Sharia law: A threat to our Constitution, yes or no?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:laugh2: pretty soon you can just be my sock and post for me.

Ok, Im open for a part time gig. How much does it pay? What are the benefits? And do I get overtime pay?
By the way you did well to choose me to repair your image . With that in mind I'll need total control and a signing bonus, say 500 bucks.... up front , in cash..;) -Tyr

[Toro]

No.

This is paranoia.

[DragonStryk72]

http://cdn.radicalislam.org/content/shariah-threat-america


At the Islamic Association of Palestine’s annual convention in Illinois in 1996, Abdurahman Alamoudi declared: “I have no doubt in my mind, Muslims sooner or later will be the moral leadership of America. It depends on me and you, either we do it now or we do it after a hundred years, but this country will become a Muslim country.”

Will you let this country become a Muslim country? If you answer an unequivocal NO, read the newly released report by The Center for Security Policy, Shariah: The Threat to America. The report investigates the situation thoroughly. It questions the way our administrations have been handling things. And it challenges you to keep America American, not Islamic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make no mistake about it , they plan on conquering(from within) and enslaving ALL Americans..
Not me or mine while I am alive and able to fight.-Tyr

So.. the Islamic politician looked at a bunch of Islamic folks, who likely are so much in the know about the US, that Islam would be the moral center of america?

....Yeah, I think you've basically just got the Islamic Obama there, promising crap he can't possibly back up to any degree at all.

We have multiple amendments that stand in the way of Sharia law ever coming to power here, Tyr, and failing that, we have Southerners. Do you seriously believe Texas is just gonna let it go?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So.. the Islamic politician looked at a bunch of Islamic folks, who likely are so much in the know about the US, that Islam would be the moral center of america?

....Yeah, I think you've basically just got the Islamic Obama there, promising crap he can't possibly back up to any degree at all.

We have multiple amendments that stand in the way of Sharia law ever coming to power here, Tyr, and failing that, we have Southerners. Do you seriously believe Texas is just gonna let it go?

I seriously believe that the muslims are not going to let it go. They are out for total control and forcing every human on earth to convert or die. Their clever propaganda foooools only fooools , the ignorant and other appeasing jacknapes.-Tyr

[DragonStryk72]

I seriously believe that the muslims are not going to let it go. They are out for total control and forcing every human on earth to convert or die. Their clever propaganda foooools only fooools , the ignorant and other appeasing jacknapes.-Tyr

Adding extra O's just looks silly as hell, man. Even if every Muslim in the world got up and went for it, it still wouldn't matter to our Constitution. That's what makes it such a great document, is that it protects both majorities and minorities. They can wail all they want, but they might as well being to yell back the tide. The only possible way for them would be the complete and total overthrow of America, problem with that being that we would crush them flat (See every war we've fought against them).

You posit that they're a threat, but they aren't. They are exactly as much of a threat to us as an asthmatic twelve year old is to and all-pro linebacker. Sure ,there's a a chance of a kick to the mantackle, but the second we recover, we're going to put em to the ground. We're wolves, they're more like chihuahuas.

[Kathianne]

Adding extra O's just looks silly as hell, man. Even if every Muslim in the world got up and went for it, it still wouldn't matter to our Constitution. That's what makes it such a great document, is that it protects both majorities and minorities. They can wail all they want, but they might as well being to yell back the tide. The only possible way for them would be the complete and total overthrow of America, problem with that being that we would crush them flat (See every war we've fought against them).

You posit that they're a threat, but they aren't. They are exactly as much of a threat to us as an asthmatic twelve year old is to and all-pro linebacker. Sure ,there's a a chance of a kick to the mantackle, but the second we recover, we're going to put em to the ground. We're wolves, they're more like chihuahuas.

At this moment in time I don't agree with either of you. We are on the brink of deciding which way our country will go; no I'm not referring to S'haria. I'm referring to whether we try and regain footing as a republic or continue on our road to something else, our 'transformation.' The later may not be what Obama envisions, but if he's not removed from office, a transformation will come.

[SassyLady]

I doubt tyr or aboutime are intelligent enough to be sock puppets. :p

Sock puppets don't necessarily need to be intelligent ... just need to have split personality disorder of some type.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Adding extra O's just looks silly as hell, man.
^^^^ I do that to see which lousy dog barks about it first. It has never failed me yet! --Tyr :laugh2:


Even if every Muslim in the world got up and went for it, it still wouldn't matter to our Constitution. That's what makes it such a great document, is that it protects both majorities and minorities. They can wail all they want, but they might as well being to yell back the tide. The only possible way for them would be the complete and total overthrow of America, problem with that being that we would crush them flat (See every war we've fought against them).

You posit that they're a threat, but they aren't. They are exactly as much of a threat to us as an asthmatic twelve year old is to and all-pro linebacker. Sure ,there's a a chance of a kick to the mantackle, but the second we recover, we're going to put em to the ground. We're wolves, they're more like chihuahuas.

Sure thing there hoss, history has recorded that those chihuahuas have killed over 270 million people in their 1400+ years of murderous spreading. I going to give you 2.5 brownie points for not totally defending them but will subtract 3.00 brownie points for your first useless chatter about the extra O'S in my post . Try not to be so ignorant as to jump on bait like that next time as it tends to make you look like a doofus.-

"They arent" , man did I ever get a kick out of that ignorant denying bullshit!! That's EXACTLY what they say!! :laugh2:--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

At this moment in time I don't agree with either of you. We are on the brink of deciding which way our country will go; no I'm not referring to S'haria. I'm referring to whether we try and regain footing as a republic or continue on our road to something else, our 'transformation.' The later may not be what Obama envisions, but if he's not removed from office, a transformation will come.

I agree and that transformation even if not exactly what obama has in mind will still be disasterious for this nation. We all should be afraid for the success of the obama plan. Muslims are one problem that are serious but right now obama as president is an even greater threat to us..--Tyr

[Dilloduck]

We always have had enemies and always will. Foreign and domestic. Are you losing faith in our ability to defeat them ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

We always have had enemies and always will. Foreign and domestic. Are you losing faith in our ability to defeat them ?

A big difference now is that we have an entire political party(Dem) dedicated to appeasing our enemies. We have never had that most of our nation's history and that poses an extreme danger to our survival as a nation!
Which obama's term in office has truly shown to be the case. I believe that unless we find a way to reunite we may not survive. We can not do that by appeasing our enemies, giving ground on our values and pretending that there is no danger! Thus, I speak out about the grave dangers we face..
I get attacked so often because many do not want to face the TRUTH!!--Tyr

[Dilloduck]

A big difference now is that we have an entire political party(Dem) dedicated to appeasing our enemies. We have never had that most of our nation's history and that poses an extreme danger to our survival as a nation!
Which obama's term in office has truly shown to be the case. I believe that unless we find a way to reunite we may not survive. We can not do that by appeasing our enemies, giving ground on our values and pretending that there is no danger! Thus, I speak out about the grave dangers we face..
I get attacked so often because many do not want to face the TRUTH!!--Tyr




Is democracy failing ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Is democracy failing ?

No, I'd say that its "sleeping Americans" and our current governments that are both failing. The Constitution is not failing but its being ignored more and more. Thats a large part of the problem ..Thank obama for much of that too..-Tyr

[tailfins]

Is democracy failing ?

Democracy always fails. The US never was a Democracy; it's a Constitutional Republic with inalienable rights, inalienable even by the majority. Democracies plunder the treasury at the ballot box.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Democracy always fails. The US never was a Democracy; it's a Constitutional Republic with inalienable rights, inalienable even by the majority. Democracies plunder the treasury at the ballot box.

We are a Constitutionally based Representative Republic, at least we were until FDR came along and swung to the left with Johnson hitting us again with more of FDR's type of government socialism giveaway trillions programs. Now we have our third hit by obama ,which is intended to finish us off !
His is the ultimate plundering of a nation!!
SIX TRILLION DOLLARS AND COUNTING...
One man , one term , created a 50% increase in our total debt that had previously been accumulated over 232 years! Borrowed and multiple billions unaccounted for !!

[Dilloduck]

Who is the leader of the people trying to "finish us off".

[jafar00]

Who is the leader of the people trying to "finish us off".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Ali-Baba.jpg/466px-Ali-Baba.jpg
علي بابا والأربعين حرامي

[Dilloduck]

Who the hell is that ? Ali Baba ?

[logroller]

Who the hell is that ? Ali Baba ?

A folk hero of sorts; a medieval islamic story of the foiled plans of forty thieves who'd attempted to kill ali baba for stealing their plunder.

[Dilloduck]

Looks like Errol Flynn.

[jafar00]

Who the hell is that ? Ali Baba ?

Yeh, just my little joke :)

[Dilloduck]

LOL Open Sesame ! :laugh2:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yeh, just my little joke :)

Joke thread is in another section here. Some rather good obama jokes there. The subject of this thread is Sharia law and Our Constitution. It is a serious thread not a joke thread ,to say it is or try to make it one is disruptive, rude and an attempt at disrupting the forum here. That you attempt to turn it into a joke thread speaks volumes about you and those helping you do that.-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Joke thread is in another section here. Some rather good obama jokes there. The subject of this thread is Sharia law and Our Constitution. It is a serious thread not a joke thread ,to say it is or try to make it one is disruptive, rude and an attempt at disrupting the forum here. That you attempt to turn it into a joke thread speaks volumes about you and those helping you do that.-Tyr

oh lighten up Francis----I can't count the times you've done it too. :poke:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

oh lighten up Francis----I can't count the times you've done it too. :poke:

Really, list some of them. List the ones where I tried to destroy a thread by turning it into a joke thread! I can wait , but I dont expect to see any..

[jafar00]

Really, list some of them. List the ones where I tried to destroy a thread by turning it into a joke thread! I can wait , but I dont expect to see any..

Most of your I hate Muslims conspiracy threads are exactly that. Jokes.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Most of your I hate Muslims conspiracy threads are exactly that. Jokes.

So you say with no real proof. You just ignore the links I post or call them hate sites. Same when Jim posts links that reveal the truth..
All the ones posted in the news /current events forum are news dumbass not jokes. Figures that you can not tell the difference .:laugh:
I post no conspiracy thread against Islam. I do however post a damn lot of TRUTH.
ITS THAT WHICH GETS YOU PISSED OFF AND SOME OF YOUR USEFUL APPEASER HERE TOO.. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Really, list some of them. List the ones where I tried to destroy a thread by turning it into a joke thread! I can wait , but I dont expect to see any..

What? No list, do you admit your error?:laugh:--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/sharia-law-explained_n_1292452.html
<!-- There were Verticals -->



<STYLE>#news_entries #ad_sharebox_260x60 img {padding:0px;margin:0px}</STYLE><IFRAME style="WIDTH: 0px; DISPLAY: none; HEIGHT: 0px" id=atwAdFrame1 title=Ad height=60 marginHeight=0 src="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/_uac/adpage.html" frameBorder=0 width=260 allowTransparency marginWidth=0 scrolling=no divName="adsDiv1" h="60" w="260" mn="93315225" banId="1918609|1" textAd="undefined"></IFRAME>


<!-- Photos -->http://i.huffpost.com/gen/518748/thumbs/s-SHARIA-LAW-large.jpg


<!--!!!!!!--><!--div></div-->After heated debates in two dozen states (http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/10/03/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-list-of-all-bills-since-2010-new-2011-michigan-bill-first-2012-bill-prefiled/) over banning Sharia law, the legal code of Islam, a national Islamic group is beginning a multi-million dollar effort to explain how Sharia applies to the lives of American Muslims.
The Islamic Circle of North America (http://www.icna.org/), a New York-based group, is spending $3 million on its Defending Religious Freedom campaign, which kicks off Monday and explains Sharia law and common misunderstandings.
The effort includes billboards, TV (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MSHzSyUgSL8) and radio ads in 25 major cities, including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, in addition to town hall meetings and seminars on university campuses led by Muslim academics and activists. Each directs audiences to a website (http://www.defendingreligiousfreedom.com/) and manned hotline, 1-855-Shariah.
The campaign is a response to efforts to ban Sharia law over the last two years in state legislatures and on ballot initiatives, said Naeem Baig, vice president of public affairs for Islamic Circle of North America. Republican presidential candidates also have raised the Sharia debate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They will push for Sharia law to be allowed for them just as they did in Britain. They got it there and now all hell has broke loose with their shutting police out of their neighborhoods.
They plan on forcing USA to allow Sharia law! -Tyr

[jafar00]

They will push for Sharia law to be allowed for them just as they did in Britain. They got it there and now all hell has broke loose with their shutting police out of their neighborhoods.
They plan on forcing USA to allow Sharia law! -Tyr

I see nothing wrong with countering your kind of rabid anti Islam propaganda lies with the truth.

[red states rule]

I see nothing wrong with countering your kind of rabid anti Islam propaganda lies with the truth.

http://www.geaugaconstitutionalcouncil.org/userfiles/image/TerroristFunnyBan.jpg

[Dilloduck]

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: Omg--you caught me too.

[red states rule]

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: Omg--you caught me too.


Caught you? Hell I toss small fish like you back in the water :laugh2:

[Dilloduck]

Caught you? Hell I toss small fish like you back in the water :laugh2:

Don't understimate me or I'll draw funny pictures of you.

[red states rule]

Don't understimate me or I'll draw funny pictures of you.

It is diffucult to underestimate you when you have nothing to estimate

[Dilloduck]

It is diffucult to underestimate you when you have nothing to estimate

Just assume that I beat your ass all the time and go from there. Still planning on scapping the constitution to fight terrorism ?

[red states rule]

Just assume that I beat your ass all the time and go from there. Still planning on scapping the constitution to fight terrorism ?

You what assume means right? :laugh2:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I see nothing wrong with countering your kind of rabid anti Islam propaganda lies with the truth.

The lies come from the goat herders and camel bangers , not me. Islam teaches hatred and lies, no shock that you can not admit the truth.-Tyr

[logroller]

Can someone show me an instance of sharia law being applied in the US in contravention to the constitution?

[jimnyc]

Can someone show me an instance of sharia law being applied in the US in contravention to the constitution?

Muslims or not, this is still America. Some repetitive, but that's for those who will deny it being the truth.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/03/278325/
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/new-jersey-judge-rules-islamic-sharia-law-trumps-u-s-law/
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/transcript/judge-rules-american-courts-can-use-sharia-law
http://nation.foxnews.com/sharia-law/2011/10/26/judge-american-courts-can-use-islamic-law
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/100725
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/30oklahoma.html?_r=0
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/01/federal-judge-sides-with-islamic-shariah-law-over-u-s-constitution/
http://www.sharia4america.com/n.php?nid=5071
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/02/american-muslim-judge-who-imposed-sharia-in-pennslyvania-court-threatens-to-jail-infidel-victim-for-.html

[crin63]

I'm of the opinion that every Muslim should be kicked out of the U.S.

Having Muslims in the U.S. is like like having KGB agents in the U.S. during the Cold War.

Islam is a political system that uses religion to control its subjects. Islam cannot coexist with our Constitution and therefore must attempt to subvert it until such time as sharia Law can replace it.

The so-called moderates are only moderates out of ignorance or lack of control. Once they are the majority they are no longer moderates.

[Dilloduck]

Islam is a religion-not a political party. Do you think America is so weak that Sharia Law can be enacted without due process ? There are judges all over the place that make some of the most bizarre rulings I've ever heard. Many of the cases were overturned when appealed to a higher court and are not evidence of a popular manifestation of accepted Sharia Law.

[jimnyc]

Islam is a religion-not a political party. Do you think America is so weak that Sharia Law can be enacted without due process ? There are judges all over the place that make some of the most bizarre rulings I've ever heard. Many of the cases were overturned when appealed to a higher court and are not evidence of a popular manifestation of accepted Sharia Law.

So no biggie if Shariah is used in decision making by judges now, because we hope these decisions will be overturned on appeal? Do you have links for where these were overturned, specifically because Shariah was considered? Either way, I believe it should be outlawed from being considered, as we have law here in the US and shouldn't allow laws not on American books to influence ANY decisions.

[Dilloduck]

Charles’ ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey’s Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband’s religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, “was mistaken.”

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/new-jersey-judge-rules-islamic-sharia-law-trumps-u-s-law/

[jimnyc]

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/new-jersey-judge-rules-islamic-sharia-law-trumps-u-s-law/

Thank you, that's a good start, but you said "many", so I assume we have a bunch more coming our way...

[Dilloduck]

Thank you, that's a good start, but you said "many", so I assume we have a bunch more coming our way...

Jim---it's from your own post, man !
Look--I don't want Sharia Law imposed on us anymore than the next person but if rogue judges go wacko our recourse is to appeal it. Just like any other rotten decision. If we don't trust our own established legal process we're screwed anyway. There maybe several aspects of Sharia law that are not in conflict with our current law so we may want to specify which Sharia Laws we don't want enacted. If a judge sentences a thief to have his hand cut off in America you will see an outrage like you have never seen.
Let's keep some cool heads and do this right.

[jimnyc]

Jim---it's from your own post, man !
Look--I don't want Sharia Law imposed on us anymore than the next person but if rogue judges go wacko our recourse is to appeal it. Just like any other rotten decision. If we don't trust our own established legal process we're screwed anyway. There maybe several aspects of Sharia law that are not in conflict with our current law so we may want to specify which Sharia Laws we don't want enacted. If a judge sentences a thief to have his hand cut off in America you will see an outrage like you have never seen.
Let's keep some cool heads and do this right.

Whether from my own post or not doesn't change the fact that Shariah was used by a judge to make a decision. But you said many were reversed on appeal based on Shariah being used, and I'm simply asking for links so that I can read about the cases and see what the appeals courts had to say about the initial decisions.

As for cooler heads, I agree wholeheartedly. I think people can remain cool, rational and smart - as America makes it loud and clear that no law, including religious law, other than American law, be used in determining US court cases.

[tailfins]

The lies come from the goat herders and camel bangers , not me. Islam teaches hatred and lies, no shock that you can not admit the truth.-Tyr

You forgot "sand niggers". You may as well go all the way.

[Missileman]

Whether from my own post or not doesn't change the fact that Shariah was used by a judge to make a decision. But you said many were reversed on appeal based on Shariah being used, and I'm simply asking for links so that I can read about the cases and see what the appeals courts had to say about the initial decisions.

As for cooler heads, I agree wholeheartedly. I think people can remain cool, rational and smart - as America makes it loud and clear that no law, including religious law, other than American law, be used in determining US court cases.

The case in Florida seemed to be a civil matter. If two parties enter into a contract in the US and write into it that any disputes will be settled in accordance with Sharia law, is it a legal contract?

[jimnyc]

The case in Florida seemed to be a civil matter. If two parties enter into a contract in the US and write into it that any disputes will be settled in accordance with Sharia law, is it a legal contract?

Civil law still follows the laws of the United States. Otherwise, we could have couples choosing to have their disputes by other countries laws should they choose to. Certainly they can agree to place whatever they want within contracts, but the contracts must pass muster based on US law. Similar to companies who put all kinds of crap in non-compete contracts, of which the majority are found to be null and void as they don't stand within the law. They can place Shariah in there, but no court in the land should uphold it as it wouldn't be within US law. Civil or criminal, law is law, and in the USA it should and must be US law.

[tailfins]

Civil law still follows the laws of the United States. Otherwise, we could have couples choosing to have their disputes by other countries laws should they choose to. Certainly they can agree to place whatever they want within contracts, but the contracts must pass muster based on US law. Similar to companies who put all kinds of crap in non-compete contracts, of which the majority are found to be null and void as they don't stand within the law. They can place Shariah in there, but no court in the land should uphold it as it wouldn't be within US law. Civil or criminal, law is law, and in the USA it should and must be US law.

I like the way Georgia has handled that. The small claims limit is $15,000 and you can sue for restraint of trade if a company tries to short circuit your livelihood with enforcement of an illegal non-compete.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You forgot "sand niggers". You may as well go all the way.

I did not forget, I do not use that term but obviously you do. Have fun with it. Just put the broad brush down and clean your own dirty hands.-Tyr

[Missileman]

Civil law still follows the laws of the United States. Otherwise, we could have couples choosing to have their disputes by other countries laws should they choose to. Certainly they can agree to place whatever they want within contracts, but the contracts must pass muster based on US law. Similar to companies who put all kinds of crap in non-compete contracts, of which the majority are found to be null and void as they don't stand within the law. They can place Shariah in there, but no court in the land should uphold it as it wouldn't be within US law. Civil or criminal, law is law, and in the USA it should and must be US law.

Not so fast! Did a little more digging.

http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_02_03-2008_02_09.shtml

American courts are governed by American law, but American law has long provided that parties to contracts can provide for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (such as arbitration). American law has likewise long provided that some contractual disputes would be resolved with reference to foreign law, especially when the law is expressly provided for by the contract. It doesn't matter whether the arbitration or the foreign law is secular or religious -- secular and religious rules are treated basically equally, on the principle that the parties' contractual choices should be honored unless some extraordinary circumstance makes it unfair to do so.

[jimnyc]

Not so fast! Did a little more digging.

http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_02_03-2008_02_09.shtml

American courts are governed by American law, but American law has long provided that parties to contracts can provide for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (such as arbitration). American law has likewise long provided that some contractual disputes would be resolved with reference to foreign law, especially when the law is expressly provided for by the contract. It doesn't matter whether the arbitration or the foreign law is secular or religious -- secular and religious rules are treated basically equally, on the principle that the parties' contractual choices should be honored unless some extraordinary circumstance makes it unfair to do so.

First off, arbitration is generally outside of the law, and only an idiot would agree to such a circumstance, but let's look at the entire writing that you didn't provide:


And of course the application of Sharia law was indeed a perfectly normal matter. American courts are governed by American law, but American law has long provided that parties to contracts can provide for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (such as arbitration). American law has likewise long provided that some contractual disputes would be resolved with reference to foreign law, especially when the law is expressly provided for by the contract. It doesn't matter whether the arbitration or the foreign law is secular or religious -- secular and religious rules are treated basically equally, on the principle that the parties' contractual choices should be honored unless some extraordinary circumstance makes it unfair to do so.

One could argue that American courts shouldn't be able to apply religious rules because of concerns about excessive entanglement of the government and religion. But even if that's so in some situations, it wouldn't apply when a court is merely asked to confirm an arbitration award rather than to applying the religious rules in the first instance, and it also wouldn't apply when the religious rules are part of the law of a foreign country (such as Saudi Arabia).

Now maybe Sharia law is more likely to be unfair than other systems in certain circumstances; and doubtless some people feel strong social pressure to enter into contracts endorsed by their cultural group. But people feel various kinds of pressure to enter into various kinds of contracts. American law usually enforces the contracts despite talk of pressure and unfairness. There are exceptions, but they are indeed exceptions, and the rule is enforcing contracts. Yet the skies haven't fallen, nor do they seem likely to fall even if more contracts end up being arbitrated or otherwise evaluated under Sharia law.

So it is so in some situations, but wouldn't apply when a court is merely asked to confirm an arbitration...

But anyway, so you are arguing that you think Shariah Law being injected into American courts should be acceptable? Even if used as regular law in the past, do YOU believe this should continue and at times Shariah should outweigh American law? Maybe it has been used before, and I know that, as I have already provided examples myself - but my argument is that it SHOULDN'T be used, as it simply isn't American law. I'll also argue that Oklahoma, and a few other places that discussed it, are on the right path when they say they would like to ban any attempt to use Shariah Law in our justice system.

Lastly, if we do allow foreign law, or religious law, into our courts, then why would we ban local religious law? What if Christians, Jews and other religions would like contracts, arbitrations, domestic disputes and such decided based on what their religious texts favor? I find it ridiculous that ANY religion should change the outcome of ANY case involving the law, and even more ridiculous if we allow foreign law into our courts. If we do that, we might as well do what many fear, start allowing the UN to make laws and taxes on the American people.

