holds a news conference Tuesday in Sacramento. However, they said they were confident they had plenty to spare.
Democrats have denounced Draper’s idea, and worry that an outpouring of conservative support and a lengthy campaign for the proposal could hurt both Gov. Jerry Brown in November and the party’s presidential candidate in 2016. Continue reading this article
The liberal website Politico has an interesting tick-tock of how the strategies for illegal alien amnesty played out, with background details of plans, promises and assumptions made according to the open borders calculus.
One interesting item was Speaker Boehner’s pledge to the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference last summer that an amnesty bill would be forthcoming in the House, but other issues filled up the calendar. Lucky for the nation that congressmen work three-day weeks with lots of week-long vacations.
Also noteworthy was Senator Sessions’ observation that newly elected Republicans (who had not experienced the 2007 amnesty battle) had the attitude, “We need to end the lawlessness at the border and build a fence but I love immigrants and I really think we should welcome immigrants and we need more immigrants.”
Fortunately a series of educational meetings educated newbie GOP members that America’s existing immigration system is unduly generous, given persistent systemic unemployment, and should not be expanded further.
President Barack Obama paused for what felt like an eternity to the immigration reform activists seated around the Roosevelt Room.
Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza, had just explained why she declared him the “deporter in chief” in a speech in early March. Obama, who was infuriated when he first heard Murguia’s remarks weeks earlier, sat in silence, trying to keep his anger in check, according to advocates in attendance.
When Obama finally spoke, he scolded them. The story was now about infighting between Obama and activists rather than the House Republicans refusing to take up a bill. “If you take the pressure off of them and put it on me, you’ll guarantee that there is no legislation,” he warned.
The frustrations that boiled over three months ago during the White House meeting were years in the making, but were exacerbated by the growing realization that an outcome once thought to be inevitable increasingly looked impossible.
The best chance in three decades to rewrite immigration laws has slipped away just one year after the Senate garnered 68 votes for sweeping reform of the system, 20 months after strong Hispanic turnout for Democrats in the 2012 election sparked a GOP panic, and five years after Obama promised to act.
Immigration reform’s slow but steady failure exposes how an ideologically diverse and powerful network of supporters couldn’t bend the one group that mattered: House Republicans. Proponents turned their attention late to the House because of a longer-than-expected Senate debate, and once they did, the GOP’s political will had faded and hard-liners made inroads with newer lawmakers that were difficult to reverse, according to interviews with several dozen key participants on both sides of the battle.
Last summer, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) privately told the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference that if reformers won the August recess, then Republicans would move a bill in the fall. But the Syria crisis, the government shutdown and the botched rollout of HealthCare.gov consumed attention through the end of 2013. By the time Boehner released a set of immigration principles in January, Republicans saw little short-term benefit to tackling a divisive issue just as their midterm election prospects were strengthening.
As recently as this month, however, there was more movement in the House than previously known. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) had been quietly shopping a PowerPoint presentation of a border enforcement and legalization bill to his colleagues and secured soft commitments from at least 120 Republicans, according to multiple sources familiar with the process.
But then Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) lost his Republican primary election. And young children from Central America crossed illegally over the southwestern border in record numbers. Those two unforeseen events killed any remaining chance for action this year. Continue reading this article
On Tuesday, June 17, I reported on the government’s stealthy attempt to house 500 young border jumpers in a recently closed black college in Lawrenceville, Virginia (population just 1438): Virginia Town Rejects Illegal Alien Kid Drop. On Thursday, an overflow crowd of concerned citizens packed the local high school auditorium to express their outrage at their small community being swamped with illegal aliens. Many citizens showed up with “No illegal immigrants” signs which were not allowed in the meeting, although plenty of police were present. The objections included disease, crime, government overreach and Washington’s warped priorities about spending.
Anne Williams is urged to sit down during a hearing on bringing immigrant children to Saint Paul’s College. U.S. officials acknowledged a contract had been signed June 12, with the refugees to arrive June 19, without consultation with local elected officials.
The upshot was that the resettlement plans were put on hold because of citizen anger. However the government has already signed a lease on the property, and if hundreds of thousands more illegal alien kiddies arrive, then Washington may say screw the Americans’ complaints.
The article below waits until the end to mention the planned Lawrenceville facility would be “one of at least a hundred of these types of shelters across the U.S.”
A fiery debate is raging over a controversial plan to house hundreds of undocumented, teenage immigrants in central Virginia. The Brunswick High School auditorium was packed Thursday night, during a town hall meeting over the issue. Angry neighbors spoke out about the move to set up the emergency shelter at St. Paul’s College in Lawrenceville. The college closed last year after financial difficulties and low enrollment.
Federal Health and Human Services Department officials say they’re putting the effort to convert St. Paul’s College into the shelter on hold. That decision comes among backlash after short notice of the project was given to the community. The community learned of the plans just over a week ago. Federal officials say talks over using the school as a shelter began just a few months ago. However, the ink is already dry on a lease between the school and the federal government.
Neighbors waved “no illegal immigrant” signs well before the town hall meeting started.
One man questioned during the town hall discussion, “When did the U.S. government go into the orphanage business?” His comment received wide applause.
“I’m looking at potentially having to move away,” said Ariel Daniel, a resident who’s opposed to the project.
Hundreds of Central American kids who crossed the border without their parents were supposed to arrive at St. Paul’s College Thursday. Those plans stalled after the immense backlash. The proposed emergency shelter on the college campus would house them until they’re reunited with family members.
“The proposed plans to have St. Paul’s College used as a facility for the UAC (unaccompanied alien children) is on hold,” said Essie Workie of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to the crowded auditorium. Workie also apologized to the crowd for the lack of communication.
Outraged neighbors continued to express fears over safety, security, disease, and how tax dollars are being spent.
Federal officials assured residents that all children will be screened for disease and criminal backgrounds. Officials told the crowd that the number of UAC’s has skyrocketed in recent years, to an estimated 60,000 in 2014. Officials say legally, these children must be cared for. However, the audience didn’t seem convinced, especially with problems facing their own hometown.
“We’re concerned about the children like everybody else. We have a lot of children in our area that need help too,” said Ray Thomas, who owns a business in the area.
Federal officials say the emergency immigrant shelter won’t go forward unless it’s backed by the community.
St. Paul’s College would be one of at least a hundred of these types of shelters across the U.S. Stay with NBC12 for updates on this story.
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.