October 26, 2010, - 1:44 pm
Surrender Nation: Trucking Co Quickly Settles w/ Muslim Over Alcohol
We don’t have the balls. That’s the reason we are losing and will continue to lose the internal war against the Islamic threat on America’s shores. We simply don’t have the resolve. Instead, we are Surrender Nation.
Take the case of Muslim truck driver Vasant Reddy. You probably haven’t heard about Reddy’s federal lawsuit against his employer, filed October 15th in Pennsylvania. That’s because just a week after the suit was filed, Schneider National Trucking of Green Bay, Wisconsin, already paid up and settled the suit to make it go away. Cha-ching. But the basis of the suit is absurd. Reddy refused to transport alcohol for his employer because he said it violates Islamic law. Read the lawsuit complaint.
Since he claims that’s the case, then why on earth did he become a trucker? He knew that a good deal of trucking involves the transport of alcohol. But, per usual, Muslims will not adapt to the regular business and goings-on of American society and American business, including trucking companies. Nope. We must adapt to Islam, instead. They demand–and get–special treatment above and beyond what is reasonable in free society that wishes to remain so. They demand one-way “tolerance” of their extremism, and yet they won’t even tolerate hauling Americans’ beer while working as truck drivers. And companies like Schneider National–surrendering so willingly and quickly–are a big part of the problem.
Memo to Schneider National: time to change your name to Dhimmi Trucking ‘R’ Us.
Exit Question: How much do you think Schneider, er . . . Dhimmi Trucking, paid the litigious, intolerant Muslim?
Tags: Alcohol, American Muslims, Dhimmi, discrimination, Green Bay, Islam, islamic "tolerance", Islamic intolerance, lawsuit, Muslim, Muslims, Pennsylvania, Schneider National Trucking, Surrender Nation, trucker, Vasant Reddy, Wisconsin
Frankly, I put the blame with your colleagues, the lawyers otherwise known as sharks… You guys (and gals) have a saying: “go for the money”. The fact is that because rarely if ever can a defendant actually recover their expenses incurred in defending themselves from such frivolous law suits it makes sense from a business POV to just pay up and have the problem disappear.
Now, if you and some of your like minded colleagues would set up a legal aid system for such defendants, doing the work “pro bono” and for what you can get from the frivolous party I can see how many in such cases would fight such ludicrous law suits.
Until that time, a prudent business would most probably seek to come to an arrangement with the “injured party”. Simple economics.
E: Nice try. But I’ve defended plenty of parties, pro bono, against Muslims. But I won’t work for free for a company that expects me to pay for their products. They are in business and so am I. In fact, I’ve done 100% more pro bono work than Daniel Pipes fraudulent “Legal Project” which has never spent a penny on an attorney to defend someone against Muslims and raised millions in the name of doing so. DS
Eliezer on October 26, 2010 at 2:28 pm