[red states rule]

Jim, I am sorry but I can't resist psoting this. I do hope I have offended those who think we need to change America so we make the Muslims happy



http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/1775742/82807120.jpg

[Missileman]

First off, arbitration is generally outside of the law, and only an idiot would agree to such a circumstance, but let's look at the entire writing that you didn't provide:



So it is so in some situations, but wouldn't apply when a court is merely asked to confirm an arbitration...

But anyway, so you are arguing that you think Shariah Law being injected into American courts should be acceptable? Even if used as regular law in the past, do YOU believe this should continue and at times Shariah should outweigh American law? Maybe it has been used before, and I know that, as I have already provided examples myself - but my argument is that it SHOULDN'T be used, as it simply isn't American law. I'll also argue that Oklahoma, and a few other places that discussed it, are on the right path when they say they would like to ban any attempt to use Shariah Law in our justice system.

Lastly, if we do allow foreign law, or religious law, into our courts, then why would we ban local religious law? What if Christians, Jews and other religions would like contracts, arbitrations, domestic disputes and such decided based on what their religious texts favor? I find it ridiculous that ANY religion should change the outcome of ANY case involving the law, and even more ridiculous if we allow foreign law into our courts. If we do that, we might as well do what many fear, start allowing the UN to make laws and taxes on the American people.

I'm saying that a US court is bound to enforce the TERMS of a legal contract and if those terms include disputes being settled in accordance with Sharia law, it is totally appropriate for the US court to do so. This has nothing at all to do with Sharia law and criminal matters. IMO, there is an implied agreement to live by US law (criminal) when you decide to live here.

[jimnyc]

I'm saying that a US court is bound to enforce the TERMS of a legal contract and if those terms include disputes being settled in accordance with Sharia law, it is totally appropriate for the US court to do so. This has nothing at all to do with Sharia law and criminal matters. IMO, there is an implied agreement to live by US law (criminal) when you decide to live here.

Bound? Contracts are disputed and found invalid every single day. The key is "legal contract". I don't think the majority of courts will find using foreign law to be legal. Just as I found a few cases where it was used, as have you, they should be overturned on appeal, and I can guarantee you that the SCOTUS would sure as shit not find foreign law legal in US courts.

Criminal law is our law - as is civil law.

[Missileman]

Bound? Contracts are disputed and found invalid every single day. The key is "legal contract". I don't think the majority of courts will find using foreign law to be legal. Just as I found a few cases where it was used, as have you, they should be overturned on appeal, and I can guarantee you that the SCOTUS would sure as shit not find foreign law legal in US courts.

Criminal law is our law - as is civil law.

I'm not talking about some shmuck walking into a court demanding a Sharia trial. I'm talking about two parties, sitting down and hammering out a contract that they both agree to. I haven't seen anything yet that says it would be an illegal contract.

[red states rule]

I'm not talking about some shmuck walking into a court demanding a Sharia trial. I'm talking about two parties, sitting down and hammering out a contract that they both agree to. I haven't seen anything yet that says it would be an illegal contract.


http://cdn.stripersonline.com/b/bc/bc5f6f96_181148-triple_facepalm_super.jpeg

[jimnyc]

I'm not talking about some shmuck walking into a court demanding a Sharia trial. I'm talking about two parties, sitting down and hammering out a contract that they both agree to. I haven't seen anything yet that says it would be an illegal contract.

Couples do this all the time and call it a "pre-nuptial agreement", and everyday some of them are found to be invalid, and for the majority of them it is because they don't stand up to be a legal and valid contract based on US law. It's the same with these contracts, and if some judges think otherwise, it SHOULD be this way, and this is why many wants laws to keep Shariah from being used here in any capacity.

What if a Catholic woman marries a Muslim man, like my friend has. They're still going strong... Anyway, she does in fact agree to and signs a contract - you think it should be held up as valid? In some instances, a woman can't even initiate the divorce. In some instances she MUST return home, as law forbids her from living alone. In many cases physical abuse is allowed. Watch the below video to learn about all the wonderful rights a woman gets in divorce, and other civil matters. If a woman agrees to and enters into a contract containing this stuff, you think a US court should uphold it?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Oqzb7ikEoU4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm not talking about some shmuck walking into a court demanding a Sharia trial. I'm talking about two parties, sitting down and hammering out a contract that they both agree to. I haven't seen anything yet that says it would be an illegal contract.

No, what you are talking about is allowing Sharia law to get a foothold in our Judicial system. You are doing this knowing Sharia law is religious law and most of it is in direct opposition to our Constitution and established Rule of Law. In essence you appear to say to hell with America and its established institutions , lets give Sharia law a try . That to me is insanity , deception and a complete lack of patriotism on your part, that you may fail to think it is does not counter the reality of the matter IMHO.
It is a very serious threat to our Constitution , your foooooolishnes in denying that means nothing to any rational and honest American!
That foothold was allowed in Britain and now its in dire straits , about to go under!-Tyr

[Missileman]

Couples do this all the time and call it a "pre-nuptial agreement", and everyday some of them are found to be invalid, and for the majority of them it is because they don't stand up to be a legal and valid contract based on US law. It's the same with these contracts, and if some judges think otherwise, it SHOULD be this way, and this is why many wants laws to keep Shariah from being used here in any capacity.

What if a Catholic woman marries a Muslim man, like my friend has. They're still going strong... Anyway, she does in fact agree to and signs a contract - you think it should be held up as valid? In some instances, a woman can't even initiate the divorce. In some instances she MUST return home, as law forbids her from living alone. In many cases physical abuse is allowed. Watch the below video to learn about all the wonderful rights a woman gets in divorce, and other civil matters. If a woman agrees to and enters into a contract containing this stuff, you think a US court should uphold it?

<iframe height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Oqzb7ikEoU4" frameBorder="0" width="560" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

Show me a written contract between your friends that includes the specifics you listed line by line...I guarantee it doesn't exist.

One of the biggest problems we have in our legal system is not holding people to what they've agreed to. Take athletes for example. Sign a four year deal for X amount of dollars and then hold out for more money two years in.

And let me clarify...the Sharia considerations would not be able to violate US law.

[tailfins]

You cannot sell ordinary meat as Halal:

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/news/1997/washlamb.htm

[Missileman]

No, what you are talking about is allowing Sharia law to get a foothold in our Judicial system. You are doing this knowing Sharia law is religious law and most of it is in direct opposition to our Constitution and established Rule of Law. In essence you appear to say to hell with America and its established institutions , lets give Sharia law a try . That to me is insanity , deception and a complete lack of patriotism on your part, that you may fail to think it is does not counter the reality of the matter IMHO.
It is a very serious threat to our Constitution , your foooooolishnes in denying that means nothing to any rational and honest American!
That foothold was allowed in Britain and now its in dire straits , about to go under!-Tyr

Do me a huge favor, fuckhead! Don't try to re-word what I've written into this ignorant strawman of yours. Let's meet somewhere you son of a bitch and I'll show you how patriotic I am. Who the fuck do you think you are to question my patriotism? Seriously...where and when?

[tailfins]

Do me a huge favor, fuckhead! Don't try to re-word what I've written into this ignorant strawman of yours. Let's meet somewhere you son of a bitch and I'll show you how patriotic I am. Who the fuck do you think you are to question my patriotism? Seriously...where and when?

Don't argue with an idiot: Onlookers won't be able to tell the difference.

I will elaborate by telling you what corporate mentors say: Don't fight with an asshole. All everyone watching will see is two assholes fighting.

[red states rule]

I did not forget, I do not use that term but obviously you do. Have fun with it. Just put the broad brush down and clean your own dirty hands.-Tyr

How do Muslims practice safe sex?

They mark the camels that kick

[jimnyc]

With respect to all participants of this thread, I can see where it's going, and I'd rather let lie what I've said thus far than get into the middle of a shit storm. Suffice to say, I don't think ANY religion should be ANY part of US criminal or civil law. I don't think ANY foreign law should be a consideration in US criminal or civil law. I don't think religion or foreign law should have ANY say in US contractual LAW. But I appreciate what others have posted and linked to. I'm not bowing down, don't want others to think I disappeared, just don't want to participate in a thread that is liable to get myself worked up, just not worth it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Do me a huge favor, fuckhead! Don't try to re-word what I've written into this ignorant strawman of yours. Let's meet somewhere you son of a bitch and I'll show you how patriotic I am. Who the fuck do you think you are to question my patriotism? Seriously...where and when?

haha ,truth got to you! I knew that it would. Threats, I thought those were a big no-no here. I guess you are immuned from the consequences eh?
Send me a damn pm asking for my address so I'll have evidence that you asked for , I'll give it to you. They havent made the man that Im scared of. Just remember you asked for it..
Waiting for the damn pm here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-Tyr

[tailfins]

haha ,truth got to you! I knew that it would. Threats, I thought those were a big no-no here. I guess you are immuned from the consequences eh?
Send me a damn pm asking for my address so I'll have evidence that you asked for , I'll give it to you. They havent made the man that Im scared of. Just remember you asked for it..
Waiting for the damn pm here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-Tyr

I believe you. That's why I think you have a criminal record.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Don't argue with an idiot: Onlookers won't be able to tell the difference.

I will elaborate by telling you what corporate mentors say: Don't fight with an asshole. All everyone watching will see is two assholes fighting.

^^^^^^ Two talking shat together aint that great either..-
:laugh2:--Tyr

I guess you boys cant handle the truth so its time to destroy the thread. A coward's way but hey look who took it..

[tailfins]

^^^^^^ Two talking shat together aint that great either..-
:laugh2:--Tyr

I guess you boys cant handle the truth so its time to destroy the thread. A coward's way but hey look who took it..

The original topic was the US Constitution. The Constitution goes to great lengths to protect commerce. I presume you are voting for Romney. If both our points of view were presented to Romney in a town hall, he would agree with me. Your extremism is bad for business.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Do me a huge favor, fuckhead! Don't try to re-word what I've written into this ignorant strawman of yours. Let's meet somewhere you son of a bitch and I'll show you how patriotic I am. Who the fuck do you think you are to question my patriotism? Seriously...where and when?

ok, got your pm , sent my address. SAVED YOUR REQUEST AND MY REPLY SENT TO YOU.. now stfu fuckhead..

EDIT, GOT YOUR 2ND PM, SENT REPLY.. FUN TIMES AHEAD..-Tyr

[jimnyc]

If anyone wants to get personal and take the topic personally to the point that it starts to ruin the thread, please move it to the cage area and have at it. But getting overly personal about a topic and changing it to one another, only serves to ruin the thread for everyone else.

[tailfins]

ok, got your pm , sent my address. SAVED YOUR REQUEST AND MY REPLY SENT TO YOU.. now stfu fuckhead..

EDIT, GOT YOUR 2ND PM, SENT REPLY.. FUN TIMES AHEAD..-Tyr

Should we start a virtual tip jar to arrange their bail money? We don't need your exact address, but you could tell us in what city you two plan to meet so some of us can visit you in jail.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If anyone wants to get personal and take the topic personally to the point that it starts to ruin the thread, please move it to the cage area and have at it. But getting overly personal about a topic and changing it to one another, only serves to ruin the thread for everyone else.

Sorry Jim, you are right. I should have not replied on this thread . You have my sincere apology for losing my temper here on this thread. Thats old habit from me that I have had to fight my entire life. No excuse , just explaining a bit.. I've changed my life and need not to revert back to old habits.. Still, a man must still be a man.. -Tyr

[Dilloduck]

They can place Shariah in there, but no court in the land should uphold it as it wouldn't be within US law. Civil or criminal, law is law, and in the USA it should and must be US law.

Which is exactly why we don't have to worry about Sharia law replacing the Constitution.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Which is exactly why we don't have to worry about Sharia law replacing the Constitution.

Dead wrong, we do have to worry . They are about 1.5 billion strong worldwide, extremely united in their cause which makes both Sharia law and them a very grave threat to USA. We arent playing games here, this is reality and such a extreme danger must never be ignored or taken too lightly.-Tyr

[red states rule]

Dead wrong, we do have to worry . They are about 1.5 billion strong worldwide, extremely united in their cause which makes both Sharia law and them a very grave threat to USA. We arent playing games here, this is reality and such a extreme danger must never be ignored or taken too lightly.-Tyr


Another example of what libs say we have nothing to worry about

http://samuelatgilgal.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/islam12.jpg?w=460&h=324

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Another example of what libs say we have nothing to worry about

http://samuelatgilgal.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/islam12.jpg?w=460&h=324

Any man or group of men try to do my son ( regardless of his age ) like that I'll kill them all. Fact..
I have the know how and the spirit in which to do it quickly..America had better wake up and do so damn soon.. Imagine that your son or daughter.. As it could someday easily be!!--Tyr

[red states rule]

More of the religion of peace


http://creepingsharia.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/00x34c5f.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

More of the religion of peace


http://creepingsharia.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/00x34c5f.jpg

Just imaginre how brutal one would have to be to volunteer to stone a man or woman to death like that!!
Just imagine what kind of brutal and cold heart it would take. Ive known lots of really really bad people in my days but only one or two like that yet when they do stonings they often have to turn away volunteers that want to spill blood--anybody's blood!!! That's Islam and what it teaches. -Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Our MS-13 gangs put them to shame.

[tailfins]

Just imaginre how brutal one would have to be to volunteer to stone a man or woman to death like that!!
Just imagine what kind of brutal and cold heart it would take. Ive known lots of really really bad people in my days but only one or two like that yet when they do stonings they often have to turn away volunteers that want to spill blood--anybody's blood!!! That's Islam and what it teaches. -Tyr

More group guilt, huh? You and Louis Farrakhan should compare notes. You can have a debate about the white devil versus the islamic devil.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

More group guilt, huh? You and Louis Farrakhan should compare notes. You can have a debate about the white devil versus the islamic devil.

Nonsense, strawdogs, strawman, and strawbeery shake Hoss. None of it fits.. -Tyr

[red states rule]

Nonsense, strawdogs, strawman, and strawbeery shake Hoss. None of it fits.. -Tyr

It is amazing how the appeasers will overlook anything that goes against their feel good mentality

http://www.jihadwatch.org/images/Jochen%20Hartloff,%20Sharia.jpg

[Dilloduck]

It is amazing how the appeasers will overlook anything that goes against their feel good mentality

http://www.jihadwatch.org/images/Jochen%20Hartloff,%20Sharia.jpg

Were you planning on hearing what modern form might be acceptable or were you planning on just rejecting it without out knowing a thing about it ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Were you planning on hearing what modern form might be acceptable or were you planning on just rejecting it without out knowing a thing about it ?

Since it is to be Sharia law I reject it outright. Its a bit like saying you are going to give somebody a plate of food with just a small amount of poison in it and then asking , "well are you going to reject it outright or wait to see what kind of food is on the plate"? You see the idiot that agrees is a social democrat . Leftists go along with Islam , sane people do not.--Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Any man or group of men try to do my son ( regardless of his age ) like that I'll kill them all. Fact..
I have the know how and the spirit in which to do it quickly..America had better wake up and do so damn soon.. Imagine that your son or daughter.. As it could someday easily be!!--Tyr

Which is another reason why we don't have to worry about Sharia law replacing our Constitution.

[logroller]

Muslims or not, this is still America. Some repetitive, but that's for those who will deny it being the truth.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/03/278325/


http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/transcript/judge-rules-american-courts-can-use-sharia-law

http://nation.foxnews.com/sharia-law/2011/10/26/judge-american-courts-can-use-islamic-law

involves only an internal dispute at the Islamic Education Center of Tampa


Again — it must be noted that, while Neilsen did send the case to an arbitrator, claiming that Islamic law could govern the debate, he did not, himself, employ Sharia law. Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal’s rejection of the request to block Neilsen’s ruling essentially places the case back in the judge’s hands.
A motion that Thanasides filed with him on Monday, though, asks for the case to be dismissed due to a lack of jurisdiction. The motion reads, “Florida law is clear that courts may not decide corporate governance disputes involving religious organizations.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/inside-the-fl-appeals-ruling-upholding-islamic-law-in-mosque-case/



http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/new-jersey-judge-rules-islamic-sharia-law-trumps-u-s-law/ (http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/new-jersey-judge-rules-islamic-sharia-law-trumps-u-s-law/)
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/100725


This is the only case that I've found of Sharia being applied by a court in contravention to US law... and it was overturned. :salute:


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/30oklahoma.html?_r=0



The judge concluded that Shariah law “lacks a legal character” and “is not ‘law’ but is religious traditions that differ among Muslims.” As a result, she said, the amendment “conveys a message of disapproval of plaintiff’s faith and, consequently, has the effect of inhibiting plaintiff’s religion.”
So the judge issued an injunction upon the Proposition based on First Amendment's anti-establishment clause....so your contention is that the Constitution is a threat to itself.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/01/federal-judge-sides-with-islamic-shariah-law-over-u-s-constitution/

Two points here: 1) should the feds have bailed out AIG, or any of the insolvent banks??? I say no, but unfortunately fear of the sky falling pushed Congress to do so.(similar in a lot of way to Sharia law bans) Regardless of the religious-nature of their lending practices, if they were insolvent, then they should have been allowed to fail. 2) Your link doesn't specify how those Sharia-compliant financial practices actually violated US law. I could far more easily claim the bailout of companies like AIG violated free-market principles (freedom to succeed and fail), sharia-compliance notwithstanding.

http://www.sharia4america.com/n.php?nid=5071


Muise concluded, “Apparently, the court does not believe that the federal government violates the U.S. Constitution when it provides $153 million in taxpayer money to support Islamic religious activities. This is certainly more than the ‘one pence’ James Madison warned about when he helped craft the First Amendment, and I am sure this decision is news for all of the Christian and Jewish organizations and businesses that are prevented from receiving a dime of federal tax money to support their religious activities.”

Only, they're not prevented from receiving federal funds. See: Charitable Choice.


"I believe in the power of faith in people's lives. Our government should not fear programs that exist because a church or a synagogue or a mosque has decided to start one. We should not discriminate against programs based upon faith in America. We should enable them to access Federal money, because faith-based programs can change people's lives, and America will be better off for it."

~ President George W. Bush

The federal funding of religious non-profit orgs offering social services has been allowed since 1996. So unless you think financial investment should be restricted to non-secular persons, then they are free to design instruments to the liking of their investors. That's not proselytizing, that's capitalizing a market demand. That those businesses failed on their own accord, I don't think they should have been bailed out, but that's a completely different (and non-secular) argument.


http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/02/american-muslim-judge-who-imposed-sharia-in-pennslyvania-court-threatens-to-jail-infidel-victim-for-.html
I remember this when it happened and I never understood why assault charges weren't brought instead of harassment. (harassment is repeated) Regardless, the judge dismissed the harassment charge based on the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, having not being met-- that's the American standard for criminal cases, not Sharia. This may be an example of judicial bias, (he refused to admit video evidence), and IMO they'd have a good case for getting the case brought before a different judge, but the judge did NOT impose sharia law.

[jimnyc]

With respect to all participants of this thread, I can see where it's going, and I'd rather let lie what I've said thus far than get into the middle of a shit storm. Suffice to say, I don't think ANY religion should be ANY part of US criminal or civil law. I don't think ANY foreign law should be a consideration in US criminal or civil law. I don't think religion or foreign law should have ANY say in US contractual LAW. But I appreciate what others have posted and linked to. I'm not bowing down, don't want others to think I disappeared, just don't want to participate in a thread that is liable to get myself worked up, just not worth it.

Hey, Log, nice of you to respond, point by point, to someone who said was no longer going to respond in this thread - and you even thanked for such a post. You guys enjoy sticking up for what's wrong with our judicial system and perhaps what might be wrong with it in our future, and also enjoy the shit storm here. I thought I was clear when I posted. I'm not going to get sucked back into the games.

[logroller]

Hey, Log, nice of you to respond, point by point, to someone who said was no longer going to respond in this thread - and you even thanked for such a post. You guys enjoy sticking up for what's wrong with our judicial system and perhaps what might be wrong with it in our future, and also enjoy the shit storm here. I thought I was clear when I posted. I'm not going to get sucked back into the games.

Oh well. I thought maybe you just didn't want to engage in the flaming, but that debate would be still be tolerated. My bad. Perhaps someone else might want to respond to me. Its not a game BTW; I honestly believe SHaria is much ado about nothing here in the states and the Constitution will prevail. There's plenty in this country which begs our attention; sharia aint it and concentrating so much effort to oppose it distracts from those things which really are a threat to our way life. Far more often, fear of imminent attack is a motivator to diminish our freedoms, not protect them.

[Drummond]

Which is another reason why we don't have to worry about Sharia law replacing our Constitution.

I can only say to this that I'm the last person who could ever be accused of being 'expert' on the American Constitution ! That said .. I still don't go along with such complacency.

Muslims, especially the more militant speakers in defence of it, somehow believe that the overthrow of all that Americans definably are, is something they can arrange. I watched a YouTube clip of an interview between Sean Hannity and Anjem Choudary, former head of 'Islam4uk', in which he made it clear that he not only wants Sharia Law to dominate America (.. and everywhere else, for that matter ..) but that he expects this to become realisable.

This isn't 'merely' a UK-based nutter sounding off. He tried, not so long ago, to arrange a protest gathering of his Muslim 'faithful' outside the White House. You have to believe that he, and his chums, think they have a chance of managing their goals.

And are they so wrong ? To what extent do mosques dominate in America even now ? How many THOUSANDS of them have taken root ? How much growth of Islam is being experienced by America today ?

Why has America waited EIGHT YEARS to extradite Abu Hamza from the UK to America, if all that what his brand of Jihadist types plan is harmless ? After all .. Hamza is neutralised as a figure having any chance of achieving his goals. So, why bother to extradite him ?

The answer is simple. BECAUSE WHAT THEY PLAN FOR, AND WHAT THEY STRIVE FOR, IS FAR FROM DISMISSABLE AS 'HARMLESS'.

An enemy needs to be defeated. Fail to, and you confer strength to that enemy. There is no reason, at all, for complacency.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I can only say to this that I'm the last person who could ever be accused of being 'expert' on the American Constitution ! That said .. I still don't go along with such complacency.

Muslims, especially the more militant speakers in defence of it, somehow believe that the overthrow of all that Americans definably are, is something they can arrange. I watched a YouTube clip of an interview between Sean Hannity and Anjem Choudary, former head of 'Islam4uk', in which he made it clear that he not only wants Sharia Law to dominate America (.. and everywhere else, for that matter ..) but that he expects this to become realisable.

This isn't 'merely' a UK-based nutter sounding off. He tried, not so long ago, to arrange a protest gathering of his Muslim 'faithful' outside the White House. You have to believe that he, and his chums, think they have a chance of managing their goals.

And are they so wrong ? To what extent do mosques dominate in America even now ? How many THOUSANDS of them have taken root ? How much growth of Islam is being experienced by America today ?

Why has America waited EIGHT YEARS to extradite Abu Hamza from the UK to America, if all that what his brand of Jihadist types plan is harmless ? After all .. Hamza is neutralised as a figure having any chance of achieving his goals. So, why bother to extradite him ?

The answer is simple. BECAUSE WHAT THEY PLAN FOR, AND WHAT THEY STRIVE FOR, IS FAR FROM DISMISSABLE AS 'HARMLESS'.

An enemy needs to be defeated. Fail to, and you confer strength to that enemy. There is no reason, at all, for complacency.

