Get Holder and his saboteurs out of the gov’t ASAP.
[N]ew Congressional legislation contains a report recommending that the Attorney General sever its ties with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) as the FBI has already done. … The [FY13] Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Bill, which passed the House on Wednesday, contains in its Committee Report (a separate public document that spells out how agencies are expected to spend the money allocated to them) a recommendation that Attorney General Eric Holder follow in the FBI’s footsteps and sever ties with CAIR [which] was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in a case in which the Holy Land Foundation was found guilty of material support of a terrorist organization. … The committee understands that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has an existing policy prohibiting its employees from engaging in any formal non-investigative cooperation with CAIR. The committee encourages the attorney general to adopt a similar policy for all department officials. [more]
Encourages?
[insert sound of grating teeth]
The DOJ declined to comment about the recommendation, though [Rep. Frank Wolf (R VA)] explained that they will likely apply the policy.
And what makes you think that, Frank?
What are you gonna do about it when they tell you to piss up a rope?
Why am I bringing this up?
Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has signed into law the bill that outlaws state courts from using non-U.S. law and thus it will ban the potential use of Muslim Sharia Law. … This law simply bans [Sharia Law] and the Islamic terror group, CAIR …, is having a damn breakdown over it. CAIR is threatening a lawsuit …. [more]
I predict that the [Holder's] Justice Department will, essentially, take up CAIR’s position and jump down the throats of States which take this tack, much as they’ve done with States which have tried to bring some honesty back into elections and to enforce immigration laws.
Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
14 Comments!
What are you gonna do about it when they tell you to piss up a rope?
Uhm, shit in a hat? It’s just the first thing that came to me.
Whle I largely approve I hope it was bery carefully worded. A State’s courts should not apply laws from outside the State, but there are times they should be taken into account, for instance in a dispute between a local company and a foreign country. Or perhaps in a “reciprocity” case, a judge in State A must know the law of State B and decide how a case is to be handled.
Well sure, with the current “progressive” administration, which is less keen on enforcing laws about voter intimidation when broken by black terrorists-in-training; but with a new administration and a different AG from another party… maybe not…
(I wonder how Rudy Giuliani would do as AG? There are all sorts of people he could prosecute if DoJ wasn’t so busy harassing states that are trying to exercise their rights and conduct their business.)
When will the Homocrats wake up to the fact that the Muslims would use Sharia Law against their most favored special interest group?
Or Maybe the head Commies in the Poofocratic Party already consider them to be expendable in the march towards a Marxist USA.
Meanwhile. the BATF is considering a ban on all shotguns capable of holding over three rounds.
One problem is that the camel (sharia law) will stick its nose into the tent, by saying, “OK, we won’t make it the law of the land (or state, or city, or whatever), but if two or more peace-loving Muslims come to court with a slight disagreement, and agree to be bound by sharia law, why then, we’ll just let them.”
Then the next day, it’s “Sharia for all!”.
If the states don’t start fighting the federal government, there will be no states in a very short period of time.
So true, Caged. So very true. Eventually the regime will no longer to be able battle every state with which they disagree. The fastest way for them to enforce their will is to selectively cut off funding to states until they toe the party line. Most states aren’t in a position politically or financially to sustain that sort of leverage for long.
Doug, I started on the ‘principle’ of this story way back from here when I initially sent it out to some PAC’s:
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 1:13 AM
Subject: Sharia_Oklahoma_Fed Judge_Vicki Miles-LaGrange_Bastardizing_Our Law
Judge issues permanent injunction on Oklahoma Sharia law ban
A federal judge in Oklahoma has issued an order putting on hold the certification of a ballot measure that forbids state courts from considering or using international laws, as well as Sharia, or Islamic law. That permanent injunction will allow the judge more time to consider the constitutional issues raised by State Question 755, which was approved by voters earlier this month. Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange had earlier issued a temporary restraining order in favor of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which had sued to nullify the law completely.
Here’s where I went to load up:
The language of her 15-page order indicated Miles-LaGrange has initial doubts about the constitutionality of the ballot measure. She said the case goes “to the very foundation of our country, our Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights. Throughout the course of our country’s history, the will of the ‘majority’ has on occasion conflicted with the constitutional rights of individuals.”
The amendment would require Oklahoma courts to “rely on federal and state law when deciding cases” and “forbids courts from considering or using” either international law or Islamic religious law, known as Sharia, which the amendment defined as being based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.
In bringing suit, CAIR argued that the amendment violates both the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom. The group’s local leader Muneer Awad has said the amendment passed under a campaign of fear and misinformation about Islam. State Question 755, also known as the “Save Our State” measure was approved by a 7-3 ratio. It was sponsored by State Reps. Rex Duncan and Anthony Sykes, both Republicans.
“The fact that Sharia law was even considered anywhere in the United States is enough for me” to sign on, Sykes told CNN. “It should scare anyone that any judge in America would consider using that as precedent.”
Sykes said his concern was compounded by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s comments during her confirmation hearings in June that she would be willing to consider international law when considering cases before the court.
I have some updates if anyone is interested I’ll mail you the work I’ve done so far. I don’t hang on all the stops I make here or get in ‘running’ comment on most but I figure if anyone wants they can always contac me. I think you have my email ? If not oK to get it from Sondra. Brownback is right on of course.
Ironic (3)
Yeahman. Good point. I’ll edit the text to make it clearer I was talkin’ about Holder’s DOJ, there.
Lloyd (8)
Thanks for that. I avoided getting into the actual legal argument, important as that is. I don’t argue well through gritted teeth.
To me, it boils down to the Constitution’s supremacy clause:
The way I see it, Sharia is flat-out forbidden by the US Constitution. The Kansas amendment seems perfectly compatible and prevents a mischievous judge from trying to employ Sharia or “international” laws. Even contract law would be able to limit any private Sharia agreements or civil cases.
I am dumbfounded by that OK fed judge buying into CAIR’s argument that compliance with the supremacy clause “violates both the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom.” Geeze, WTF, yeronner?
[/engineer's view of constitutional law]
Islam is a totalitarian political religion. Sharia Law is based on the Koran & individual decisions of a zillion Imams. The people have no voice in lawmaking and its punishments. Stoning, beheading and amputations are Pre-Middle Ages punishments that have no place in modern civilization. Nor are courts conducted by religious officials.
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if the law/amendment had simply said that the state courts could only be bound by state and federal laws, it would pass the establishment/prohibition of religion problem. Since they explicitly mentioned Sharia, the Muslims can scream. If everybody knew (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) that Sharia was excluded because it was not a state or federal law, without it being mentioned, they could have gotten away with it.
La Busca della Morte
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/05/27/willie-brown-obamas-lost-his-mojo/
Sharia Law is Islam.
Islam is Sharia Law.
Taking Sharia out of Islam would be like taking sexual abuse of women out of Bill Clinton.
Holger: Isn’t there a Libertarian Sharia?