Nothing "harmless" about Islam's commanded goals. In just over 1400 years Islam has murdered a bit over 270 million people, thats the low estimate. Its currently cranking up again, so those saying its harmless are either damn liars, damn fools ,shills for Islam or muslims!! Far too much evidence out there but they are working on making that be illegal. Making it a crime to speak, print or even draw the truth about Islam(cartoons)
Not just America but the world had better play catch up because the Islamists are a few decades ahead on engineering this stuff. They have infiltrated too many governments!! -Tyr

[Drummond]

Nothing "harmless" about Islam's commanded goals. In just over 1400 years Islam has murdered a bit over 270 million people, thats the low estimate. Its currently cranking up again, so those saying its harmless are either damn liars, damn fools ,shills for Islam or muslims!! Far too much evidence out there but they are working on making that be illegal. Making it a crime to speak, print or even draw the truth about Islam(cartoons)
Not just America but the world had better play catch up because the Islamists are a few decades ahead on engineering this stuff. They have infiltrated too many governments!! -Tyr

:goodposting::goodposting::goodposting::goodpostin g::goodposting::goodposting:

... and that's all I need say, I think. Exactly right !

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/

Constitution 201 is a new 10-week online course examining American progressivism: its historical roots and principles; its rejection of America’s founding principles and Constitution; its political successes in the New Deal, the Great Society, and in recent years; the ongoing political debate between progressives and conservatives; and the chance of a constitutional revival. View more information about Constitution 201 (https://constitution.hillsdale.edu/201/info).
Constitution 101 is Hillsdale's first online course. It follows closely the one-semester course required of all Hillsdale College undergraduate students as part of the College's rigorous Core Curriculum. View more information about Constitution 101 (https://constitution.hillsdale.edu/101/info).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drummonds you may find this helpful ...

Free course on the Constitution offered.
I hope this is allowed here as its a free offer.. if not Jim can and will delete it.--Tyr

[007]

Do me a huge favor, fuckhead! Don't try to re-word what I've written into this ignorant strawman of yours. Let's meet somewhere you son of a bitch and I'll show you how patriotic I am. Who the fuck do you think you are to question my patriotism? Seriously...where and when?
Oooooooohhhhhhhhh!
internet tough guy!!!
better watch out or he will break his keyboard!!!!
that'll teach you!!

[007]

Our MS-13 gangs put them to shame.
Our ms 13?
they are a forign outfit with some followers in the USA !
in my experience they are a bunch of pansies, just like jihadists.

[Dilloduck]

Our ms 13?
they are a forign outfit with some followers in the USA !
in my experience they are a bunch of pansies, just like jihadists.

They operate here in America. Pansies---go tell them that.

[007]

They operate here in America. Pansies---go tell them that.
Sorted them in my neighborhood 5 years ago!
they tried their bullshit, we( honest law abiding gun owners saw them off).
they are pansies.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Our ms 13?
they are a forign outfit with some followers in the USA !
in my experience they are a bunch of pansies, just like jihadists.

Even cowards like the Jihadists can wrech havoc and murder innocent women and children, which they do with joy in their wicked black hearts . Now the call for Sharia law has been started here by the Islamists. We must not allow that foothold to be activated here.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.valleyfamilyforum.org/index.php/news/vff-alerts/4-shariah-law-a-threat-to-the-us-constitution.html

Specifically, Sharia Law in any capacity violates the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". Moreover, it violently stifles any opposition, whether that be in speech, in the press, or public demonstration. Under Sharia Law, there is no such thing as petitioning the government for "redress of grievances"(First Amendment to the Constitution). To do so would be suicide.

Sharia Law also tramples the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees our citizens protection against unreasonable search and seizures. Arab nations, subject to Sharia Law, are infamous for arbitrarily seizing and arresting their citizens. Citizens are arrested and literally never seen or heard from again.

Sharia Law establishes and perpetrates a culture of fear, suspicion, distrust, and spying on one's neighbors. It is reminiscent of mainstream German citizens toward Jewish citizens and sympathizers in Nazi Germany. Citizens are regularly subject to mob justice (stoned to death, flogged, attacked and beaten -- often to death), in the name of upholding Shariah Law. They have no Fifth Amendment guaranteeing the citizens will not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law..."

As for our Sixth Amendment rights, the term "Kangaroo Court" aptly describes the murky and secretive court proceedings. Common practice dictates that families are kept in the dark about their loved one's fate until the public punishment is announced, just prior to its being meted out. There are no such words as "fair", "speedy", "public", and "impartial" where Sharia Law is concerned. The accused is not entitled to confront witnesses, to present witnesses in his defense, or to obtain impartial council. Defense lawyers (and their family members) are often

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/May/Activists-Warn-US-Women-of-Sharia-Law-Threat/

Activists Warn US Women of Sharia Law Threat

By Paul Strand CBN News Washington Sr. Correspondent

Sunday, May 13, 2012
RSS
Podcasts

http://www.debatepolicy.com/media/player/img/btn_share.gif <IFRAME style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 90px; HEIGHT: 25px; OVERFLOW: hidden; BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; scrollbars: no; scrolling: no" src="//www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbn.com%2Fcbnnews%2 Fus%2F2012%2FMay%2FActivists-Warn-US-Women-of-Sharia-Law-Threat%2F&layout=button_count&show_faces=false&width=100&action=like&font=arial&" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency scrolling=no scrollbars="no"></IFRAME> (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)<IFRAME style="WIDTH: 110px; HEIGHT: 20px" class="twitter-share-button twitter-count-horizontal" title="Twitter Tweet Button" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.1352365724.html#_=1353512665750&count=horizontal&counturl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbn.com%2Fcbnnews%2Fus%2 F2012%2FMay%2FActivists-Warn-US-Women-of-Sharia-Law-Threat%2F&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbn.com%2Fcbnnew s%2Fus%2F2012%2FMay%2FActivists-Warn-US-Women-of-Sharia-Law-Threat%2F&size=m&text=Activists%20Warn%20US%20Women%20of%20Sharia%2 0Law%20Threat%20-%20US%20-%20CBN%20News%20-%20Christian%20News%2024-7%20-%20CBN.com%3A&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbn.com%2Fcbnnews%2Fus%2F2012 %2FMay%2FActivists-Warn-US-Women-of-Sharia-Law-Threat%2F%23.UKz21oNDcQY.twitter" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency scrolling=no data-twttr-rendered="true"></IFRAME> (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)<IFRAME style="POSITION: static; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; MARGIN: 0px; WIDTH: 70px; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; HEIGHT: 15px; VISIBILITY: visible; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; TOP: 0px; LEFT: 0px" id=I0_1353512665890 title=+1 tabIndex=0 vspace=0 marginHeight=0 src="https://plusone.google.com/_/+1/fastbutton?bsv&size=small&hl=en-US&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbn.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbn.com%2Fcbnnews%2Fus%2F2012 %2FMay%2FActivists-Warn-US-Women-of-Sharia-Law-Threat%2F&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.HLBCZqlbX7E.O% 2Fm%3D__features__%2Fam%3DAQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs %3DAItRSTPvJfFvujbAVOK-i6-yf_KQ3i9oAw#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2 C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled&id=I0_1353512665890&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbn.com" frameBorder=0 width="100%" allowTransparency name=I0_1353512665890 marginWidth=0 scrolling=no hspace=0></IFRAME>
(http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)
http://www.debatepolicy.com/App_Themes/Common/Images/spacer.gifPrint (http://javascript<strong></strong>:void(0);) 39 Comment(s) (http://javascript<strong></strong>:void(0);)



http://imagec12.247realmedia.com/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/default/empty.gif (http://oascentral.cbn.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/cbn.com/vod_news/600627342/x61/default/empty.gif/53304571424643733974414143352f33?x)



The latest version of Adobe Flash Player is required to watch this video. Please click on the link below to download the latest version. Thanks!

http://www.debatepolicy.com/App_Themes/Common/Images/160x41_Get_Flash_Player.jpg (http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer)
http://imagec12.247realmedia.com/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/CBN/Prayer_WS/PrayerRequest_marriage-red_WS.jpg (http://oascentral.cbn.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/cbn.com/cbnnews/us/L18/2012710441/Left/CBN/Prayer_WS/PrayerRequest_marriage-red_WS.jpg/53304571424643733974414143352f33?x) Ad Feedback (http://www.debatepolicy.com/contact/feedback-ads.aspx)
WASHINGTON -- There's growing concern that Sharia law is creeping into America (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2010/September/Report-US-Ignoring-Creeping-Threat-from-Sharia-Law/), with some U.S. judges even citing Islamic law (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/February/Pa-Judges-Ruling-Proof-of-Sharia-Law-in-US-Courts-/) in their rulings.
Activists are now working to shine light on what they call Sharia's war on women.
A vast coalition met in Washington, D.C., Thursday, to warn women of the threat Islamic law would pose to their rights if enacted in the U.S.
"Sharia takes an entirely different approach to their rights than would the American Constitution or the Declaration of Independence," explained Karen Lugo, assistant director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (http://www.claremont.org/projects/projectid.31/project_detail.asp).
The group's national public education campaign includes women who've been affected by harsh Sharia law.
Cynthia Farahat fled Egypt to avoid facing military prison for her human rights work against Islam.
"I'm almost here in America on exile for standing up for basic human rights and basic values under Sharia law," she said. "I lived under Sharia law all my life. I just came to America six months ago."
From her experience, Farahat summed up Sharia's treatment of women as "oppressive" and "violent."
"It does not identify women as citizens. And some jurists in Sharia law do not identify women as human beings," she explained. "Some jurists would go so far as defining them as livestock."

THE THREAT IS REAL BECAUSE 1.5 BILLION MUSLIMS WORLDWIDE SUPPORT SHARIA LAW AND USA HAS MILLIONS OF MUSLIMS HERE THAT WILL SUPPORT IT HERE BECAUSE ITS A CORE PART OF THEIR RELIGION. THEY HAVE ALREADY STARTED A MOVEMENT TO BRING IT HERE.

OR THIS---
http://shariafreeusa.com/judge-elevates-sharia-law-over-us-constitution-in-pennsylvania/

Judge Mark Martin.Pennsylvania Judge Mark Martin ruled that it was ok for a Muslim immigrant to physically attack and choke an American citizen because the Muslim was unaware that Sharia law did not apply in Pennsylvania.
Muslim immigrant Talaag Elbayomy attacked Ernie Perce who was dressed up as a “Zombie Muhammed” when he represented the group called Atheists of Central Pennsylvania in the Mechanicsburg parade.
Ernie Perce posted this Youtube.com video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP-X3hpCfR8%20) titled “Muslim attacks atheist.” He claims he was grabbed and choked as Elbayomy tried to yank his “Muhammed of Islam” sign off of his costume. Perce’s friend who accompanied him as the “Zombie Pope” was not attacked. Talaag Elbayomy argued that he was obligated to respond to Perce’s offensive mocking of the prophet Muhammed. Elbayomy said that if anyone committed a crime (against Islamist commands, Sharia) it was Perce.

[aboutime]

They operate here in America. Pansies---go tell them that.


Dilloduck. If that OFFENDS you in any way. Good.

[logroller]

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/May/Activists-Warn-US-Women-of-Sharia-Law-Threat/

Activists Warn US Women of Sharia Law Threat

By Paul Strand CBN News Washington Sr. Correspondent

Sunday, May 13, 2012
RSS
Podcasts
-------
WASHINGTON -- There's growing concern that Sharia law is creeping into America (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2010/September/Report-US-Ignoring-Creeping-Threat-from-Sharia-Law/), with some U.S. judges even citing Islamic law (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/February/Pa-Judges-Ruling-Proof-of-Sharia-Law-in-US-Courts-/) in their rulings.
Activists are now working to shine light on what they call Sharia's war on women.
A vast coalition met in Washington, D.C., Thursday, to warn women of the threat Islamic law would pose to their rights if enacted in the U.S.

"If", which it is not.


"Sharia takes an entirely different approach to their rights than would the American Constitution or the Declaration of Independence," explained Karen Lugo, assistant director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (http://www.claremont.org/projects/projectid.31/project_detail.asp).
The group's national public education campaign includes women who've been affected by harsh Sharia law.
Cynthia Farahat fled Egypt to avoid facing military prison for her human rights work against Islam.
"I'm almost here in America on exile for standing up for basic human rights and basic values under Sharia law," she said. "I lived under Sharia law all my life. I just came to America six months ago."

Exactly. She came here because THE USA DOESN'T ENFORCE SHARIA LAW
-------

THE THREAT IS REAL BECAUSE 1.5 BILLION MUSLIMS WORLDWIDE SUPPORT SHARIA LAW AND USA HAS MILLIONS OF MUSLIMS HERE THAT WILL SUPPORT IT HERE BECAUSE ITS A CORE PART OF THEIR RELIGION. THEY HAVE ALREADY STARTED A MOVEMENT TO BRING IT HERE.

and some have petitioned to unilaterally secede from the union... but that doesn't threaten the Constitution, OR so you claim. You claim it to be reformative.
But Amendment I is a paradox of sorts; because the Constitution proscribes both the prohibiting of free exercise of religion and its being established; and the Court has ruled that US law, when broadly applied (inclusive of all) does not violate the first amendment. Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so. -- 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
OR THIS---

SQUAWK (http://shariafreeusa.com/judge-elevates-sharia-law-over-us-constitution-in-pennsylvania/)


Judge Mark Martin.Pennsylvania Judge Mark Martin ruled that it was ok for a Muslim immigrant to physically attack and choke an American citizen because the Muslim was unaware that Sharia law did not apply in Pennsylvania.
Muslim immigrant Talaag Elbayomy attacked Ernie Perce who was dressed up as a “Zombie Muhammed” when he represented the group called Atheists of Central Pennsylvania in the Mechanicsburg parade.
Ernie Perce posted this Youtube.com video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP-X3hpCfR8%20) titled “Muslim attacks atheist.” He claims he was grabbed and choked as Elbayomy tried to yank his “Muhammed of Islam” sign off of his costume. Perce’s friend who accompanied him as the “Zombie Pope” was not attacked. Talaag Elbayomy argued that he was obligated to respond to Perce’s offensive mocking of the prophet Muhammed. Elbayomy said that if anyone committed a crime (against Islamist commands, Sharia) it was Perce.
Except that's riddled with falsehoods. If you go to the link quoted by you in the cbn post (supra), under citing islamic law, you'l find the following lead (the premise of the story):

A Pennsylvania state judge recently dismissed an

assault

case involving a Muslim man who attacked an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

Then when you follow the story, you'll find this:

He was arrested and charged with

harassment

after Perce reported the incident to a nearby police officer after he left the parade. The officer did not see the alleged assault.

Elbayomy later filed his own complaint with police accusing Perce of instigating the incident and claiming he never laid a hand on him. He admitted to arguing with Perce about his costume.

Judge Mark Martin, who presided over the Perce's case,

said there wasn't enough evidence to convict Elbayomy of harassment

, the Harrisburg Patriot-News reported.

The grainy video of the incident was ruled inadmissible, making the case one man's word against another's, the judge said.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/February/Pa-Judges-Ruling-Proof-of-Sharia-Law-in-US-Courts-/

Not only was the source story misleading in its lead-in (which cruelly ironic), but Sharia law was neither cited nor applied in the court's ruling.
I've responded to this specific case previously, but obviously some people ignored missed it. bump


I remember this when it happened and I never understood why assault charges weren't brought instead of harassment. (harassment is repeated) Regardless, the judge dismissed the harassment charge based on the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, having not being met-- that's the American standard for criminal cases, not Sharia. This may be an example of judicial bias, (he refused to admit video evidence), and IMO they'd have a good case for getting the case brought before a different judge, but the judge did NOT impose sharia law.



http://www.valleyfamilyforum.org/index.php/news/vff-alerts/4-shariah-law-a-threat-to-the-us-constitution.html

= SQUAWK (http://www.valleyfamilyforum.org/index.php/news/vff-alerts/4-shariah-law-a-threat-to-the-us-constitution.html)

Specifically, Sharia Law in any capacity violates the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". Moreover, it violently stifles any opposition, whether that be in speech, in the press, or public demonstration. Under Sharia Law, there is no such thing as petitioning the government for "redress of grievances"(First Amendment to the Constitution). To do so would be suicide.
That's why we don't have sharia law in US law. Next--

SQUAWK (http://www.valleyfamilyforum.org/index.php/news/vff-alerts/4-shariah-law-a-threat-to-the-us-constitution.html)
Sharia Law also tramples the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees our citizens protection against unreasonable search and seizures. Arab nations, subject to Sharia Law, are infamous for arbitrarily seizing and arresting their citizens. Citizens are arrested and literally never seen or heard from again.

Arab nations: aka, not countries that exist under the US Constitution. Would be nice to see examples of these unreasonable searches and seizures under Sharia that tramples the Fourth Amendment here in the USofA... I'll not hold my breath. NEXT--

SQUAWK (http://www.valleyfamilyforum.org/index.php/news/vff-alerts/4-shariah-law-a-threat-to-the-us-constitution.html)
Sharia Law establishes and perpetrates a culture of fear, suspicion, distrust, and spying on one's neighbors. It is reminiscent of mainstream German citizens toward Jewish citizens and sympathizers in Nazi Germany. Citizens are regularly subject to mob justice (stoned to death, flogged, attacked and beaten -- often to death), in the name of upholding Shariah Law. They have no Fifth Amendment guaranteeing the citizens will not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law..."

AGAIN, an example of this in the US being attributable to Sharia law, (not reminiscent of Nazi Germany), would be relevant to a debate on "Sharia Law: a threat to the US constitution...", yet none are presented.

SQUAWK (http://www.valleyfamilyforum.org/index.php/news/vff-alerts/4-shariah-law-a-threat-to-the-us-constitution.html)
As for our Sixth Amendment rights, the term "Kangaroo Court" aptly describes the murky and secretive court proceedings. Common practice dictates that families are kept in the dark about their loved one's fate until the public punishment is announced, just prior to its being meted out. There are no such words as "fair", "speedy", "public", and "impartial" where Sharia Law is concerned. The accused is not entitled to confront witnesses, to present witnesses in his defense, or to obtain impartial council. Defense lawyers (and their family members) are often

Ah snap, fair use stopped the squawking. BTW: Fair Use is US law, not Sharia. In fact, and I invite anyone to present evidence to contrary, US law is superior to Sharia Law here in the US. There is no threat, whatsoever. Will there be challenges to laws regarding constitutionality...indubitably, but that hardly represents a threat to the Constitution.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

"If", which it is not.



Exactly. She came here because THE USA DOESN'T ENFORCE SHARIA LAW
-------

and some have petitioned to unilaterally secede from the union... but that doesn't threaten the Constitution, OR so you claim. You claim it to be reformative.
But Amendment I is a paradox of sorts; because the Constitution proscribes both the prohibiting of free exercise of religion and its being established; and the Court has ruled that US law, when broadly applied (inclusive of all) does not violate the first amendment. Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so. -- 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

SQUAWK (http://shariafreeusa.com/judge-elevates-sharia-law-over-us-constitution-in-pennsylvania/)

Except that's riddled with falsehoods. If you go to the link quoted by you in the cbn post (supra), under citing islamic law, you'l find the following lead (the premise of the story):
Then when you follow the story, you'll find this:
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/February/Pa-Judges-Ruling-Proof-of-Sharia-Law-in-US-Courts-/

Not only was the source story misleading in its lead-in (which cruelly ironic), but Sharia law was neither cited nor applied in the court's ruling.
I've responded to this specific case previously, but obviously some people ignored missed it. bump




= SQUAWK (http://www.valleyfamilyforum.org/index.php/news/vff-alerts/4-shariah-law-a-threat-to-the-us-constitution.html)

That's why we don't have sharia law in US law. Next--

SQUAWK (http://www.valleyfamilyforum.org/index.php/news/vff-alerts/4-shariah-law-a-threat-to-the-us-constitution.html)

Arab nations: aka, not countries that exist under the US Constitution. Would be nice to see examples of these unreasonable searches and seizures under Sharia that tramples the Fourth Amendment here in the USofA... I'll not hold my breath. NEXT--

SQUAWK (http://www.valleyfamilyforum.org/index.php/news/vff-alerts/4-shariah-law-a-threat-to-the-us-constitution.html)

AGAIN, an example of this in the US being attributable to Sharia law, (not reminiscent of Nazi Germany), would be relevant to a debate on "Sharia Law: a threat to the US constitution...", yet none are presented.

SQUAWK (http://www.valleyfamilyforum.org/index.php/news/vff-alerts/4-shariah-law-a-threat-to-the-us-constitution.html)

Ah snap, fair use stopped the squawking. BTW: Fair Use is US law, not Sharia. In fact, and I invite anyone to present evidence to contrary, US law is superior to Sharia Law here in the US. There is no threat, whatsoever. Will there be challenges to laws regarding constitutionality...indubitably, but that hardly represents a threat to the Constitution.

Yet the majority of muslims in the USA say they want Sharia law and believe Sharia law to be superior to U.S LAW.
What you overlook is that they will fight to get it and when their population increaes by leaps and bounds in the next twenty years they'll start demanding it and taking terrorist actions to force it. They have done exactly that in every host country when their population gets above the 15 or 20 percent of the total population. As our governmen seeks more and more to weaken our Constitution it will readily embrace accepting Sharia to buy muslim votes and weaken the Constitution. Thats as easy to predict as the fact that a 100 dollar hooker is often just a 20 dollar hooker that bought nicer clothes and decided to "act" a bit more classy for a bigger payday. You still get the same thing but you pay more for the illusion.. The illusion is that our government will defend that which it seeks to destroy-- the Constitution and the Rule of law that is based upon it!! By the way, our Constituton is dearly hated by Islamists too. For it stands in direct opposition/defiance of Islamic teachings. -Tyr

[logroller]

Yet the majority of muslims in the USA say they want Sharia law and believe Sharia law to be superior to U.S LAW.
What you overlook is that they will fight to get it and when their population increaes by leaps and bounds in the next twenty years they'll start demanding it and taking terrorist actions to force it. They have done exactly that in every host country when their population gets above the 15 or 20 percent of the total population. As our governmen seeks more and more to weaken our Constitution it will readily embrace accepting Sharia to buy muslim votes and weaken the Constitution. Thats as easy to predict as the fact that a 100 dollar hooker is often just a 20 dollar hooker that bought nicer clothes and decided to "act" a bit more classy for a bigger payday. You still get the same thing but you pay more for the illusion.. The illusion is that our government will defend that which it seeks to destroy-- the Constitution and the Rule of law that is based upon it!! By the way, our Constituton is dearly hated by Islamists too. For it stands in direct opposition/defiance of Islamic teachings. -Tyr
They can believe whatever they wish, first amendment and such, but if they act in violation of US law they'll find themselves at odds with the Constitution. I mean, lots of people believe The ACA is unconstitutional, but the Court says it is, and they have the Constitutional authority to decide. I dont understand your issue with their using their votes to appeal to lawmakers. I mean, if we dont like the aca, we can use our votes to change lawmakers out or change their minds and get the law changed-- that's how our constitution intended it to work. Its not perfect, but it wasnt intended to be perfect, just more perfect. What other methods do suggest such people take in furtherence of those beliefs? Refuse to comply? Secession? Take up arms? I've seen as much suggested by you and when it's in defense your beliefs it's patriotic; yet in defense of theirs it undermines the constitution. Seems to be a bit self centered. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, but understand that doesn't poll well on Election Day. Which gives us the representatives we have now. You picking up what I'm putting down?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

They can believe whatever they wish, first amendment and such, but if they act in violation of US law they'll find themselves at odds with the Constitution. I mean, lots of people believe The ACA is unconstitutional, but the Court says it is, and they have the Constitutional authority to decide. I dont understand your issue with their using their votes to appeal to lawmakers. I mean, if we dont like the aca, we can use our votes to change lawmakers out or change their minds and get the law changed-- that's how our constitution intended it to work. Its not perfect, but it wasnt intended to be perfect, just more perfect. What other methods do suggest such people take in furtherence of those beliefs? Refuse to comply? Secession? Take up arms? I've seen as much suggested by you and when it's in defense your beliefs it's patriotic; yet in defense of theirs it undermines the constitution. Seems to be a bit self centered. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, but understand that doesn't poll well on Election Day. Which gives us the representatives we have now. You picking up what I'm putting down?

TheRe is some merit to what you are saying. However I think you are missing the big picture. The big picture is that Islam will become a major problem here , its not a matter of if it does but rather when it does. When it does that it will be very violent and people, likely huge numbers of people , will be murdered. 1400+ YEARS OF ISLAMIC HISTORY PROVE THAT.
Why not take measures to counter that now? Why not try to avoid the violence? Is it better to wait, allow the violence to begin then attempt to control it ? Saving lives should take greatER precedence over that ofmerely hurting people's feelings or even pissing off those that would turn on fellow citizens because a religious nutjob--(imam) told them it was the right thing to do. Look at how violent and how easily they are led to violence in those muslim nations over ther!(violence being their manna). The same potential exists here and yes one day we will see it firsthand, in fact we already have. Incidents like Fort Hood, honor killings, screams for Sharia law, bomb attacks , bomb threats etc. will one day be common here should we choose the lets wait and deal with it after the fact..
An ounce of prevention is worth far more than a ton of cure.. LETS GET THE OUNCE! -Tyr

[logroller]

Take a look at th issues you have and ask yourself: Are the laws we now failing to address the proble or are the laws just not being enforced?
If its the latter, new laws won't make a difference.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Take a look at th issues you have and ask yourself: Are the laws we now failing to address the proble or are the laws just not being enforced?
If its the latter, new laws won't make a difference.


I have taken a look , a damn good look at it all. I see appeasement and caving in to muslim demands eveywhere I look. We have a PC standard that its taboo to talk about Islam's violence, Islam's goal to force by murder that ALL mankind submit to Allah and demands for laws here in THE USA TO MAKE BLASPHEMY AGAINST MOHHAMMAD OR ISLAM A PUNISHABLE CRIME ! We have a huge Federal government that seeks to placate the Islamists rather than uphold our Constitution.
Yes we need laws that more specificly deal with these problems. If they are state laws so be it.
Now is the time to enact laws to protect the nation and prevent the coming violence as much as possible!
Of course it all can not be averted because the muslims will eventually force large scale violence here regardless.
That may only happen here after the Great Unification of the ME muslim nations-- the new Caliphate. Which we see happening now, thanks to the Arab spring and obama's help.
It will happen and history proves that they always attempt to take over their host nations! See Britain for prime example. Sorry Drummonds , but I have to use that example because of its supreme importance to our survival as well.--Tyr

[aboutime]

I have taken a look , a damn good look at it all. I see appeasement and caving in to muslim demands eveywhere I look. We have a PC standard that its taboo to talk about Islam's violence, Islam's goal to force by murder that ALL mankind submit to Allah and demands for laws here in THE USA TO MAKE BLASPHEMY AGAINST MOHHAMMAD OR ISLAM A PUNISHABLE CRIME ! We have a huge Federal government that seeks to placate the Islamists rather than uphold our Constitution.
Yes we need laws that more specificly deal with these problems. If they are state laws so be it.
Now is the time to enact laws to protect the nation and prevent the coming violence as much as possible!
Of course it all can not be averted because the muslims will eventually force large scale violence here regardless.
That may only happen here after the Great Unification of the ME muslim nations-- the new Caliphate. Which we see happening now, thanks to the Arab spring and obama's help.
It will happen and history proves that they always attempt to take over their host nations! See Britain for prime example. Sorry Drummonds , but I have to use that example because of its supreme importance to our survival as well.--Tyr


Tyr. Our constitution must always overrule any attempts by any foreign govt. or entity that tries to invade our Sovereignty in any way. That is also addressed by our constitution, and allowing foreign laws...such as a religious code of laws like Sharia, by any Member of Congress or the President, and Supreme Court are VIOLATIONS of the Constitution.
Bending to the laws of any foreign entity is prohibited, if it is not under the written directives, or amendments of our constitution.

[logroller]

I have taken a look , a damn good look at it all. I see appeasement and caving in to muslim demands eveywhere I look. We have a PC standard that its taboo to talk about Islam's violence, Islam's goal to force by murder that ALL mankind submit to Allah and demands for laws here in THE USA TO MAKE BLASPHEMY AGAINST MOHHAMMAD OR ISLAM A PUNISHABLE CRIME ! We have a huge Federal government that seeks to placate the Islamists rather than uphold our Constitution.
Yes we need laws that more specificly deal with these problems. If they are state laws so be it.
Now is the time to enact laws to protect the nation and prevent the coming violence as much as possible!
Of course it all can not be averted because the muslims will eventually force large scale violence here regardless.
That may only happen here after the Great Unification of the ME muslim nations-- the new Caliphate. Which we see happening now, thanks to the Arab spring and obama's help.
It will happen and history proves that they always attempt to take over their host nations! See Britain for prime example. Sorry Drummonds , but I have to use that example because of its supreme importance to our survival as well.--Tyr
As i understand it, no law can specifically target Muslims, that'd be unconstitutional. For example the Arizona law has a profound effect on the canonical law of the Catholics and the ??? Law of the Jews. Maybe it's all for the best, but to rally for a law without taking into consideration it's broad affect is foolish; especially when and if there are laws already in place which address the sharia issue, but are just not enforced. Take, for example, beating one's wife or kids, there are laws which address that-- enforce them. Sharia= non-issue.
Speak out against Mohammad= no US law broken. Show me an example otherwise(domestically). Truly, I want to agree with you, but I just don't see the evidence that requires action.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As i understand it, no law can specifically target Muslims, that'd be unconstitutional. For example the Arizona law has a profound effect on the canonical law of the Catholics and the ??? Law of the Jews. Maybe it's all for the best, but to rally for a law without taking into consideration it's broad affect is foolish; especially when and if there are laws already in place which address the sharia issue, but are just not enforced. Take, for example, beating one's wife or kids, there are laws which address that-- enforce them. Sharia= non-issue.
Speak out against Mohammad= no US law broken. Show me an example otherwise(domestically). Truly, I want to agree with you, but I just don't see the evidence that requires action.

Thats correct , we can not have laws that target Islam and its religious beliefs unless those beliefs are illegal according to the Constitution and current U.S. law.


http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/17-civil-legal-cases-in-11-states-involving-shariah-law/


Civil legal cases involving sharia law, in at least 11 U.S. states (http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/17-civil-legal-cases-in-11-states-involving-shariah-law/)

Posted on November 30, 2010 by creeping
…and this is just a representative sample. As we noted here, Intro to Islamic Family Law in US Courts (http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/intro-to-islamic-family-law-in-us-courts/), even Muslims have acknowledged that U.S. judges are “creating a body of case law” that involves Islamic sharia law. From the Public Policy Alliance (http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?page_id=61):
Legal Cases Involving Shariah

A recent (11-08-2010) representative sample of 17 civil legal cases from 11 states where plaintiffs or defendants attempted to use Shariah law is provided here. The states for these sample civil cases are Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas.
Shariah_Civil Legal Cases_Representative_11 States (http://publicpolicyalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Shariah_Cases_11states_11-08-2010.pdf)
…
Shariah is frequently encountered in family law cases across the USA today; in Shariah-compliant accommodations that may result in discrimination against non-Muslims; and in Shariah-Compliant Finance on Wall Street and in the U.S. government.

There’s more, and a long list of accommodations to Islamic sharia law in the U.S. at the PDF link above. For those interested in uncovering more cases, here are some tips from (http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?page_id=89) the Public Policy Alliance on how you can find them:
Anyone can easily research legal cases which may involve Shariah law in your own state, using search terms such as Shariah, Sharia, “Islamic Law,” or the names of countries where the Shariah is applied for family, civil, contractual and/or criminal cases. Let’s walk through a sample search from a different state than those above – Virginia:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Example--http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/transcript/judge-rules-american-courts-can-use-sharia-law










<fb:like class="fb_edge_widget_with_comment fb_iframe_widget" action="recommend" show_faces="false" layout="button_count" fb-xfbml-state="rendered" width="150" height="35"><IFRAME style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 114px; HEIGHT: 20px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none" id=f35748e6eb35a2 class=fb_ltr title="Like this content on Facebook." src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?api_key=113186182048399&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.facebook.com%2F connect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D17%23cb%3Df1b 2d69c1f1b99c%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.fox news.com%252Ff3f14e46b366cf%26domain%3Dwww.foxnews .com%26relation%3Dparent.parent&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fon-air%2Fthe-five%2Ftranscript%2Fjudge-rules-american-courts-can-use-sharia-law&node_type=link&width=150&layout=button_count&colorscheme=light&action=recommend&show_faces=false&extended_social_context=false" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency name=f3a731b1886e7e4 scrolling=no></IFRAME></fb:like>
<IFRAME style="WIDTH: 110px; HEIGHT: 20px" class="twitter-share-button twitter-count-horizontal" title="Twitter Tweet Button" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.1354270846.html#_=1354464968484&count=horizontal&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fon-air%2Fthe-five%2Ftranscript%2Fjudge-rules-american-courts-can-use-sharia-law&related=%3A&size=m&text=Judge%20Rules%20American%20Courts%20Can%20Use %20Sharia%20Law%20%7C%20Shownotes&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fon-air%2Fthe-five%2Ftranscript%2Fjudge-rules-american-courts-can-use-sharia-law&via=FNTheFive" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency scrolling=no data-twttr-rendered="true"></IFRAME>


This is a rush transcript from "The Five," October 26, 2011. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: And yet, another example of America bending over backwards to be inclusive. A Florida appeals court has just cleared the way for lawsuit over a monetary dispute at a mosque to be determined by Islamic Sharia law -- in a U.S. court, no less. It's not the first time. But why is it happening at all?
Kimberly, the legal eagle here.
KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST: Yes.
BOLLING: Sharia law shouldn't --
GUILFOYLE: You know my opinion on this, right?
BOLLING: I don't.
GUILFOYLE: I think it's serious and should not be allowed at all. This should frighten people that this is even acceptable that a judge says, OK, wait a second, you can use it. It's not the law of the United States.
So what is his legal authority for allowing Sharia law to be implemented in the court system? Wake up, we have the U.S. Constitution. Those are the laws we're governed by. Not Sharia law.
BOB BECKEL, CO-HOST: But there's been a long history of using -- the courts using laws, religious laws, when there's dispute between two people in the same fate within an organization. They've used Jewish law in cases where the Talmudic law, I believe they call it, and it has been done in 26 states, cases where Sharia law has been cited.
I don't see what the problem is. It's like if you had a dispute and say in Eric's country club for example. They would go in and --
BOLLING: I don't have a country club. First of all, every night, reference --
GUILFOYLE: That's international law.
BOLLING: Please, do you see a problem --
GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: I got to tell you --
BOLLING: -- where we're expecting our judges and juries know the Islamic law, read the Koran before you decide this case?


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/transcript/judge-rules-american-courts-can-use-sharia-law#ixzz2Duc4xjjZ

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://dannyreviews.com/h/Islam.html


Whether labelled fundamentalism, political Islam (http://www.debatepolicy.com/Political_Islam.html), or revivalism, "the dominant theme of contemporary Islam has been its resurgence". Key elements of this are a belief that religion is integral to politics, law, and society, a return to the original sources of Islam, a call for Islamic law and an Islamic social order, opposition to Western secularism (but acceptance of science and technology), and struggle against corruption and social injustice. More radical activists go beyond these, "believing that theological doctrine and political realism necessitate violent revolution". Esposito illustrates the varying course of Islamic revivalism with thirty pages on particular countries — Egypt, Libya, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan — and twenty pages on Islam in Europe and the United States (including African-American Islam). "[T]he unity of Islam, from its early formation to contemporary developments, has encompassed a diversity of interpretations and expressions of faith". And this diversity will continue, along with conflicts between secularists, conservatives, neotraditionalists, and reformers. Focal issues include modernisation, the status of the ulama and legal reform (especially in the area of women's rights and the status of non-Muslim minorities), and the Islamization of society.

[logroller]

Thats correct , we can not have laws that target Islam and its religious beliefs unless those beliefs are illegal according to the Constitution and current U.S. law.

what???
How can a belief ever be illegal under the constitution?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

what???
How can a belief ever be illegal under the constitution?

That term "belief" was intended to represent their beliefs in Sharia law not their religious beliefs per se
Sharia law is the subject so lets not get into twisting every word as if its an attack upon their religious freedom.

However a belief that its legal and just to hang a man for being gay and it is a belief many muslims share is not Constitutional. However in nations that have Sharia law its legal there and often done.


Is that one word--belief-- all that you found in error in my post/s ?
If so , then good, you are coming along fine in seeing the light.- ;)---TYR

[aboutime]

what???
How can a belief ever be illegal under the constitution?


EASY logroller. For Instance. I BELIEVE, according to our constitution. I have the right to believe you are somewhat dumb. AND You have the right to be that way, without ever wondering whether someone can take that right away from you. I BELIEVE.

[logroller]

That term "belief" was intended to represent their beliefs in Sharia law not their religious beliefs per se


Sharia law is the subject so lets not get into twisting every word as if its an attack upon their religious freedom.






However a belief that its legal and just to hang a man for being gay and it is a belief many muslims share is not Constitutional. However in nations that have Sharia law its legal there and often done.










Is that one word--belief-- all that you found in error in my post/s ?


If so , then good, you are coming along fine in seeing the light.- ---TYR


Words mean stuff; semantics matter. So i responded to what i saw as a glaringly false proposition. A belief is a belief; Wouldn't matter if it was a religious belief or a secular one. i could believe that the world is flat and anybody who says otherwise should be publicly shamed and ostracized. What law have i broken? If I believe that it is immoral to charge interest from loaning money, and loan money to you with that understanding-- what law have I broken? If I get together with jimmy and make an offer to co-own the board; only with the understanding that any disputes on board activities will be settled outside of the public view, in arbitration-- what law have we broken?
You can call it sharia law or canonical law or Jim and log law-- doesn't matter the name, nor even the belief-- it's a freedom we all have to engage in activities with an understanding of what is expected from the parties.
I'll take a look at those cases but it takes quite a bit of time to investigate each case. The Florida case you've quoted I've already refuted previously as a matter of Corporate governance. The court didnt rule based on sharia law; it ruled that internal disputes may be arbitrated according to their own bylaws-- it is a mosque, so there's said they would arbitrate based on sharia--the parties didn't even dispute that until the arbitrator ruled against them (or that at iteration didn't happen)...go figure; when the arbitrator rules agaist them, they reject the authority.
fwiw, The same freedom exists for a Baptist church, or a Mormon temple or the catholic church. And to some extent, even debatepolicy. That doesn't mean that a church could put someone in a stockade whilst parishioners pelt them fruit or stones; there are limits, but I don't see how the issue of who fired who among the mosque's governing board rises to level of violating the civil rights of the parties and, thus, compels a court of law to intercede in an internal dispute. Lots of religious organizations have internal arbitration clauses, should they all be made illegal? You can't just specify sharia law, that'd be unconstitutional.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Words mean stuff; semantics matter. So i responded to what i saw as a glaringly false proposition. A belief is a belief; Wouldn't matter if it was a religious belief or a secular one. i could believe that the world is flat and anybody who says otherwise should be publicly shamed and ostracized. What law have i broken? If I believe that it is immoral to charge interest from loaning money, and loan money to you with that understanding-- what law have I broken? If I get together with jimmy and make an offer to co-own the board; only with the understanding that any disputes on board activities will be settled outside of the public view, in arbitration-- what law have we broken?
You can call it sharia law or canonical law or Jim and log law-- doesn't matter the name, nor even the belief-- it's a freedom we all have to engage in activities with an understanding of what is expected from the parties.
I'll take a look at those cases but it takes quite a bit of time to investigate each case. The Florida case you've quoted I've already refuted previously as a matter of Corporate governance. The court didnt rule based on sharia law; it ruled that internal disputes may be arbitrated according to their own bylaws-- it is a mosque, so there's said they would arbitrate based on sharia--the parties didn't even dispute that until the arbitrator ruled against them (or that at iteration didn't happen)...go figure; when the arbitrator rules agaist them, they reject the authority.
fwiw, The same freedom exists for a Baptist church, or a Mormon temple or the catholic church. And to some extent, even debatepolicy. That doesn't mean that a church could put someone in a stockade whilst parishioners pelt them fruit or stones; there are limits, but I don't see how the issue of who fired who among the mosque's governing board rises to level of violating the civil rights of the parties and, thus, compels a court of law to intercede in an internal dispute. Lots of religious organizations have internal arbitration clauses, should they all be made illegal? You can't just specify sharia law, that'd be unconstitutional.


The evidence was presented to show that Sharia law is creeping in. It doesnt really matter what portion of it starts here. A seed planted grows the same thing each time, it doesnt morph from an apple tree into an oak tree.
The subject is compatability and legality of Sharia law. Within Islam its not a piecemeal project , its not open to be picked to pieces then incorporated into another nations existing laws as a minority factor! Of course it must start small but its always meant to be exspanded into its full scope! And that controversy would lead to immense bloodshed here or else we would have to just give in! Thats because they ALWAYS seek to use force(murder/terror) to force others to change to their will. 1400+ years of history amply prove that.
Your message seems to be lets worry about it after it happens, after the deaths are already occuring! While I put forth the concept , lets try to stop it before it gets transplanted here to take root! An ounce of prevention (lives saved) is worth a ton of cure(fighting to stop/reverse the murders)...
Its going to be tried here and its going to be fought over because they use fighting to force their way..--Tyr

[logroller]

The evidence was presented to show that Sharia law is creeping in. It doesnt really matter what portion of it starts here. A seed planted grows the same thing each time, it doesnt morph from an apple tree into an oak tree.
The subject is compatability and legality of Sharia law. Within Islam its not a piecemeal project , its not open to be picked to pieces then incorporated into another nations existing laws as a minority factor! Of course it must start small but its always meant to be exspanded into its full scope! And that controversy would lead to immense bloodshed here or else we would have to just give in! Thats because they ALWAYS seek to use force(murder/terror) to force others to change to their will. 1400+ years of history amply prove that.
Your message seems to be lets worry about it after it happens, after the deaths are already occuring! While I put forth the concept , lets try to stop it before it gets transplanted here to take root! An ounce of prevention (lives saved) is worth a ton of cure(fighting to stop/reverse the murders)...
Its going to be tried here and its going to be fought over because they use fighting to force their way..--Tyr
Well if its Monsanto seed, who knows?
Look, laws change with the times; albeit at a snails pace. Case law is a body of previous rulings that, although complex, provides justice-- we've some 200+ years of case law. Just because someone makes an argument in a court of law, doesn't mean it applies. I clicked on one of your links and half those cases resulted in Sharia law defense being rejected -- adding to the case law-- and further undermining your premise of sharia law creeping into American courts and undermining our legal system. Does that mean they will or won't use force and murder to further their beliefs; of course not. In fact, we have laws on coercion and murder here, and lots of case law to back that up. Whats to prevent; the laws we already have address the problem. If anything, more laws tend to make more problems; so I fail to see how making laws to prevent problems that are already addressed serve any purpose. There are dilemmas from time to time. But US case law is chock full of cases of force and murder that are unpersuaded by whatever religious justification someone may claim. Show me a case in an American court that ruled the murder of somebody was justified by Sharia. Even in Britain, supposed overran by tolerance for Islamic sharia law, a man (and wife?) were convicted of murder for the honor killing of their daughter. So just how much is this creep and how much is just hyperbolic fear?
Seriously tyr, 'an ounce prevention is worth a pound of cure' ...your quip so closely resembles anti-gun arguments, its scary -- if only King George had the prescience to prevent firearms from taking root in America...or ideals on the common rights of man for that matter

[aboutime]

The evidence was presented to show that Sharia law is creeping in. It doesnt really matter what portion of it starts here. A seed planted grows the same thing each time, it doesnt morph from an apple tree into an oak tree.
The subject is compatability and legality of Sharia law. Within Islam its not a piecemeal project , its not open to be picked to pieces then incorporated into another nations existing laws as a minority factor! Of course it must start small but its always meant to be exspanded into its full scope! And that controversy would lead to immense bloodshed here or else we would have to just give in! Thats because they ALWAYS seek to use force(murder/terror) to force others to change to their will. 1400+ years of history amply prove that.
Your message seems to be lets worry about it after it happens, after the deaths are already occuring! While I put forth the concept , lets try to stop it before it gets transplanted here to take root! An ounce of prevention (lives saved) is worth a ton of cure(fighting to stop/reverse the murders)...
Its going to be tried here and its going to be fought over because they use fighting to force their way..--Tyr



Tyr. There seems to be a DEAFENING Silence from our American members on this topic. Perhaps they earlier opinions I expressed about how Unconcerned, or even Oblivious a large majority of Americans really are is True.

In fact. I would dare to guess. An even larger percentage of AMERICANS probably feel. If we ignore it, and let the politicians hash it out. It will just GO AWAY!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr. There seems to be a DEAFENING Silence from our American members on this topic. Perhaps they earlier opinions I expressed about how Unconcerned, or even Oblivious a large majority of Americans really are is True.

In fact. I would dare to guess. An even larger percentage of AMERICANS probably feel. If we ignore it, and let the politicians hash it out. It will just GO AWAY!

They are dead wrong then because it will not just go away and it wil be pursued until the muslims start using violence to attempt to force it. Thats been their way for over 1400+ years! The PC culture has taught that silence is golden but guess when it teaches that is the correct thing to do? Thats right, when it benefits the liberal/leftists agenda. It teaches the opposite, to speak out against Christianity and our basic religious morals. Thats why I havent a PC bone in my body! F-that, f-them..-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This is how they do..--Tyr

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2012/December/Belgium-Transitioning-from-Democracy-to-Sharia/

Brussels has sworn in two municipal officials from a new Islamic party who want to implement Sharia law.
A YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eJWy3NCaviU) shows one of the men, Redouane Ahrouch, taking the oath of office in Brussels, followed by a protestor pointing out Ahrouch's plans to turn Belgium into an Islamic state.
The critic disrupted the ceremony, shouting that Ahrouch will undermine democracy with his plans to implement Islamic law.
Ahrouch has admitted he's taking a gradual approach, saying it may take decades to enforce Sharia. But he said the process has now begun.
The Gatestone Institute (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3442/belgium-islamic-state) reports Ahrouch created a 40-point program in the past, including teenage marriage and redesigning the Belgian judiciary to comply with Islam.
Muslims now make up one quarter of the population of Brussels
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not think it will not be tried here and that violence will not ensue!-Tyr

[aboutime]

This is how they do..--Tyr

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2012/December/Belgium-Transitioning-from-Democracy-to-Sharia/

Brussels has sworn in two municipal officials from a new Islamic party who want to implement Sharia law.
A YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eJWy3NCaviU) shows one of the men, Redouane Ahrouch, taking the oath of office in Brussels, followed by a protestor pointing out Ahrouch's plans to turn Belgium into an Islamic state.
The critic disrupted the ceremony, shouting that Ahrouch will undermine democracy with his plans to implement Islamic law.
Ahrouch has admitted he's taking a gradual approach, saying it may take decades to enforce Sharia. But he said the process has now begun.
The Gatestone Institute (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3442/belgium-islamic-state) reports Ahrouch created a 40-point program in the past, including teenage marriage and redesigning the Belgian judiciary to comply with Islam.
Muslims now make up one quarter of the population of Brussels
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not think it will not be tried here and that violence will not ensue!-Tyr

What a great day it will be, when the leaders of that Islamic party, and Sharia law enforcers are Disclosed as GAYS!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What a great day it will be, when the leaders of that Islamic party, and Sharia law enforcers are Disclosed as GAYS!

Here is how it goes, when you are proven to be correct in the future about things the lib/dems suddenly forget that they previously laughed at and ridiculed you for your previous assertions ! They pretend they did not at like jackasses and ridicule you, then they dismiss the entire thing ! In other word they never ever own up to being so wrong. Thats delusion and they as a group have it as bad as do the muslims.
Sharia law will be an issue that will plague this nation and it will be the cause of great violence in the future. Nothing these naysayers put forth will change that. -Tyr

[Dilloduck]

It's already an issue plaguing the nation. People keep threatening that it's going to happen here. There HAS to be something more realistic and timely to be concerned about.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well if its Monsanto seed, who knows?
Look, laws change with the times; albeit at a snails pace. Case law is a body of previous rulings that, although complex, provides justice-- we've some 200+ years of case law. Just because someone makes an argument in a court of law, doesn't mean it applies. I clicked on one of your links and half those cases resulted in Sharia law defense being rejected -- adding to the case law-- and further undermining your premise of sharia law creeping into American courts and undermining our legal system. Does that mean they will or won't use force and murder to further their beliefs; of course not. In fact, we have laws on coercion and murder here, and lots of case law to back that up. Whats to prevent; the laws we already have address the problem. If anything, more laws tend to make more problems; so I fail to see how making laws to prevent problems that are already addressed serve any purpose. There are dilemmas from time to time. But US case law is chock full of cases of force and murder that are unpersuaded by whatever religious justification someone may claim. Show me a case in an American court that ruled the murder of somebody was justified by Sharia. Even in Britain, supposed overran by tolerance for Islamic sharia law, a man (and wife?) were convicted of murder for the honor killing of their daughter. So just how much is this creep and how much is just hyperbolic fear?
Seriously tyr, 'an ounce prevention is worth a pound of cure' ...your quip so closely resembles anti-gun arguments, its scary -- if only King George had the prescience to prevent firearms from taking root in America...or ideals on the common rights of man for that matter

The wolves do not stop attacking the farmer's sheep because the farmer shoots one of them down. How many times has a person failed trying a thing to find success is often in the "not giving up"? My quip was very relevant to the subject at hand and quite nicely applied too. Why speak of King George when we could speak of King Obama and stay more on the subject? I find your total lack of concern about obama's power grabbing and corruption to be appalling myself. Just as I find your carefree defense of Sharia law by poo-pooing its true threat to be appalling. If your belief is that we should ignore/refuse preventative actions then why even have laws in the first place? Revamping and revising existing laws to better fit the circumstances is sound action when it stands a chance of preventing future violence. No effort at all to be proactive would insure faster and greater opposition to our standing laws with the intent to replace them and advance with Sharia as the replacement.
Do you go by a closed business at night and decry that it has two huge locks on the front door? Or do you think smart guy , the extra protection just may do the trick?--Tyr

[logroller]

The wolves do not stop attacking the farmer's sheep because the farmer shoots one of them down. How many times has a person failed trying a thing to find success is often in the "not giving up"? My quip was very relevant to the subject at hand and quite nicely applied too. Why speak of King George when we could speak of King Obama and stay more on the subject? I find your total lack of concern about obama's power grabbing and corruption to be appalling myself. Just as I find your carefree defense of Sharia law by poo-pooing its true threat to be appalling. If your belief is that we should ignore/refuse preventative actions then why even have laws in the first place? Revamping and revising existing laws to better fit the circumstances is sound action when it stands a chance of preventing future violence. No effort at all to be proactive would insure faster and greater opposition to our standing laws with the intent to replace them and advance with Sharia as the replacement.
Do you go by a closed business at night and decry that it has two huge locks on the front door? Or do you think smart guy , the extra protection just may do the trick?--Tyr
Stay on subject; from the guy who posted an event in Brussels in a US constitution thread and allegory on wolves. Mmkay!
What laws do you suggest revamping-- the first amendment? Seems that's the foremost hurdle for you to overcome to initiate your anti-sharia platform.
My sister had two locks on her door, the thieves just kicked the door in. I'd of used the door in back that's always unlocked. Guess that makes me smarter than the thieves; or atleast more situationally aware/concerned for law. Had they entered through the back, theyd have only committed residential burglary; they added forced entry. so legally speaking, there were two "locks" in place...didnt matter. Not sure a third would have mattered. Regardless, could you offer up any specifics on these proposed changes to existing law?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Stay on subject; from the guy who posted an event in Brussels in a US constitution thread and allegory on wolves. Mmkay!
What laws do you suggest revamping-- the first amendment? Seems that's the foremost hurdle for you to overcome to initiate your anti-sharia platform.
My sister had two locks on her door, the thieves just kicked the door in. I'd of used the door in back that's always unlocked. Guess that makes me smarter than the thieves; or atleast more situationally aware/concerned for law. Had they entered through the back, theyd have only committed residential burglary; they added forced entry. so legally speaking, there were two "locks" in place...didnt matter. Not sure a third would have mattered. Regardless, could you offer up any specifics on these proposed changes to existing law?

Thats the ticket, demand that extra caution is never warranted and never needed. Or demand perfect solutions in an attempt to discredit the premise. I do not have all the solutions but that in no way discredits my stand . As long as the muslims get to teach that all not of their religion is the enemy and that enemy should be physically attacked we are not safe and there will be attacks. Those attacks will spread just as we have seen all thru Islam's history. Of course they give a way themselves to avoid too much violence=CAPITULATION!! Thats the path given and accepted by the leftist politicians in Britain and why we will see Britain destroyed in our lifetimes.
How can anybody come up with solutions to a huge problem that most are fearful to even suggest exists or discuss!?? Thats another reason the lie about Islam's peacefulness is so promoted and protected. If Christians were doing worldwide the violence Islam does daily our papers would be on A 24/7 CRUSADE non-stopping pointing it out and condemning it !
I have locks on all my doors to keep idiots out because I realy have no desire to HAVE TO shoot anybody. And I have serious doubts that many people these days leave their back door unlocked unless they are gullible as hell, stupid or both.. I have more locks on my backdoor than I do my front. Simply because it would gve more cover for a robber to enter. As stated I have the ability and have already made the mental decision about shooting an intruder but have no desire to ever HAVE TO do it. Preparation is key and has aved many milions of lives. Extra precaution is not to be so lighty cast aside considering that the consequences are so very, very high if they get their way--mass murder!!-Tyr

[logroller]

We don't need to strive for perfect, just more perfect. We have the first amendment. Whatever secondary precautions We take cannot, by law, violate the first. It'd be like putting an additional lock on your door that unlocks the other. I understand your frustration, I really do, I don't think Islam, as a Nation, seeks anything less than all becoming Muslim-- and history, old and new, shows ample examples that many find Islam amenable to violent furtherance of their cause. But you can't make a law (In the US) that prevents them from believing that; just as they can't get a law passed that disallows other religious beliefs. Making laws which would establish such would violate the first amend. Your position I understand-- it's rational. However, the standard by which Constitutional rights are handled exceeds rational basis consideration -- its handled under the standard of a strict scrutiny--having three distinct tests which must be satisfied:

It is a compelling government interest-- necessary or crucial, not merely preferable.
it is narrowly tailored-- addresses the specific interest
It is the least restrictive means-- meaning there can't be other, more accomodating ways of addressing the interest.
For the sake of argument, I'll assume your premise of the implementation of Sharia law being a threat, it would be a compelling government interest to confront it.
So the next test would be, how to narrowly tailor a law to meet that threat?
this has been tried in several states, and I would say they might meet this test. I could argue it either way. But the last test is where every anti-sharia law law gets hung up-- it's not the least restrictive means by a long shot. Name me any aspect of sharia law in which you take issue and I can name a lesser, more universally applicable law which addresses it. Which sorta relates back to the second test in that a law (many of which already are) already addresses the particular ( narrow in scope) interest. That's why I, and others, have asked for the particular means by which we address the threat(perceived or real). Yet, thousands of posts regarding sharia law on this site, I've yet to see a legal solution...save amending the Constitution.

[Gaffer]

We don't need to strive for perfect, just more perfect. We have the first amendment. Whatever secondary precautions We take cannot, by law, violate the first. It'd be like putting an additional lock on your door that unlocks the other. I understand your frustration, I really do, I don't think Islam, as a Nation, seeks anything less than all becoming Muslim-- and history, old and new, shows ample examples that many find Islam amenable to violent furtherance of their cause. But you can't make a law (In the US) that prevents them from believing that; just as they can't get a law passed that disallows other religious beliefs. Making laws which would establish such would violate the first amend. Your position I understand-- it's rational. However, the standard by which Constitutional rights are handled exceeds rational basis consideration -- its handled under the standard of a strict scrutiny--having three distinct tests which must be satisfied:

It is a compelling government interest-- necessary or crucial, not merely preferable.
it is narrowly tailored-- addresses the specific interest
It is the least restrictive means-- meaning there can't be other, more accomodating ways of addressing the interest.
For the sake of argument, I'll assume your premise of the implementation of Sharia law being a threat, it would be a compelling government interest to confront it.
So the next test would be, how to narrowly tailor a law to meet that threat?
this has been tried in several states, and I would say they might meet this test. I could argue it either way. But the last test is where every anti-sharia law law gets hung up-- it's not the least restrictive means by a long shot. Name me any aspect of sharia law in which you take issue and I can name a lesser, more universally applicable law which addresses it. Which sorta relates back to the second test in that a law (many of which already are) already addresses the particular ( narrow in scope) interest. That's why I, and others, have asked for the particular means by which we address the threat(perceived or real). Yet, thousands of posts regarding sharia law on this site, I've yet to see a legal solution...save amending the Constitution.

It's simple. You write laws that reign in liberal and activist judges. The ones that think that laws from anywhere can be applied in their courts. That's what the laws against sharia are all about. It just has to be worded properly to comply with the 1st amendment.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

We don't need to strive for perfect, just more perfect. We have the first amendment. Whatever secondary precautions We take cannot, by law, violate the first. It'd be like putting an additional lock on your door that unlocks the other. I understand your frustration, I really do, I don't think Islam, as a Nation, seeks anything less than all becoming Muslim-- and history, old and new, shows ample examples that many find Islam amenable to violent furtherance of their cause. But you can't make a law (In the US) that prevents them from believing that; just as they can't get a law passed that disallows other religious beliefs. Making laws which would establish such would violate the first amend. Your position I understand-- it's rational. However, the standard by which Constitutional rights are handled exceeds rational basis consideration -- its handled under the standard of a strict scrutiny--having three distinct tests which must be satisfied:

It is a compelling government interest-- necessary or crucial, not merely preferable.
it is narrowly tailored-- addresses the specific interest
It is the least restrictive means-- meaning there can't be other, more accomodating ways of addressing the interest.
For the sake of argument, I'll assume your premise of the implementation of Sharia law being a threat, it would be a compelling government interest to confront it.
So the next test would be, how to narrowly tailor a law to meet that threat?
this has been tried in several states, and I would say they might meet this test. I could argue it either way. But the last test is where every anti-sharia law law gets hung up-- it's not the least restrictive means by a long shot. Name me any aspect of sharia law in which you take issue and I can name a lesser, more universally applicable law which addresses it. Which sorta relates back to the second test in that a law (many of which already are) already addresses the particular ( narrow in scope) interest. That's why I, and others, have asked for the particular means by which we address the threat(perceived or real). Yet, thousands of posts regarding sharia law on this site, I've yet to see a legal solution...save amending the Constitution.

A rational and thoughtful presentation with good points. However the great need to protect and re-enforce the Constitution still exists. One must remember the Constitution is under attack first by the very people sworn to protect it and to use it as a guide to govern.Those people now already look for ways around it to push their agenda, so understanding their contempt for it and the likelihood that they can and do ally with Islamist to defeat the purposes and dictates of our Constitution is already a reality. One must remember that the stronger an anti-constitution government becomes the weaker the Constitution becomes. Obama proves that in spades with his end runs around Congress and his ignoring JUDICIAL RULINGS! We can not overlook the alliance of these (big government)anti-constitution politicians/party and the muslims that also seek the destruction of our Constitution.

OF COURSE WE CAN NOT STOP THE MUSLIMS FROM BELIEVING THE CRAP THAT THEY DO BUT WE CAN TARGET AND SEEK WAYS TO STOP THE VIOLENCE THOSE BELIEFS ENCOURAGE. First step in that campaign is to stop the destruction of the Authority of our Constitution for --IT-- stops them cold if it has that Authority firmly in place and always considered first and foremost. Currently they demand laws against blasphemy and we already see politicians here attempting to find ways to help them in that endeavor! The fact that we already see this cooperation coming from our politicians points to another very grave danger IMHO.

I do not have the solutions but we must first admit the problem exists and is great in order to ever address the problem adequately. Then we as a nation can find the solutions. Should we refuse to properly address this problem we will face unimaginable violence in the future. Should we not find a way to limit and stop most of that violence before it gets started it will by its very nature spread and encourage more while growing much like a cancer.

My post was the long way of attempting to explain, I like Gaffer's short and sweet offering. Its concise and goes directly to the point while clearly admitting that there is a problem that surely needs to be addressed.
My asking for prevention should be heralded as correct not resisted IMHO.. Information is key and that information is hidden deliberately by our government. We must not only ask why but do something about that as well.-Tyr.

[aboutime]

We must all remember. There is only ONE recognized source of our laws in the United States of America. And that is our Constitution.

Anyone who attempts to circumvent, distort, ignore, or change it to meet their selfish, political needs IS Breaking the Law of the land.

IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE! EVER!

[logroller]

It's simple. You write laws that reign in liberal and activist judges. The ones that think that laws from anywhere can be applied in their courts. That's what the laws against sharia are all about. It just has to be worded properly to comply with the 1st amendment.
It's too simple-- too broad in scope-- and would fail the second test.


OF COURSE WE CAN NOT STOP THE MUSLIMS FROM BELIEVING THE CRAP THAT THEY DO BUT WE CAN TARGET AND SEEK WAYS TO STOP THE VIOLENCE THOSE BELIEFS ENCOURAGE. First step in that campaign is to stop the destruction of the Authority of our Constitution for --IT-- stops them cold if it has that Authority firmly in place and always considered first and foremost. Currently they demand laws against blasphemy and we already see politicians here attempting to find ways to help them in that endeavor! The fact that we already see this cooperation coming from our politicians points to another very grave danger IMHO.

I do not have the solutions but we must first admit the problem exists and is great in order to ever address the problem adequately. Then we as a nation can find the solutions. Should we refuse to properly address this problem we will face unimaginable violence in the future. Should we not find a way to limit and stop most of that violence before it gets started it will by its very nature spread and encourage more while growing much like a cancer.

My post was the long way of attempting to explain, I like Gaffer's short and sweet offering. Its concise and goes directly to the point while clearly admitting that there is a problem that surely needs to be addressed.
My asking for prevention should be heralded as correct not resisted IMHO.. Information is key and that information is hidden deliberately by our government. We must not only ask why but do something about that as well.-Tyr.
long and lengthy, but still too broad. That's the problem tyr; we as a nation are spread out too. Embrace the republic and think nationally, but act locally.you want to beat anti-blasphemy laws-- exemplify respect for all individuals' beliefs that respect US law and it becomes a moot issue-- no longer a compelling government interest and the Constitution prevails. Attack a whole religion and the Constitution suffers. You need to find a way in heart and mind, but more importantly in your actions, to accept Islamic culture for what it is--whilst remaining steadfast to the furtherance of your ideals. It's a balancing act that won't come easily, but neither should it become the interest of government-- hence the first amendment. Liberty is a challenging ideal to live up to; 'tis far easier to forsake another's. I know you've quoted it before, those who give up essential liberty...

[Gaffer]

It's too simple-- too broad in scope-- and would fail the second test.



I'm not talking about targeting religion I'm talking about targeting courts and legislators.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It's too simple-- too broad in scope-- and would fail the second test.

long and lengthy, but still too broad. That's the problem tyr; we as a nation are spread out too. Embrace the republic and think nationally, but act locally.you want to beat anti-blasphemy laws-- exemplify respect for all individuals' beliefs that respect US law and it becomes a moot issue-- no longer a compelling government interest and the Constitution prevails. Attack a whole religion and the Constitution suffers. You need to find a way in heart and mind, but more importantly in your actions, to accept Islamic culture for what it is--whilst remaining steadfast to the furtherance of your ideals. It's a balancing act that won't come easily, but neither should it become the interest of government-- hence the first amendment. Liberty is a challenging ideal to live up to; 'tis far easier to forsake another's. I know you've quoted it before, those who give up essential liberty...

Big nation , broad suggestions could lead to specific solutions, possibly several. Get this subject being addressed by our nation's brightest ( certainly not politicians) and likely we 'd be amazed at the number of good suggestions to consider. Gaffer is right that courts, judges and legislators should be targeted to insure only our Constitution/established laws based upon it are to be used to determine cases. No foreign laws ever to be used. I view that as the best solution offered yet. Judges now are offering decisions based upon foreign laws they know about. Write a law that the first time an American judge (at any level) cites foreign law for basing a decision he is disbarred!--Tyr

[logroller]

Big nation , broad suggestions could lead to specific solutions, possibly several. Get this subject being addressed by our nation's brightest ( certainly not politicians) and likely we 'd be amazed at the number of good suggestions to consider. Gaffer is right that courts, judges and legislators should be targeted to insure only our Constitution/established laws based upon it are to be used to determine cases. No foreign laws ever to be used. I view that as the best solution offered yet. Judges now are offering decisions based upon foreign laws they know about. Write a law that the first time an American judge (at any level) cites foreign law for basing a decision he is disbarred!--Tyr

Its necessary that they do sometimes.


U.S. federal courts have long had the authority to resolve disputes that require the application of substantive foreign law.... By way of illustration, courts have ascertained and applied foreign law in diverse matters involving contract law, tort law, employment law, conversion law, trademark law, securities law, family law, bankruptcy law, intestacy law, copyright law, admiralty law, and various other areas. http://wakeforestlawreview.com/demystifying-the-determination-of-foreign-law-in-u-s-courts-opening-the-door-to-a-greater-global-understanding


The only time its problematic is when they're used for determining controversial Constitution/ BoR issues.
Here's a good article on the subject. With links to Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer debating it.
http://www.cato.org/blog/use-misuse-foreign-law-us-courts

[logroller]

I'm not talking about targeting religion I'm talking about targeting courts and legislators.
Then your reference to wording laws to comply with the First Amendment was irrelevant.but laws are routinely struck down for being too broad, its not merely a test under strict scrutiny. Judicial restraint (the opposite of activism) is the belief that laws shouldnt be struck down unless they are obviously unconstitutional-- meaning theres no possible reasoning to support it. As for targetting legislators, i dont even know how such a law could be passed, if not by legislators-- Even constitutional amendments are written by lawmakers, right?
FYI, I was responding in part to your ban on judicial activism. What's considered activism? Too often its considered activism when they rule against one's POV-- that's not activism. Brown vs the board of education is considered to be an example of judicial activism. Whereas the PPACA ruling would be an example of judicial restraint. So tyr considers Justice Roberts a traitor for exercising judicial restraint. That's why I dont see how an anti-activism law is gonna work.

You need to understand that our courts and legislators are vested with the constitutional authority to decide upon a plethora of issues which require the consideration of foreign laws-- e.g. treaties among nations, trade agreements, international contract disputes. You can't just say "no foreign laws ever." With the stroke of pen it would negate every international contract where a US citizen or corporation were a party.
Don't get me wrong, there are some troubling cases of foreign law being applied, but they're uncommon and remain contentious issues regardless of the court's opinion or justification. Haven't seen any presented in this thread.

Is there a case in particular you are thinking of?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Its necessary that they do sometimes.

http://wakeforestlawreview.com/demystifying-the-determination-of-foreign-law-in-u-s-courts-opening-the-door-to-a-greater-global-understanding


The only time its problematic is when they're used for determining controversial Constitution/ BoR issues.
Here's a good article on the subject. With links to Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer debating it.
http://www.cato.org/blog/use-misuse-foreign-law-us-courts

We must maintain that its to be considered only when absolutely required. Put in place some way to govern and stop judges from using foreign law when its not absolutely required and NEVER ALLOWED when its about our Constitution and BoR issues.

[Kathianne]

Its necessary that they do sometimes.

http://wakeforestlawreview.com/demystifying-the-determination-of-foreign-law-in-u-s-courts-opening-the-door-to-a-greater-global-understanding


The only time its problematic is when they're used for determining controversial Constitution/ BoR issues.
Here's a good article on the subject. With links to Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer debating it.
http://www.cato.org/blog/use-misuse-foreign-law-us-courts

Considering world wide trade and agreements concerning such, I see a point. At the same time since that comes within treaties, should only be at federal level. Only pertaining to trade and treaties.

[aboutime]

Considering world wide trade and agreements concerning such, I see a point. At the same time since that comes within treaties, should only be at federal level. Only pertaining to trade and treaties.


Kathianne. Treaties are only permissible...according to the Constitution, on a Federal level...already.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne. Treaties are only permissible...according to the Constitution, on a Federal level...already.
Yeah, my point. Thank you.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/the_sharia_threat_to_america.html

The Sharia Threat to America

ByFred Grandy (http://www.americanthinker.com/fred_grandy/)
<ins style="display: inline-table; border: none; height: 250px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; visibility: visible; width: 300px;"><ins id="aswift_0_anchor" style="display: block; border: none; height: 250px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; visibility: visible; width: 300px;"><iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="250" hspace="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" width="300" id="aswift_0" name="aswift_0" style="left: 0px; position: absolute; top: 0px;"></iframe>There is a great deal of misinformation circulating with regard to sharia and the threat it poses to America and Western Civilization.Some misinformed observers and members of the Muslim Brotherhood liken concerns over sharia to prejudice and bigotry, but the facts say otherwise.</ins></ins>
Terrorism experts in the law enforcement, military and intelligence communities have cited sharia as the Jihadists' enemy threat doctrine in an intensive study called "Shariah: The Threat to America (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/098229476X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=amerithink-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=098229476X)," a scholarly, 352-page book based on authoritative sources of sharia, or Islamic law. While sharia does include "prayer and fasting" and "worship," sharia is also an all-encompassing legal and political code that covers aspects of life that have nothing to do with religion.
Perhaps most importantly, unlike other forms of religious law, such as canon law and Jewish law, sharia is the only form of religious law extant that is also meant to apply to people of other faiths, i.e. non-Muslims.
The threat from sharia has nothing to do with prejudice or bigotry. The threat from sharia is real and multifaceted.
Some claim that sharia is no threat to the American legal system, but research shows such a threat does exist. Just as sharia has gradually become embedded in the legal systems of many European nations over the past generation, it is beginning to be found in US court cases. An initial study by the Center for Security Policy entitled "Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases (http://publicpolicyalliance.org/media-kit/shariah-law-and-american-state-courts-report/)," examined 50 cases from 23 states that involved conflicts between sharia and American state law. The study's findings suggest that sharia has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.
This incursion of sharia into US court systems usually manifests itself



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/the_sharia_threat_to_america.html#ixzz2GSLX9gmL
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker) | AmericanThinker on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as I have stated Sharia law is a grave threat to our nation and our Constitution. -Tyr

[logroller]

just as i have stated, the vast majority (nearly all) of those cases were overturned by appeal. With the understanding that appellate courts are a function of due process, guaranteed by the constitution-- and thus proving that Sharia is not a threat to the Constitution. The constitution didn't seek to create a givernment or nation which was infallible. I believe the concept of more- perfect union entails the fact that errors will occur, but will be corrected-- the cases in the paper support that conclusion, not that the Constitution is threatened-- theConstitution is validated!
Curiously, most of those cases (ESP. Those on equity/contract/family law) were foreign nationals-- many having fled to the United states, (many having signed a pre-marital agreement), and then after fleeing their country they deny that comity (ie reciprocity) of the law they freely agreed to previously. If the tables were turned Tyr, what do expect another to country to do if an American citizen fled the US with their spouse's child if not consider the reciprocity?

Article four of the constitution states that citizens are entitled to the privileges and immunities of the United States-- clearly, many of these cases involve non-citizens.
You must understand that a foreign national in the United States is here, not because it is their right but, rather, it is their privilege-- they are NOT entitled to be here nor to the gamut of rights and privileges afforded citizens. There are certain inalienable rights, life liberty pursuit of happiness, but not parental rights and laws of equity--that's a stretch.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

just as i have stated, the vast majority (nearly all) of those cases were overturned by appeal. With the understanding that appellate courts are a function of due process, guaranteed by the constitution-- and thus proving that Sharia is not a threat to the Constitution. The constitution didn't seek to create a givernment or nation which was infallible. I believe the concept of more- perfect union entails the fact that errors will occur, but will be corrected-- the cases in the paper support that conclusion, not that the Constitution is threatened-- theConstitution is validated!
Curiously, most of those cases (ESP. Those on equity/contract/family law) were foreign nationals-- many having fled to the United states, (many having signed a pre-marital agreement), and then after fleeing their country they deny that comity (ie reciprocity) of the law they freely agreed to previously. If the tables were turned Tyr, what do expect another to country to do if an American citizen fled the US with their spouse's child if not consider the reciprocity?

Article four of the constitution states that citizens are entitled to the privileges and immunities of the United States-- clearly, many of these cases involve non-citizens.
You must understand that a foreign national in the United States is here, not because it is their right but, rather, it is their privilege-- they are NOT entitled to be here nor to the gamut of rights and privileges afforded citizens. There are certain inalienable rights, life liberty pursuit of happiness, but not parental rights and laws of equity--that's a stretch.

Who makes the laws here? That's right Congress. Already muslims are demanding blasphemy laws to protect Islam from ANY CRITICISM and we see politicians trying to find a way to help them in that endeavor Constitution be damned! If they get laws passed that they want it could take years to get a decision from SCOTUS. We already see obama circumventing the Constitution at will. Not that much of a stretch to see Congress doing the same. Then we have judges rendering decisions based upon foreign law already. Its a tricky deal trying to stop such appeasement. --Tyr

[logroller]

Who makes the laws here? That's right Congress. Already muslims are demanding blasphemy laws to protect Islam from ANY CRITICISM and we see politicians trying to find a way to help them in that endeavor Constitution be damned! If they get laws passed that they want it could take years to get a decision from SCOTUS. We already see obama circumventing the Constitution at will. Not that much of a stretch to see Congress doing the same. Then we have judges rendering decisions based upon foreign law already. Its a tricky deal trying to stop such appeasement. --Tyr
Allowing them to utilize US courts may be tricky, but its hardly a threat to the constitution.

Eliminate foreign nationals from utilizing US courts and those cases vaporize.
Look, if Muslims gain a majority, sharia could be a threat. Don't see that happening any time soon...do you?

[Kathianne]

Allowing them to utilize US courts may be tricky, but its hardly a threat to the constitution.

Eliminate foreign nationals from utilizing US courts and those cases vaporize.
Look, if Muslims gain a majority, sharia could be a threat. Don't see that happening any time soon...do you?

Short term? No, I don't. However I don't think given the current rulings by the courts that it would take a Muslim majority in our country to see such. Indeed, could happen fairly quickly.

[logroller]

As for blasphemy laws, see : Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/495/case.html)

[Kathianne]

As for blasphemy laws, see : Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/495/case.html)

Given what is written, do you really think it would take a 50+ of electorate to establish? Funny that with far less, the accusations against Christians has been a buggaboo for many years.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Allowing them to utilize US courts may be tricky, but its hardly a threat to the constitution.

Eliminate foreign nationals from utilizing US courts and those cases vaporize.
Look, if Muslims gain a majority, sharia could be a threat. Don't see that happening any time soon...do you?


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36760-Sharia-law-A-threat-to-our-Constitution-yes-or-no/page26



#21 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36760-Sharia-law-A-threat-to-our-Constitution-yes-or-no&p=576033#post576033)


http://www.debatepolicy.com/image.php?u=1&dateline=1348172903 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?1-jimnyc)jimnyc (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?1-jimnyc)
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/statusicon/user-offline.pngSteelers in '13!http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.png



<dl class="userstats" style="margin-right: 10px; margin-left: 0px; float: right; width: 150px;"><dt style="margin: 0px 5px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; float: left;">Join Date</dt><dd style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Jan 2007</dd><dt style="margin: 0px 5px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; float: left;">Location</dt><dd style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Westchester, New York</dd><dt style="margin: 0px 5px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; float: left;">Posts</dt><dd style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">21,668</dd><dt style="margin: 0px 5px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; float: left;">Thanks</dt><dd style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">1,368</dd><dd style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline; white-space: nowrap; float: left;">Thanked 6,233 Times in 3,236 Posts</dd></dl><dl class="user_rep" style="margin-right: 10px; margin-left: 0px; float: right; width: 150px;"><dt style="margin: 0px 5px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; float: left;">Rep Power</dt><dd id="reppower_576033_1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">1425285</dd></dl>



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/icons/icon1.png

These are examples of things that have brought blasphemy charges. This first set is examples of "Blasphemy against holy personages" which brought forth charges:

speaking ill of Allah.
finding fault with Muhammad.
slighting a prophet who is mentioned in the Qur'an, or slighting a member of Muhammad's family.
claiming to be a prophet or a messenger.
speculating about how Muhammad would behave if he were alive
drawing a picture to represent Muhammad or any other prophet, or making a film which features a prophet.
writing Muhammad's name on the walls of a toilet.
naming a teddy bear Muhammad.
invoking God while committing a forbidden act.
speaking against Islamic leaders.

This 2nd set is "Blasphemy against beliefs and customs" that have resulted in charges:


finding fault with Islam.
saying Islam is an Arab religion; prayers five times a day are unnecessary; and the Qur'an is full of lies.
believing in transmigration of the soul or reincarnation or disbelieving in the afterlife.
finding fault with a belief or a practice which the Muslim community (Ummah) has adopted.
finding fault with or cursing apostles (Rasul or Messenger), prophets, or angels.
expressing an atheist or a secular point of view or publishing or distributing such a point of view.
using words that Muslims use because the individuals were not Muslims.
praying that Muslims become something else.
whistling during prayers.
flouting the rules prescribed for Ramadan.
reciting Muslim prayers in a language other than Arabic.
consuming alcohol.
gambling.
being alone with persons of the opposite sex who are not blood relatives.
finding amusement in Islamic customs.
publishing an unofficial translation of the Qur'an
practicing yoga.
watching a film or listening to music.
wearing make-up on television.
insulting religious scholarship.
wearing the clothing of Jews or of Zoroastrians.
claiming that forbidden acts are not forbidden.
uttering "words of infidelity" (sayings that are forbidden).
participating in non-Islamic religious festivals.
converting from Islam to Christianity or publishing or distributing such a point of view.
talking about or trying to convert others from Islam to Christianity or publishing or distributing such a point of view.

And lastly, a 3rd set, "Blasphemy against artifacts" which have brought charges of blasphemy:

touching a Qur'an or touching something that has touched a Qur'an because the individuals were not Muslim.
damaging a Qur'an or other books of importance to Islam, for example, hadith.
spitting at the wall of a mosque.

These examples from Wiki, along with proof via citations... These are not things coming from the Quran or from the Hadith, but rather Shariah. What is a crime will vary depending on which Islamic country you are in and then further down to what areas of the country you are in, and whether or not they are even ruling based on Shariah law. But if they are, "The penalties for blasphemy can include fines, imprisonment, flogging, amputation, hanging, or beheading."

Look over that list from above and realize what people can possibly be hung or beheaded for. Amputation? For what, disagreeing or having a different belief? Or being disrespectful? Maybe a monetary fine would be more suitable than a limb?

Now go over the list again, this time changing the Quran examples to the Bible. Change the religion when necessary to Christianity. Change the artifacts to Christian artifacts. All of the holy people, make them Jesus & other prominent names from Christianity. Change the beliefs and customs to those that Christians/Catholics would observe.

Now, imagine the United Kingdom and the United States implementing those laws and punishments to everyone who is accused of blasphemy against Christianity. Imagine either country beheading someone for leaving the Catholic Church and converting to Islam. Or being publicly hung for burning a set of Bibles. Or public flogging or caning because you believed in homosexuality. Convicted and sent to prison because you named a Teddy Bear "Jesus". Major fines because you spoke ill of Jesus.

Just imagine ANY government or state issued penalties because you don't adhere properly to the religion of their choice. And imagine if any of these penalties included force or injury to the body, or worse. Even just thinking of something like this being applied to our countries is unfathomable. We have little choice but to sit back while others receive such punishments elsewhere. But we CAN speak out and do whatever humanly possible to NEVER see this type of archaic crap reach our shores.


"The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realize it doesn't say anything it's too late to stop reading it."





^^^^^^ I thought this post a very good example of what we face and why it is a real threat! Only had to research previous replies in this thread to find exhibit A- FOR YOU TO CONSIDER LOG!!
OUR CONSTITUTION IS ONLY AS STRONG AS IS THE FAITH PUT INTO IT AND THE WILLINGNESS OF ITS SUPPORTERS TO BLEED AND DIE FOR IT! RECENT DECADES HAVE SHOWN A GREAT EROSION IN THAT STRENGTH. ISLAM ALREADY EXPLOITS THAT WEAKENING IMHO.

MY THANKS GO OUT TO THE AUTHOR FOR EXHIBIT A..-TYR

[aboutime]

Short term? No, I don't. However I don't think given the current rulings by the courts that it would take a Muslim majority in our country to see such. Indeed, could happen fairly quickly.


Kathianne. Even more so with Obama, the Denial King in office. I like to remind myself about Obama.."Beware of False Prophets, bearing Gifts".

And Obama's gift would be presenting the United States of America, without a Constitution. To the Muslim world, and Sharia Law. Which...if anyone would care to check. Mister Obama has never honestly discussed since taking office.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne. Even more so with Obama, the Denial King in office. I like to remind myself about Obama.."Beware of False Prophets, bearing Gifts".

And Obama's gift would be presenting the United States of America, without a Constitution. To the Muslim world, and Sharia Law. Which...if anyone would care to check. Mister Obama has never honestly discussed since taking office.

Just to be a bit of a contrarian, did Ronald Reagan discuss Sharia Law? Bush 41 or 42? Clinton?

I'm not saying Obama isn't 'different,' indeed I would say 'worst President ever,' Jimmy Carter notwithstanding.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Just to be a bit of a contrarian, did Ronald Reagan discuss Sharia Law? Bush 41 or 42? Clinton?

I'm not saying Obama isn't 'different,' indeed I would say 'worst President ever,' Jimmy Carter notwithstanding.

Indeed, not excusing any of them but the ME was not the menace then that it is now. And none of them issued warnings to Israel about taking defensive actions to preserve its sovereignty as obama has now done. Iran was not close to nuking up back then! We didn't have a Indonesian trained president back then to have to contend with his asskissing our enemies! While none of them took the hard stand that was necessary they still did not bend over backwards to please our avowed enemies as the traitor now does!
He is not the gullible mistake prone man many of his defenders try to say when confronted with his terrible mistakes/actions. Those are not mistakes but deliberate policies he promotes with the deliberate intent of weakening our nation!-Tyr

[logroller]

Given what is written, do you really think it would take a 50+ of electorate to establish? Funny that with far less, the accusations against Christians has been a buggaboo for many years.
Legislated perhaps, but it wouldn't stand up to judicial review. As for bugaboo, more sadlythan funny, spreading misinformation (that is believed) is not illegal. Just smoke and mirrors IMO.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36760-Sharia-law-A-threat-to-our-Constitution-yes-or-no/page26



#21 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36760-Sharia-law-A-threat-to-our-Constitution-yes-or-no&p=576033#post576033)



^^^^^^ I thought this post a very good example of what we face and why it is a real threat! Only had to research previous replies in this thread to find exhibit A- FOR YOU TO CONSIDER LOG!!
OUR CONSTITUTION IS ONLY AS STRONG AS IS THE FAITH PUT INTO IT AND THE WILLINGNESS OF ITS SUPPORTERS TO BLEED AND DIE FOR IT! RECENT DECADES HAVE SHOWN A GREAT EROSION IN THAT STRENGTH. ISLAM ALREADY EXPLOITS THAT WEAKENING IMHO.

MY THANKS GO OUT TO THE AUTHOR FOR EXHIBIT A..-TYR
re: real threat.
from exhibit A -
"Now, imagine the United Kingdom and the United States implementing those laws and punishments to everyone who is accused of blasphemy against Christianity. Imagine either country beheading someone for leaving the Catholic Church and converting to Islam. Or being publicly hung for burning a set of Bibles. Or public flogging or caning because you believed in homosexuality. Convicted and sent to prison because you named a Teddy Bear "Jesus". Major fines because you spoke ill of Jesus. "
Heres a recipe for "real threat" -- two parts imagination to three parts hyperbole. Regurgitate often. It's really just a recipe for a strawman argument, with regurgitation added. Nice touch! I love leftovers as it often takes on more flavor, but rationally speaking the first dish needs to be real, not imagined.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Legislated perhaps, but it wouldn't stand up to judicial review. As for bugaboo, more sadlythan funny, spreading misinformation (that is believed) is not illegal. Just smoke and mirrors IMO.

re: real threat.
from exhibit A -
"Now, imagine the United Kingdom and the United States implementing those laws and punishments to everyone who is accused of blasphemy against Christianity. Imagine either country beheading someone for leaving the Catholic Church and converting to Islam. Or being publicly hung for burning a set of Bibles. Or public flogging or caning because you believed in homosexuality. Convicted and sent to prison because you named a Teddy Bear "Jesus". Major fines because you spoke ill of Jesus. "
Heres a recipe for "real threat" -- two parts imagination to three parts hyperbole. Regurgitate often. It's really just a recipe for a strawman argument, with regurgitation added. Nice touch! I love leftovers as it often takes on more flavor, but rationally speaking the first dish needs to be real, not imagined.

Why do you demand ironclad proof of a future event that hasn't happened yet? No 100% proof can be offered in evidence of a future event! Its not easy to describe just as say Nazism wasn't easy to describe or expose of its evil until after the fact of its existence and takeover of Germany. Then after the fact evidence was gathered by our side when victory was won! We do not present a straw man argument (as you charge) when presenting the goals of Islam. Neither is it a deliberate attempt to deceive by citing the evils of that religion and the murdering deeds perform by its followers worldwide with links included!
Your faith in the sanctity of our Constitution and survival ignores the recent erosion of its powers and its validity in Modern America. Surely I agree with that sanctity but I see much to be desired in the area of its protection and survival intact. What you call hyperbole is conclusions based upon recent events and acknowledgement of muslim goals and demands to be treated "special" despite any Constitutional changes/destruction that treatment may bring.
The recent outcry by American muslims for laws protecting against Blasphemy against Islam will not go away rather it will grow and grow. Politicians(those that make laws) will repeatedly seek to appease that outcry! Nobody is fear mongering about that reality nor are we demanding that bad actions be taken against muslim citizens. We are demanding that actions be taken that absolutely forbid any part of Sharia law here in this nation. That the coming problem be recognized and addressed in a preemptive manner!
The first dish is real and the recent demand for Blasphemy laws by American muslims point to how real it was! That you still deny after this recent demand for those special protective laws point to your denial of what is happening here IMHO.
I find your straw man charge to be false and sadly to be a mistake in the current spirit of debate we are having.. --TYR

[aboutime]

Why do you demand ironclad proof of a future event that hasn't happened yet? No 100% proof can be offered in evidence of a future event! Its not easy to describe just as say Nazism wasn't easy to describe or expose of its evil until after the fact of its existence and takeover of Germany. Then after the fact evidence was gathered by our side when victory was won! We do not present a straw man argument (as you charge) when presenting the goals of Islam. Neither is it a deliberate attempt to deceive by citing the evils of that religion and the murdering deeds perform by its followers worldwide with links included!
Your faith in the sanctity of our Constitution and survival ignores the recent erosion of its powers and its validity in Modern America. Surely I agree with that sanctity but I see much to be desired in the area of its protection and survival intact. What you call hyperbole is conclusions based upon recent events and acknowledgement of muslim goals and demands to be treated "special" despite any Constitutional changes/destruction that treatment may bring.
The recent outcry by American muslims for laws protecting against Blasphemy against Islam will not go away rather it will grow and grow. Politicians(those that make laws) will repeatedly seek to appease that outcry! Nobody is fear mongering about that reality nor are we demanding that bad actions be taken against muslim citizens. We are demanding that actions be taken that absolutely forbid any part of Sharia law here in this nation. That the coming problem be recognized and addressed in a preemptive manner!
The first dish is real and the recent demand for Blasphemy laws by American muslims point to how real it was! That you still deny after this recent demand for those special protective laws point to your denial of what is happening here IMHO.
I find your straw man charge to be false and sadly to be a mistake in the current spirit of debate we are having.. --TYR


Tyr. Maybe we should all ask jimnyc to create a new Forum for the SELF-PROCLAIMED EXPERTS IN ALL FIELDS.
Then, everyone who knows everything, about everyone, and all topics around the World could post their SELF-PROCLAIMED findings there for all to see, and argue about till THE COWS COME HOME.

P.S. We could also ask members like Gabby, and Jafar....and of course, our newest member James the Denial-Anarchist for their TWO CENTS as the Moderators who control EACH OTHER only.

[logroller]

Why do you demand ironclad proof of a future event that hasn't happened yet? No 100% proof can be offered in evidence of a future event! Its not easy to describe just as say Nazism wasn't easy to describe or expose of its evil until after the fact of its existence and takeover of Germany. Then after the fact evidence was gathered by our side when victory was won! We do not present a straw man argument (as you charge) when presenting the goals of Islam. Neither is it a deliberate attempt to deceive by citing the evils of that religion and the murdering deeds perform by its followers worldwide with links included!
Your faith in the sanctity of our Constitution and survival ignores the recent erosion of its powers and its validity in Modern America. Surely I agree with that sanctity but I see much to be desired in the area of its protection and survival intact. What you call hyperbole is conclusions based upon recent events and acknowledgement of muslim goals and demands to be treated "special" despite any Constitutional changes/destruction that treatment may bring.
The recent outcry by American muslims for laws protecting against Blasphemy against Islam will not go away rather it will grow and grow. Politicians(those that make laws) will repeatedly seek to appease that outcry! Nobody is fear mongering about that reality nor are we demanding that bad actions be taken against muslim citizens. We are demanding that actions be taken that absolutely forbid any part of Sharia law here in this nation. That the coming problem be recognized and addressed in a preemptive manner!
The first dish is real and the recent demand for Blasphemy laws by American muslims point to how real it was! That you still deny after this recent demand for those special protective laws point to your denial of what is happening here IMHO.
I find your straw man charge to be false and sadly to be a mistake in the current spirit of debate we are having.. --TYR
I'm not demanding 100% proof-- but something either is or isn't. Imagined isn't. A legal ruling which violates the constitution, which is subsequently overturned by appellate courts, isn't a threat to the constitution. A hyperbole is a thing like referencing nazis absent specific references. Its not hard to describe nazism-- its national socialism-- a belief that national interests are superior to the interests of individual persons. Th really kicker is that, by referencing such in the case a hand, you actually subvert your position by insisting that government not recognize religious expression. I understand there is an unlawful component of sharia as well; but by targeting Sharia summarily; it violates the first amendment. If cases make it to be Supreme Court, it could possibly be threat, but the vast majority of legal challenges that have arisen have been those which target sharia law, not that serve it. Why? Because the constitution is quite clear on laws regarding the free expression of religion, and thats a dually edged law-- blasphemy laws are just as violative as anti-sharia laws-- and despite your evidence, sharia compliant rulings aren't on the court docket, anti-sharia laws are. Is and isn't! Are and aren't! Common logic precludes courts from considering laws which aren't-- 'twould be a moot exercise. When and if blasphemy laws are passed, i believe the constitution will prevail. (Which they have) The constitution remains intact and, having endured the challenge and perservering, the constitution has thus been made stronger. I see no evidence, that which is material no invented, that compels myself or government to intervene. It's moot at best.

[jafar00]

^^^^^^ I thought this post a very good example of what we face and why it is a real threat! Only had to research previous replies in this thread to find exhibit A- FOR YOU TO CONSIDER LOG!!

Where is all that nonsense from? The Taliban?

[logroller]

Where is all that nonsense from? The Taliban?
Nonsense eh? Despite your oppositional stance on the issue itself, you and tyr have something in common-- given your views on the nation of Israel, I'd say rejecting foreign laws is right up your alley.

[Drummond]

Where is all that nonsense from? The Taliban?

You refer, of course, to that band of jokers who did all they could to aid Al Qaeda, when playing host to them in Afghanistan .. and, we all know how 'threat-free' the activities of Al Qaeda have been, now, don't we, Jafar ?

Perhaps 9/11 was only a Hollywood film, Jafar, h'mmm ?

And besides, I don't see what your problem is. You're content to support Hamas, a murderous bunch of terrorists, doing their level best to murder Israelis - ANY Israelis - on a very regular basis. So, why not be supportive of the Taliban, who are just another bunch of murderous terrorists ? Each have murder and terror as their speciality, Jafar.

A terrorist is a terrorist. Not exactly the most pacifistic creatures, but then, you - as a self-proclaimed 'pacifist' yourself, nonetheless have found the capacity within you to support terrorists ANYWAY.

Baffling stuff, Jafar, and no doubt in your revisionist way, you'll try to claim that none of them are a threat to anybody.

Oh, and they're not real Muslims, either !!

Is there perhaps any other way you can try to sanitise these practitioners of Islam, Jafar, that I'm not already covering ? Please let me know ...

[jafar00]

You refer, of course, to that band of jokers who did all they could to aid Al Qaeda, when playing host to them in Afghanistan .. and, we all know how 'threat-free' the activities of Al Qaeda have been, now, don't we, Jafar ?

You have no argument from me. I am against the Taliban too. Probably more so than you are bro ;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm not demanding 100% proof-- but something either is or isn't. Imagined isn't. A legal ruling which violates the constitution, which is subsequently overturned by appellate courts, isn't a threat to the constitution. A hyperbole is a thing like referencing nazis absent specific references. Its not hard to describe nazism-- its national socialism-- a belief that national interests are superior to the interests of individual persons. Th really kicker is that, by referencing such in the case a hand, you actually subvert your position by insisting that government not recognize religious expression. I understand there is an unlawful component of sharia as well; but by targeting Sharia summarily; it violates the first amendment. If cases make it to be Supreme Court, it could possibly be threat, but the vast majority of legal challenges that have arisen have been those which target sharia law, not that serve it. Why? Because the constitution is quite clear on laws regarding the free expression of religion, and thats a dually edged law-- blasphemy laws are just as violative as anti-sharia laws-- and despite your evidence, sharia compliant rulings aren't on the court docket, anti-sharia laws are. Is and isn't! Are and aren't! Common logic precludes courts from considering laws which aren't-- 'twould be a moot exercise. When and if blasphemy laws are passed, i believe the constitution will prevail. (Which they have) The constitution remains intact and, having endured the challenge and perservering, the constitution has thus been made stronger. I see no evidence, that which is material no invented, that compels myself or government to intervene. It's moot at best.

You appear to place far too much faith in the SCOTUS. Quite recently we got a good taste of its recent corruption in the obamacare case, where it ruled not a tax to be able to hear the case and then turned around and ruled it was a tax to be able to uphold the law! Does not take a genius or law expert to see the corruption in that and that of Kagan refusing to withdraw from the case! Your faith in SCOTUS protecting the Constitution seems to be an error IMHO. SCOTUS certainly seems to be far more political in rendering its decisions than at any other time in recent history. Far better would be state laws preventing the incursions by the muslims pressuring and gaining politician's support in their bid to birth blasphemy laws!
Our Constitution has been successfully attacked several times before in our history, so your declaration of its absolute sovereignty holds no water my friend. Then there is also the matter of how slowly it acts to overturn bad laws. We must not forget that important fact.
Your faith in it always prevailing is quite admirable but reality and modern politics point to another reality that presents the seriousness of the threats that it faces . And in no way leads credence to its absolute security or protection coming from those sworn by oath to protect it!! Obama being the major player that is so sworn and actually attacks it instead!
No sir, you have not convinced me that doing nothing in way of prevention is a good course.
Consider this, if Sally Ann had considered the value and necessity prevention she wouldn't be saddled with 14 hungry mouths to feed and care for! ;)
Even a small bit of wisdom goes a long, long , long way my friend.--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Where is all that nonsense from? The Taliban?

I believe it was from a previous post made by Jim..did you not see the link?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Nonsense eh? Despite your oppositional stance on the issue itself, you and tyr have something in common-- given your views on the nation of Israel, I'd say rejecting foreign laws is right up your alley.

Care to share what Jafar and I have in common on the nation of Israel!!?? I VERY strongly support Israel and he wishes it destroyed, we couldn't be farther apart IMHO.-Tyr

[Kathianne]

You appear to place far too much faith in the SCOTUS. Quite recently we got a good taste of its recent corruption in the obamacare case, where it ruled not a tax to be able to hear the case and then turned around and ruled it was a tax to be able to uphold the law! Does not take a genius or law expert to see the corruption in that and that of Kagan refusing to withdraw from the case! Your faith in SCOTUS protecting the Constitution seems to be an error IMHO. SCOTUS certainly seems to be far more political in rendering its decisions than at any other time in recent history. Far better would be state laws preventing the incursions by the muslims pressuring and gaining politician's support in their bid to birth blasphemy laws!
Our Constitution has been successfully attacked several times before in our history, so your declaration of its absolute sovereignty holds no water my friend. Then there is also the matter of how slowly it acts to overturn bad laws. We must not forget that important fact.
Your faith in it always prevailing is quite admirable but reality and modern politics point to another reality that presents the seriousness of the threats that it faces . And in no way leads credence to its absolute security or protection coming from those sworn by oath to protect it!! Obama being the major player that is so sworn and actually attacks it instead!
No sir, you have not convinced me that doing nothing in way of prevention is a good course.
Consider this, if Sally Ann had considered the value and necessity prevention she wouldn't be saddled with 14 hungry mouths to feed and care for! ;)
Even a small bit of wisdom goes a long, long , long way my friend.--Tyr

I'm going to try to add some clarity here, but most likely will fail on facts. The good thing about that, there are plenty to correct my errors.

When Obamacare was proposed and then shoved down the throats of Americans, passed by the slimmest of votes, with at least one of them being a willing dupe; the conservatives claimed that this was a TAX on those choosing to opt out. The administration stressed over and over again that it wasn't a tax, including court cases.

It was Roberts that managed in some mental gymnastics to overcome the arguments presented to SCOTUS from the Justice Department that it was indeed a tax.

That he did so after not so veiled threats by the President, left many to wonder. Now here we are, with a press that suddenly is choosing to highlight the very serious problems found in the UK system, which it seems Obamacare was somewhat modeled after.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm going to try to add some clarity here, but most likely will fail on facts. The good thing about that, there are plenty to correct my errors.

When Obamacare was proposed and then shoved down the throats of Americans, passed by the slimmest of votes, with at least one of them being a willing dupe; the conservatives claimed that this was a TAX on those choosing to opt out. The administration stressed over and over again that it wasn't a tax, including court cases.

It was Roberts that managed in some mental gymnastics to overcome the arguments presented to SCOTUS from the Justice Department that it was indeed a tax.

That he did so after not so veiled threats by the President, left many to wonder. Now here we are, with a press that suddenly is choosing to highlight the very serious problems found in the UK system, which it seems Obamacare was somewhat modeled after.

"not so veiled threats" is putting it mildly.. Of course your points and observations are dead on.. ---Tyr

[logroller]

You appear to place far too much faith in the SCOTUS. Quite recently we got a good taste of its recent corruption in the obamacare case, where it ruled not a tax to be able to hear the case and then turned around and ruled it was a tax to be able to uphold the law! Does not take a genius or law expert to see the corruption in that and that of Kagan refusing to withdraw from the case! Your faith in SCOTUS protecting the Constitution seems to be an error IMHO. SCOTUS certainly seems to be far more political in rendering its decisions than at any other time in recent history. Far better would be state laws preventing the incursions by the muslims pressuring and gaining politician's support in their bid to birth blasphemy laws!
Our Constitution has been successfully attacked several times before in our history, so your declaration of its absolute sovereignty holds no water my friend. Then there is also the matter of how slowly it acts to overturn bad laws. We must not forget that important fact.
Your faith in it always prevailing is quite admirable but reality and modern politics point to another reality that presents the seriousness of the threats that it faces . And in no way leads credence to its absolute security or protection coming from those sworn by oath to protect it!! Obama being the major player that is so sworn and actually attacks it instead!
No sir, you have not convinced me that doing nothing in way of prevention is a good course.
Consider this, if Sally Ann had considered the value and necessity prevention she wouldn't be saddled with 14 hungry mouths to feed and care for! ;)
Even a small bit of wisdom goes a long, long , long way my friend.--Tyr
I think you put too much responsibility on SCOTUS. They're just one branch. Holding them to account for what Congress and the President do is misguided. As to the affirmative care act ruling, I fail see the relevance to the issue of sharia law. That they are slow to act is by design; yet in the ACA ruling, by agreeing to rule upon case, I believe you have taken issue with the not-a-tax issue that enable them to rule upon it, and in the same breath you complain they're slow to act. but that case has no merit in this discussion, so i digreess. I've already made mention of a blasphemy law which was overturned-- Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952)-- the precedent, therefore, is that SCOTUS has applied the constitution correctly. A little bit of wisdom combined with emotional pleas is likely to go too far IMO. Consider this, those hungry mouths are likely fed with public monies.

[red states rule]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/kaduna-church-bombing.jpg
<tbody>
To no one's surprise, the Religion of Peace racked up 11,267
dead bodies in 2,459 barbaric (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/15-killed-sect-attack-north-nigeria-18088971) terror attacks during 2012.
The Nigerian child pictured above was in the wrong
place at the wrong time... church on a Sunday morning.








Islam's Latest Contributions to Peace
"Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are harsh
to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" Quran 48:29

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

<tbody>
2013.01.01 (Swabi, Pakistan) - Six women are among seven humanitarian workers brutally machine-gunned by Mujahideen.


2012.12.31 (Bakarabad, Pakistan) - One civilian is killed when religious hardliners blow a girls' school.


2012.12.31 (Musayyib, Iraq) - Four women and children are among seven innocents slain in their homes by the Islamic Army of Iraq.


2012.12.31 (Karrada, Iraq) - Sunnis set off a bomb next to a group of Shi pilgrims, killing five.


2012.12.31 (Ras al-Ayn, Syria) - A pregnant Christian woman is left widowed after her husband is beheaded Islamic radicals and fed to dogs.


2012.12.30 (Ittehad Chowk, Pakistan) - Gunmen fire at two Christian brothers in a targeted attack. One later dies of injuries.

</tbody>


</tbody>

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I think you put too much responsibility on SCOTUS. They're just one branch. Holding them to account for what Congress and the President do is misguided. As to the affirmative care act ruling, I fail see the relevance to the issue of sharia law. That they are slow to act is by design; yet in the ACA ruling, by agreeing to rule upon case, I believe you have taken issue with the not-a-tax issue that enable them to rule upon it, and in the same breath you complain they're slow to act. but that case has no merit in this discussion, so i digreess. I've already made mention of a blasphemy law which was overturned-- Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952)-- the precedent, therefore, is that SCOTUS has applied the constitution correctly. A little bit of wisdom combined with emotional pleas is likely to go too far IMO. Consider this, those hungry mouths are likely fed with public monies.

In my example and complaint I only held SCOTUS responsible for what THEY DID! The relevance is that you declared that the Constitution would be obeyed ,upheld and therefore my demanded preventative laws were not needed.. Well, SCOTUS is charged with that task as well as is the President by oath. They both take an oath to obey and protect the Constitution.
You miss the point my friend, in the Healthcare bill case I didn't complain at all about the speed or lack of speed in hearing the case , complain about the corruption instead! The same group that ruled it a not tax later ruled it to be a tax so as to be able to rule to allow the law to stand!! AS I PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT IT DOESN'T TAKE A GENIUS OR A LAW EXPERT TO SE THE OBVIOUS CORRUPTION IN THAT. MY POINT BEING THAT IF CORRUPTION ALLOWED THAT GREAT MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE DUE TO POLITICAL PRESSURED APPLIED THEN HOW SECURE IS THE CONSTITUTION? Especially when we have both the President seeking its demise and no security that SCOTUS and Constitutionally justified manner to uphold the document.
Again , I come back to the question of why not pass laws to further protect the Constitution from the threat of Sharia law gaining a FOOTHOLD HERE!!??? Why not make an attempt at prevention??

Also the fact that government monies feed and support the 14 kids is a big part of the problem our nation faces today. First it has bred a huge group of people living and dying firmly fixed at the government feed bucket!! Then there is the matter of the drain on those that actually do work to supply the taxes to support this government vote buying scheme. The costs to we that actually work have went through the roof because the dem party and other jackals find it convenient to tax us to buy the votes of lazy bastards that refuse to work!
That is the reality of it and the truth of it too. Sally Ann wants no prevention because the kids insure her living without having to work. Thus she for her own selfish reasons thinks--prevention -- is stupid and shuns it.
Why do you????? -Tyr

[Marcus Aurelius]

Where is all that nonsense from? The Taliban?

you must have missed this part, dumb ass...


These examples from Wiki, along with proof via citations... These are not things coming from the Quran or from the Hadith, but rather Shariah. What is a crime will vary depending on which Islamic country you are in and then further down to what areas of the country you are in, and whether or not they are even ruling based on Shariah law. But if they are, "The penalties for blasphemy can include fines, imprisonment, flogging, amputation, hanging, or beheading."

You claim to support Shariah. These things are directly from Shariah.

Spin that, dumb ass.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

In my example and complaint I only held SCOTUS responsible for what THEY DID! The relevance is that you declared that the Constitution would be obeyed ,upheld and therefore my demanded preventative laws were not needed.. Well, SCOTUS is charged with that task as well as is the President by oath. They both take an oath to obey and protect the Constitution.
You miss the point my friend, in the Healthcare bill case I didn't complain at all about the speed or lack of speed in hearing the case , complain about the corruption instead! The same group that ruled it a not tax later ruled it to be a tax so as to be able to rule to allow the law to stand!! AS I PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT IT DOESN'T TAKE A GENIUS OR A LAW EXPERT TO SE THE OBVIOUS CORRUPTION IN THAT. MY POINT BEING THAT IF CORRUPTION ALLOWED THAT GREAT MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE DUE TO POLITICAL PRESSURED APPLIED THEN HOW SECURE IS THE CONSTITUTION? Especially when we have both the President seeking its demise and no security that SCOTUS and Constitutionally justified manner to uphold the document.
Again , I come back to the question of why not pass laws to further protect the Constitution from the threat of Sharia law gaining a FOOTHOLD HERE!!??? Why not make an attempt at prevention??

Also the fact that government monies feed and support the 14 kids is a big part of the problem our nation faces today. First it has bred a huge group of people living and dying firmly fixed at the government feed bucket!! Then there is the matter of the drain on those that actually do work to supply the taxes to support this government vote buying scheme. The costs to we that actually work have went through the roof because the dem party and other jackals find it convenient to tax us to buy the votes of lazy bastards that refuse to work!
That is the reality of it and the truth of it too. Sally Ann wants no prevention because the kids insure her living without having to work. Thus she for her own selfish reasons thinks--prevention -- is stupid and shuns it.
Why do you????? -Tyr

I was interrupted by phone call during my composing this post. I forgot to add in this as I intended to do when replying. In addition to Kagan's lack of integrity or ethical standards and Roberts complete dishonor we have Ginsberg and her open contempt for the Constitution . In her own words , this maggot that was appointed to to serve , to rule on our Constitution says this--her words the worthless biatch!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model/



Ginsburg to Egyptians: I wouldn't use U.S. Constitution as a model

Published February 06, 2012
FoxNews.com



http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/World/660/371/Ginsburg.jpg
Feb. 1, 2012: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is seen in Cairo, Egypt meeting with lawyers, judges, academics and students in two North African countries in which popular uprisings toppled longtime leaders last year. (AP/U.S. EMBASSY EGYPT)

As Egyptian officials prepare to send to trial 19 American democracy and rights workers, Supreme Court (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/supreme-court.htm#r_src=ramp) Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg.htm#r_src=ramp) visited Cairo last week where she suggested Egyptian revolutionaries not use the U.S. Constitution as a model in the post-Arab Spring.
"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vzog2QWiVaA)http://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png last Wednesday. "I might look at the constitution of South Africa (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/south-africa.htm#r_src=ramp). That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done."
As Egypt prepares to write a new constitution, Ginsburg, who was traveling during the court's break to speak with legislators and judges in Egypt as well as Tunisia, spoke to students at Cairo University, encouraging them to enjoy the opportunity to participate in the "exceptional transitional period to a real democratic state."

Read more:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model/#ixzz2GrlAgVSo

She advises not to use the greatest governing document ever written by man (OUR CONSTITUTION)! The document that insures the greatest amount of freedom! That's the view of this leftist piece of human scum! This third Justice sworn by oath to protect our Constitution!
And you place such high faith in our Constitution being protected by these three GD WORTHLESS FFING MAGGOTS!! And Obama being the fourth lying piece of scum traitor that hates out Constitution!!! You have faith in these totally dishonorable and corrupted maggots!!!
I DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!

[logroller]

I was interrupted by phone call during my composing this post. I forgot to add in this as I intended to do when replying. In addition to Kagan's lack of integrity or ethical standards and Roberts complete dishonor we have Ginsberg and her open contempt for the Constitution . In her own words , this maggot that was appointed to to serve , to rule on our Constitution says this--her words the worthless biatch!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model/



Ginsburg to Egyptians: I wouldn't use U.S. Constitution as a model

Published February 06, 2012
FoxNews.com



http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/World/660/371/Ginsburg.jpg
Feb. 1, 2012: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is seen in Cairo, Egypt meeting with lawyers, judges, academics and students in two North African countries in which popular uprisings toppled longtime leaders last year. (AP/U.S. EMBASSY EGYPT)

As Egyptian officials prepare to send to trial 19 American democracy and rights workers, Supreme Court (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/supreme-court.htm#r_src=ramp) Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg.htm#r_src=ramp) visited Cairo last week where she suggested Egyptian revolutionaries not use the U.S. Constitution as a model in the post-Arab Spring.
"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vzog2QWiVaA)http://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png last Wednesday. "I might look at the constitution of South Africa (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/south-africa.htm#r_src=ramp). That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done."
As Egypt prepares to write a new constitution, Ginsburg, who was traveling during the court's break to speak with legislators and judges in Egypt as well as Tunisia, spoke to students at Cairo University, encouraging them to enjoy the opportunity to participate in the "exceptional transitional period to a real democratic state."

Read more:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model/#ixzz2GrlAgVSo

She advises not to use the greatest governing document ever written by man (OUR CONSTITUTION)! The document that insures the greatest amount of freedom! That's the view of this leftist piece of human scum! This third Justice sworn by oath to protect our Constitution!
And you place such high faith in our Constitution being protected by these three GD WORTHLESS FFING MAGGOTS!! And Obama being the fourth lying piece of scum traitor that hates out Constitution!!! You have faith in these totally dishonorable and corrupted maggots!!!
I DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to work on your anger management. I understand that you're scared, but Our nation has survived on that faith you feel such disdain for-- not because of words on paper. That faith exists because most people aren't capable of fully understanding the bounded rationality of liberty. Thats why its faith. Faith that freedom will persevere over tyranny. You claim to support the constitution, as its written- yet this entire thread has been predicated upon your lack of acknowledging the first amendment-- the first freedom codified, still unchanged and even more broadly practiced today than Ever-- you know why-- freedom! i don't know what else to say, other than enjoy the violins-- For your premise fails to muster constitutional support by any measure.save your rants for someone who can't see your argument for what it is-- devoid of legal reasoning.
You think the constitution was written without consulting a plethora of other sources? Like the magna carta, english common law, the athenian constitution, just to name a few. It is a product of all that came before it. Just look at how many changes have been made to it; How many laws have been passed, then Fail. social security is a crap law; but it endures. PPACA= crap law. The justices all but said the law was crap;constitutional, but crap-- yielded to the fact that congress made it crap, but remember the constitution conveys to congress the authority of making law, indifferent to it being good or bad, and it is upon them to find relief. That's our constitutional model tyr. Congress as an institution is failing; thus, our country is suffering. You talk all about corruption in American government yet think that the document which created this government is exempt from culpability-- it baffles the mind. Do you believe that the founding fathers would pass the same constitution today as they did 1790? I don't. That's not because I lack faith in the constitution; any more than the founders lacked faith in articles of confederation-- or the constitution pre-BoR-- it's that with the benefits provided by experience and reflection, greater things can be created. I don't believe that trampling the first amendment would be for the greater. And by condemning a person as a traitor for speaking their mind, you've done just that.

[Gaffer]

You need to work on your anger management. I understand that you're scared, but Our nation has survived on that faith you feel such disdain for-- not because of words on paper. That faith exists because most people aren't capable of fully understanding the bounded rationality of liberty. Thats why its faith. Faith that freedom will persevere over tyranny. You claim to support the constitution, as its written- yet this entire thread has been predicated upon your lack of acknowledging the first amendment-- the first freedom codified, still unchanged and even more broadly practiced today than Ever-- you know why-- freedom! i don't know what else to say, other than enjoy the violins-- For your premise fails to muster constitutional support by any measure.save your rants for someone who can't see your argument for what it is-- devoid of legal reasoning.
You think the constitution was written without consulting a plethora of other sources? Like the magna carta, english common law, the athenian constitution, just to name a few. It is a product of all that came before it. Just look at how many changes have been made to it; How many laws have been passed, then Fail. social security is a crap law; but it endures. PPACA= crap law. The justices all but said the law was crap;constitutional, but crap-- yielded to the fact that congress made it crap, but remember the constitution conveys to congress the authority of making law, indifferent to it being good or bad, and it is upon them to find relief. That's our constitutional model tyr. Congress as an institution is failing; thus, our country is suffering. You talk all about corruption in American government yet think that the document which created this government is exempt from culpability-- it baffles the mind. Do you believe that the founding fathers would pass the same constitution today as they did 1790? I don't. That's not because I lack faith in the constitution; any more than the founders lacked faith in articles of confederation-- or the constitution pre-BoR-- it's that with the benefits provided by experience and reflection, greater things can be created. I don't believe that trampling the first amendment would be for the greater. And by condemning a person as a traitor for speaking their mind, you've done just that.

I have no faith in a bunch of egotistic lawyers. Everyone of them is politically motivated and agenda driven. Faith does not change reality. It's simply hoping and wishing. The magic nine are there to rubber stamp the laws coming out of congress and the executive office. They stopped being a check on govt many years ago.

SCOTUS appointments are nothing more than rewards for working to get the party into power and seeing that it stays there. You can have faith that they will do what's right for the party over the Constitution every time.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You need to work on your anger management. I understand that you're scared, but Our nation has survived on that faith you feel such disdain for-- not because of words on paper. That faith exists because most people aren't capable of fully understanding the bounded rationality of liberty. Thats why its faith. Faith that freedom will persevere over tyranny. You claim to support the constitution, as its written- yet this entire thread has been predicated upon your lack of acknowledging the first amendment-- the first freedom codified, still unchanged and even more broadly practiced today than Ever-- you know why-- freedom! i don't know what else to say, other than enjoy the violins-- For your premise fails to muster constitutional support by any measure.save your rants for someone who can't see your argument for what it is-- devoid of legal reasoning.
You think the constitution was written without consulting a plethora of other sources? Like the magna carta, english common law, the athenian constitution, just to name a few. It is a product of all that came before it. Just look at how many changes have been made to it; How many laws have been passed, then Fail. social security is a crap law; but it endures. PPACA= crap law. The justices all but said the law was crap;constitutional, but crap-- yielded to the fact that congress made it crap, but remember the constitution conveys to congress the authority of making law, indifferent to it being good or bad, and it is upon them to find relief. That's our constitutional model tyr. Congress as an institution is failing; thus, our country is suffering. You talk all about corruption in American government yet think that the document which created this government is exempt from culpability-- it baffles the mind. Do you believe that the founding fathers would pass the same constitution today as they did 1790? I don't. That's not because I lack faith in the constitution; any more than the founders lacked faith in articles of confederation-- or the constitution pre-BoR-- it's that with the benefits provided by experience and reflection, greater things can be created. I don't believe that trampling the first amendment would be for the greater. And by condemning a person as a traitor for speaking their mind, you've done just that.

No where will you find my accusation of treason being put forth because somebody simply spoke their mind!
I list what they actually did, what action they took that was treasonous. The Justices that I named I listed far more than their presented words and I find it insulting that you accuse me of only charging against words spoken! I listed far more than words spoken when I charged obama with his treason. That you attempt to belittle me by making that false charge is ridiculous. You are free to defend them of charges I make but not by attempting to falsely present my accusations against them. All charged did deeds(actual votes etc.) worthy and my charges of their true characters were more than based merely upon their words spoken!
Intentional or not you have clearly just leveled a false charge against me, one that my previous posts can easily refute. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I have no faith in a bunch of egotistic lawyers. Everyone of them is politically motivated and agenda driven. Faith does not change reality. It's simply hoping and wishing. The magic nine are there to rubber stamp the laws coming out of congress and the executive office. They stopped being a check on govt many years ago.

SCOTUS appointments are nothing more than rewards for working to get the party into power and seeing that it stays there. You can have faith that they will do what's right for the party over the Constitution every time.
Thank you, dead money on that.. So damn true that it hurts..
Log is under the sillyand false impression that I'm scared!!!! When I am pissed as hell people need to look out because there isn't a scared bone in my body ,especially when I am so damn pissed at what is being done to my country by these scum , maggots and traitors!!. -Tyr

[logroller]

No where will you find my accusation of treason being put forth because somebody simply spoke their mind!
I list what they actually did, what action they took that was treasonous. The Justices that I named I listed far more than their presented words and I find it insulting that you accuse me of only charging against words spoken! I listed far more than words spoken when I charged obama with his treason. That you attempt to belittle me by making that false charge is ridiculous. You are free to defend them of charges I make but not by attempting to falsely present my accusations against them. All charged did deeds(actual votes etc.) worthy and my charges of their true characters were more than based merely upon their words spoken!
Intentional or not you have clearly just leveled a false charge against me, one that my previous posts can easily refute. -Tyr


So now voting is treasonous too? Either you have no idea what constitutes treason or there is truly no end to your distaste for Constitutional rights. Here's a brief--treason is attempting to overthrow the government, levying war against it, aiding those who do etc. --participation in non-violent political processes is not treason--never has been, in the US anyways-- you do realize the historical context of Our Nation's founding which sought relief from such tyranny, don't you?
You repeatedly demonstrate your lack of understanding of federal balance of power-- by doing so, you actually contribute to the problem of unchecked government. Youre not the only one either, Too many have taken to calling PPACA "Obamacare", shifting the attention away from whom the law originates and, likewise, the remedy lies: Congress. It's right there in the Constitution, Article I, All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, including the power to tax. Read the PPACA ruling, it's quite clear that the redy is a political one, not judicial. And don give me this tax, not a tax jibber jabber-- it's clearly beyond your understanding. Get the first amendment and treason laws straight, and then, possibly, we can discuss legislative intent and judicial restraint. But I can't very well debate policy when you lack the willingness and/or ability to comprehend the words (which have defined meanings) contained in codified law. Relying merely on rhetoric and smoke and mirrors strawman arguments is getting tiresome. And your anger is a fight response to your ignorant fears IMO. You belittle yourself with your prideful ignorance-- I merely point it out.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So now voting is treasonous too? Either you have no idea what constitutes treason or there is truly no end to your distaste for Constitutional rights. Here's a brief--treason is attempting to overthrow the government, levying war against it, aiding those who do etc. --participation in non-violent political processes is not treason--never has been, in the US anyways-- you do realize the historical context of Our Nation's founding which sought relief from such tyranny, don't you?
You repeatedly demonstrate your lack of understanding of federal balance of power-- by doing so, you actually contribute to the problem of unchecked government. Youre not the only one either, Too many have taken to calling PPACA "Obamacare", shifting the attention away from whom the law originates and, likewise, the remedy lies: Congress. It's right there in the Constitution, Article I, All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, including the power to tax. Read the PPACA ruling, it's quite clear that the redy is a political one, not judicial. And don give me this tax, not a tax jibber jabber-- it's clearly beyond your understanding. Get the first amendment and treason laws straight, and then, possibly, we can discuss legislative intent and judicial restraint. But I can't very well debate policy when you lack the willingness and/or ability to comprehend the words (which have defined meanings) contained in codified law. Relying merely on rhetoric and smoke and mirrors strawman arguments is getting tiresome. And your anger is a fight response to your ignorant fears IMO. You belittle yourself with your prideful ignorance-- I merely point it out.

All that as you blather on completely ignoring that deliberately breaking their oath of office to obey and protect the Constitution when a elected Federal official is treason. Certainly for the President , SCOTUS Justices , CONGRESS CRITTERS and Cabinet heads!! Breaking that oath with deliberate intent to harm and endanger the nation or to aid others in its destruction qualifies. That you refuse to admit that speaks volumes. As does your need to speak of my so-called ignorance! Ok , Hoss no need for me to play nice any longer. Just remember you started the insults first not me. I ignored the first volley but not the second one. I never ignore the second volley or the first hit.
Seems to me we have had this kind of tango at least three times before and in all three instances you resorted to insults first.
You join a few others here in this concept that no treason exists anymore in this nation. That all may be excused as merely expressing one's opinion or doing one's duty.
Well, Hoss deliberately breaking their sworn oath to obey and defend our Constitution qualifies despite your cries that it does not. There is the Rule of Law, the Letter of the Law and the Spirit of the Law. SOMEHOW YOU DISMISS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW AND BREAKING OF SWORN OATHS BY OUR NATION'S TOP OFFICIALS AS NOT BEING TREASONOUS ACTIONS! If that is not treason then nothing qualifies , which is what you and another member here actually seem to promote IMHO. --Tyr

[aboutime]

So now voting is treasonous too? Either you have no idea what constitutes treason or there is truly no end to your distaste for Constitutional rights. Here's a brief--treason is attempting to overthrow the government, levying war against it, aiding those who do etc. --participation in non-violent political processes is not treason--never has been, in the US anyways-- you do realize the historical context of Our Nation's founding which sought relief from such tyranny, don't you?
You repeatedly demonstrate your lack of understanding of federal balance of power-- by doing so, you actually contribute to the problem of unchecked government. Youre not the only one either, Too many have taken to calling PPACA "Obamacare", shifting the attention away from whom the law originates and, likewise, the remedy lies: Congress. It's right there in the Constitution, Article I, All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, including the power to tax. Read the PPACA ruling, it's quite clear that the redy is a political one, not judicial. And don give me this tax, not a tax jibber jabber-- it's clearly beyond your understanding. Get the first amendment and treason laws straight, and then, possibly, we can discuss legislative intent and judicial restraint. But I can't very well debate policy when you lack the willingness and/or ability to comprehend the words (which have defined meanings) contained in codified law. Relying merely on rhetoric and smoke and mirrors strawman arguments is getting tiresome. And your anger is a fight response to your ignorant fears IMO. You belittle yourself with your prideful ignorance-- I merely point it out.


Logroller. At the very least. Obama and company are dead set on the overthrow of this government, and the intent is to have HIM or someone else be in charge, while ignoring the constitution until it can be proven....to the Ill-educated, dependents of government..that it hurts them in getting what they want....without working for it.
Obama and the Democrats even admit...they prefer Communism, and Socialism over Capitalism.
Anyone who doesn't understand that. WILL FOREVER BECOME A SLAVE to someone smarter than they are.

That is what some would call THE SPOILS OF TREASON.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Logroller. At the very least. Obama and company are dead set on the overthrow of this government, and the intent is to have HIM or someone else be in charge, while ignoring the constitution until it can be proven....to the Ill-educated, dependents of government..that it hurts them in getting what they want....without working for it.
Obama and the Democrats even admit...they prefer Communism, and Socialism over Capitalism.
Anyone who doesn't understand that. WILL FOREVER BECOME A SLAVE to someone smarter than they are.

That is what some would call THE SPOILS OF TREASON.

Some here would declare nothing done to destroy our Constitutional based Representative Republic is treason. They already declare that the President deliberately breaking his oath of office is not , his attacks upon the document that he is sworn by oath to defend is not etc.! Then instead of acknowledging his deliberate and repeated breaking of that oath may be treason they flat out declare it is not! Its a bit like saying THAT THE PRESIDENT OF A BANK CAN NOT STEAL FROM THE BANK BECAUSE HE OWNS ALL THE MONEY IN IT!!
Then instead of admitting he does wrong they demand that I actually try to case here as if I AM A LAWYER AND THIS IS A COURT OF LAW!! --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

All that as you blather on completely ignoring that deliberately breaking their oath of office to obey and protect the Constitution when a elected Federal official is treason. Certainly for the President , SCOTUS Justices , CONGRESS CRITTERS and Cabinet heads!! Breaking that oath with deliberate intent to harm and endanger the nation or to aid others in its destruction qualifies. That you refuse to admit that speaks volumes. As does your need to speak of my so-called ignorance! Ok , Hoss no need for me to play nice any longer. Just remember you started the insults first not me. I ignored the first volley but not the second one. I never ignore the second volley or the first hit.
Seems to me we have had this kind of tango at least three times before and in all three instances you resorted to insults first.
You join a few others here in this concept that no treason exists anymore in this nation. That all may be excused as merely expressing one's opinion or doing one's duty.
Well, Hoss deliberately breaking their sworn oath to obey and defend our Constitution qualifies despite your cries that it does not. There is the Rule of Law, the Letter of the Law and the Spirit of the Law. SOMEHOW YOU DISMISS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW AND BREAKING OF SWORN OATHS BY OUR NATION'S TOP OFFICIALS AS NOT BEING TREASONOUS ACTIONS! If that is not treason then nothing qualifies , which is what you and another member here actually seem to promote IMHO. --Tyr

Additionally, I'd like to add this...

Apparently you missed the point, purposely most likely, a reasonable assumption on my part. You equate our freedoms with material abundance supplied by the government when that was not anywhere near what I presented.. You're playing the game you've been taught to play but you'll eventually realize how serious the game is and know that politics as usual will not suffice. All men are created for freedom, as long as they do not cause harm to other people or their property then they should be able to live their lives in peace. That means minimal government interference in their lives, free from coercion, extortion, involuntary servitude, etc., etc., no slavery or unnecessary forced taxation in the name of the fictional "greater good".
We must endure government for the security it is supposed to provide for us! When it branches out from that design it becomes more than just a nuisance to be tolerated, it becomes a force to be defeated. As the more powerful opposition it has the wealth and the military at its disposal. We the people only have our unity and freedom to die fighting to preserve our freedom should we choose to remain free!!

If you want to take from me to give to another then you're definitely not familiar with the true concept of liberty. If you support government taking from me to give to others you are not adequately familiar with the concept of liberty..
Jefferson said "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” Who do you think Jefferson was talking about when he said "they"? Was he referring to the British? No, Jefferson was referring to our own government.

The Constitution can be easily understood by the slowest of men and women. It needs no group of special interpreters or some intellectual elite to tell us what it means. It is not an enigma or a mystery, it is clear in its meaning. Anyone that tells you otherwise is a liar and wants to keep you on your knees AND BEGGING FOR ALMS..
Our government was created to be very limited in its powers because the founders understood what government really was; brute force. Why would any sane group of free, sovereign people allow something they created together rule over them!? How can the creation tell the creator what to do? Our forefathers knew this principle well and did what they could to slow down what they knew we would eventually face, a Tyrannical government.

Rethink your position and you may find that our government has actually became one of our enemies, perhaps even the greatest one
That is our current government and those in power that refuse to recognise the authority of our Constitution.. We have those people now subverting and destroying and if we do not take a stand soon we shall lose this nation as it was founded! --Tyr

[logroller]

All that as you blather on completely ignoring that deliberately breaking their oath of office to obey and protect the Constitution when a elected Federal official is treason. Certainly for the President , SCOTUS Justices , CONGRESS CRITTERS and Cabinet heads!! Breaking that oath with deliberate intent to harm and endanger the nation or to aid others in its destruction qualifies. That you refuse to admit that speaks volumes. As does your need to speak of my so-called ignorance! Ok , Hoss no need for me to play nice any longer. Just remember you started the insults first not me. I ignored the first volley but not the second one. I never ignore the second volley or the first hit.
Seems to me we have had this kind of tango at least three times before and in all three instances you resorted to insults first.
You join a few others here in this concept that no treason exists anymore in this nation. That all may be excused as merely expressing one's opinion or doing one's duty.
Well, Hoss deliberately breaking their sworn oath to obey and defend our Constitution qualifies despite your cries that it does not. There is the Rule of Law, the Letter of the Law and the Spirit of the Law. SOMEHOW YOU DISMISS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW AND BREAKING OF SWORN OATHS BY OUR NATION'S TOP OFFICIALS AS NOT BEING TREASONOUS ACTIONS! If that is not treason then nothing qualifies , which is what you and another member here actually seem to promote IMHO. --Tyr

Thats not treason. I've shown you the actual code of law and that doesn't qualif-- not by any stretch of law, in spirit or otherwise. The spirit of treason is any attempt to overthrow the government. That you attempt to expand what is a very specific act to encompass such is a very liberal thing to do. If the law doesn't fit, pervert it. Looks like you've become the monster Nietzche warned us about.

[logroller]

Additionally, I'd like to add this...

Rethink your position and you may find that our government has actually became one of our enemies, perhaps even the greatest one
That is our current government and those in power that refuse to recognise the authority of our Constitution.. We have those people now subverting and destroying and if we do not take a stand soon we shall lose this nation as it was founded! --Tyr

If government is my enemy and I take I actions against, then I am traitor. That's just fact tyr. There are laws in place to restrict government authority; see: US Constitution; undermining the first amendment to attack sharia does not restrict government nor sustain liberty. You're a close-minded fool to assert otherwise.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Thats not treason. I've shown you the actual code of law and that doesn't qualif-- not by any stretch of law, in spirit or otherwise. The spirit of treason is any attempt to overthrow the government. That you attempt to expand what is a very specific act to encompass such is a very liberal thing to do. If the law doesn't fit, pervert it. Looks like you've become the monster Nietzche warned us about.

That's the spirit, ignore my post number 429. And obama's agenda most certainly does qualifies as treason if its subverting the Constitution and endangering the nation!
I'm a monster according to you because I say impeach obama and give him a day in court to be proven either guilty or innocent of treason!!!?????
Really, what kind of monster is that which demands justice by way of our court system!??--Tyr

[aboutime]

That's the spirit, ignore my post number 429. And obama's agenda most certainly does qualifies as treason if its subverting the Constitution and endangering the nation!
I'm a monster according to you because I say impeach obama and give him a day in court to be proven either guilty or innocent of treason!!!?????
Really, what kind of monster is that which demands justice by way of our court system!??--Tyr


Tyr. Let them cry. Instead of using TREASON. Let's just remember Obama keeps coming closer to IMPEACHABLE charges with every day that passes, and he IGNORES his Sworn Oath of Office.

[logroller]

That's the spirit, ignore my post number 429. And obama's agenda most certainly does qualifies as treason if its subverting the Constitution and endangering the nation!
I'm a monster according to you because I say impeach obama and give him a day in court to be proven either guilty or innocent of treason!!!?????
Really, what kind of monster is that which demands justice by way of our court system!??--Tyr
i called your ignorant of law; not a monster.
he'll be found innocent of treason. Then he'll have even more wind in his sails. Just like putting everything into fighting the affordable care act through courts did and just how passing anti-sharia laws will fail. Great plan :rolleyes: you're playing right into the enemies' hands; I'm not so keen on your plan of giving more clout to Obama and those imposing upon our freedoms. But hey, go ahead; that way you can say, "see-- I told ya!" Of course we'll be worse off; but your self-fulfilling prophecy will be intact. You really are an egomaniac; not surprising you're ignorant of that as well.

[logroller]

Tyr. Let them cry. Instead of using TREASON. Let's just remember Obama keeps coming closer to IMPEACHABLE charges with every day that passes, and he IGNORES his Sworn Oath of Office.
There you go. Pursue impeachable charges, I'm all for it!!!
but Tyr is the one Crying treason; not I.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

i called your ignorant of law; not a monster.
he'll be found innocent of treason. Then he'll have even more wind in his sails. Just like putting everything into fighting the affordable care act through courts did and just how passing anti-sharia laws will fail. Great plan :rolleyes: you're playing right into the enemies' hands; I'm not so keen on your plan of giving more clout to Obama and those imposing upon our freedoms. But hey, go ahead; that way you can say, "see-- I told ya!" Of course we'll be worse off; but your self-fulfilling prophecy will be intact. You really are an egomaniac; not surprising you're ignorant of that as well.

Not a monster eh? you say you did not say monster!



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by logroller http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=606427#post606427)
Thats not treason. I've shown you the actual code of law and that doesn't qualif-- not by any stretch of law, in spirit or otherwise. The spirit of treason is any attempt to overthrow the government. That you attempt to expand what is a very specific act to encompass such is a very liberal thing to do. If the law doesn't fit, pervert it. Looks like you've become the monster Nietzche warned us about.



^^^^^ Really!!??--tyr
-----------------------------------
your memory really this bad.. ??

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

By the way , you call for inaction, for no attempts at prevention! . Same as the call that delayed our preparation and entry into WW2.
Now with the benefit of history we see how that almost cost us the victory!!
I learn from history, YOU DO NOT!!!!
AND YOU DARE CALL ME THE IGNORANT ONE.... --Tyr

[logroller]

S
Not a monster eh? you say you did not say monster!
Monster it is then.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

S
Monster it is then.

Now look who is creating mythical monsters!!!! :laugh2:
Have at it my friend.
I've called for a day in court for the man that I accused. If that qualifies as a "monster", you have standards that can include all that believe in the Rule of Law and our Constitution . Just how many monsters do you see amigo??????????
Yet you call me ignorant.... :laugh:--Tyr

[logroller]

By the way , you call for inaction, for no attempts at prevention! . Same as the call that delayed our preparation and entry into WW2.
Now with the benefit of history we see how that almost cost us the victory!!
I learn from history, YOU DO NOT!!!!
AND YOU DARE CALL ME THE IGNORANT ONE.... --Tyr
for the record-- we won WWII -- so how bout you leave the Monday morning quarterbacking to those who can stay on subject and not discount those who win; not just use it as some irrelevant blather to bail you out if a losing argument. Pathetic.

As far as history goes, the founding fathers knew what kind of idiotic things people would do when faced some "threat": the prevention is the constitution and the free expression of religion. What you ignore is what I've called for you do, which is not nothing. But rather show everyone how great non-islamic faiths and how idiotic some of their sharia practices are and the truth and freedom will prevail. History shows us that-- repeatedly! You seem to think oppression is the best prevention. History proves otherwise-- WwII notwithstanding.

[logroller]

Now look who is creating mythical monsters!!!! :laugh2:
Have at it my friend.
I've called for a day in court for the man that I accused. If that qualifies as a "monster", you have standards that can include all that believe in the Rule of Law and our Constitution . Just how many monsters do you see amigo??????????
Yet you call me ignorant.... :laugh:--Tyr
well, I'm not real into zombie stuff-- but you certainly qualify as a mindless drone. Here you sit arguing for the constitution; yet call for its violation through the oppression of religion. Hitler did that you know... He was mortal though. So not entirely mythical.

Btw- Is this thread about Obama and treason?
Doesnt matter; your just as wrong here either way. You're gonna lose because you can't string together a logical argument. It's not just that you're a loser-- it's that You're too damn ignorant to comprehend why you lose.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

for the record-- we won WWII -- so how bout you leave the Monday morning quarterbacking to those who can stay on subject and not discount those who win; not just use it as some irrelevant blather to bail you out if a losing argument. Pathetic.

As far as history goes, the founding fathers knew what kind of idiotic things people would do when faced some "threat": the prevention is the constitution and the free expression of religion. What you ignore is what I've called for you do, which is not nothing. But rather show everyone how great non-islamic faiths and how idiotic some of their sharia practices are and the truth and freedom will prevail. History shows us that-- repeatedly! You seem to think oppression is the best prevention. History proves otherwise-- WwII notwithstanding.

You are the one suggesting inaction , no attempts at prevention not me. You are the one that suggests history's lessons are irrelevant not me!
Just those two things point far more to it being you that is pathetic and lacking proper perception and creativity.
The non-Islamic faith of Christianity has no Sharia practices so you can stuff your strawman dude.
Already I've pointed out this hard on you seem to have for the muslims.
It may rock your boat but Hoss it doesn't mean shat to me. I am all for America , its safety and its future. You apparently are not IMHO.-Tyr

[Kathianne]

While Tyr and AT are both making good points they feel regarding Obama and minions, I do think it's just clarifying at this point to define 'treason' per the constitution. It's the ONLY crime defined and under what circumstances it can be brought to bear:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a3_3_1-2.html


<center>http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/images/eagle.gif</center>
Article 3, Section 3, Clauses 1 and 2 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/images/double_line.gif
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.



Most definitely written by men who KNEW they'd be charged with treason if they failed to win the Revolution.

[logroller]

You are the one suggesting inaction , no attempts at prevention not me. You are the one that suggests history's lessons are irrelevant not me!
Just those two things point far more to it being you that is pathetic and lacking proper perception and creativity.
The non-Islamic faith of Christianity has no Sharia practices so you can stuff your strawman dude.
Already I've pointed out this hard on you seem to have for the muslims.
It may rock your boat but Hoss it doesn't mean shat to me. I am all for America , its safety and its future. You apparently are not IMHO.-Tyr
I suggested an action-- it's just not oppressive enough for you. Because You just don't believe in freedom enough to practice it-- preferring oppression. tyr must be short for tyrant...IMHO

[logroller]

While Tyr and AT are both making good points they feel regarding Obama and minions, I do think it's just clarifying at this point to define 'treason' per the constitution. It's the ONLY crime defined and under what circumstances it can be brought to bear:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a3_3_1-2.html



Most definitely written by men who KNEW they'd be charged with treason if they failed to win the Revolution.
But but, the spirit of the law.... :laugh:

[Robert A Whit]

How many posters have really gone to the trouble to start studying Sharia Law?

I started to study it as I recall in the 1990s. I did not study very much of it. But the parts I did study it seems to me was in many ways very fair.

As to laws vs women, there I found them to not be fair.

It would be nice to learn from a true expert so we know the dangers they claim about Sharia Law.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

for the record-- we won WWII -- so how bout you leave the Monday morning quarterbacking to those who can stay on subject and not discount those who win; not just use it as some irrelevant blather to bail you out if a losing argument. Pathetic.

As far as history goes, the founding fathers knew what kind of idiotic things people would do when faced some "threat": the prevention is the constitution and the free expression of religion. What you ignore is what I've called for you do, which is not nothing. But rather show everyone how great non-islamic faiths and how idiotic some of their sharia practices are and the truth and freedom will prevail. History shows us that-- repeatedly! You seem to think oppression is the best prevention. History proves otherwise-- WwII notwithstanding.

Dude, get off your damn high horse! My suggestion that we make sure Sharia law has no place in this nation is "oppression" according to YOU! I simply suggested that Sharia law be outlawed in this nation and that our current Justice System remain intact complete with measures to insure that against Sharia Law encroachment and you go of on a freaking bender about my wanting your beloved muslims oppressed!
YOU IGNORANT ASS , Sharia law negates our Constitution. Damn are you really that freaking stupid!??
I believe you are or else you have one helluva hard on for Islam for some strange reason.
Get a damn clue! And stop with the freaking lies, as I suggested no oppression but your bullshat argument against my suggestion was so weak you had to toss in oppression to try to beef it up!
PATHETIC. Just freaking pathetic.. -TYR

[logroller]

How many posters have really gone to the trouble to start studying Sharia Law?

I started to study it as I recall in the 1990s. I did not study very much of it. But the parts I did study it seems to me was in many ways very fair.

As to laws vs women, there I found them to not be fair.

It would be nice to learn from a true expert so we know the dangers they claim about Sharia Law.
I don't care to learn a whole lot about Sharia; any more than I care to learn a whole bunch about the Jewish laws concerning circumcision or such. Re: laws vs women; it really hasn't been that long that women have even been able to vote. That wasn't fair either-- it took the 19th amendment to change that in 1920. Nonetheless, women in the United States have the same rights as males, notwithstanding sharia law implications. Are their disputes? Sure. Piss poor rulings; you bet. Threats to be constitution-- nope. The only thing that threatens the constitution is people not expressing rights; use it or lose it. Spread the truth of love and liberty and the constitution will flourish-- go about making laws to classify a particular religion as malevolent (even if it is) and the constitution suffers. Acts are illegal, not beliefs.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't care to learn a whole lot about Sharia; any more than I care to learn a whole bunch about the Jewish laws concerning circumcision or such. Re: laws vs women; it really hasn't been that long that women have even been able to vote. That wasn't fair either-- it took the 19th amendment to change that in 1920. Nonetheless, women in the United States have the same rights as males, notwithstanding sharia law implications. Are their disputes? Sure. Piss poor rulings; you bet. Threats to be constitution-- nope. The only thing that threatens the constitution is people not expressing rights; use it or lose it. Spread the truth of love and liberty and the constitution will flourish-- go about making laws to classify a particular religion as malevolent (even if it is) and the constitution suffers. Acts are illegal, not beliefs.

Admit you do not know much about Sharia law yet you defend it so.. simply amazing...
Sure, there are no threats to our Constitution, so you declare. You declare Sharia law not a threat , never could be a threat , while you admit not to know much about it or even care to learn much about it.
Admit ignorance about the subject that you try to profess so adamantly is not a threat and never could be!
It defies all logic and common sense..-Tyr

[Kathianne]

Admit you do not know much about Sharia law yet you defend it so.. simply amazing...
Sure, there are no threats to our Constitution, so you declare. You declare Sharia law not a threat , never could be a threat , while you admit not to know much about it or even care to learn much about it.
Admit ignorance about the subject that you try to profess so adamantly is not a threat and never could be!
It defies all logic and common sense..-Tyr

I agree there are numerous threats to our Constitution, that however is not new. The courts have been there to defend, now? Not so sure.

That's all the more reason though, that those of us that purport to care about the Constitution, do not try and 'do away' with rights protected by that very document. Including knowing what constitutes 'treason', what constitutes 'causes for impeachment,' what 'freedom of speech and religion and assembly' means.

Extremists from either side tend not to be Constitutionalists.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I agree there are numerous threats to our Constitution, that however is not new. The courts have been there to defend, now? Not so sure.

That's all the more reason though, that those of us that purport to care about the Constitution, do not try and 'do away' with rights protected by that very document. Including knowing what constitutes 'treason', what constitutes 'causes for impeachment,' what 'freedom of speech and religion and assembly' means.

Extremists from either side tend not to be Constitutionalists.

Point one
Sharia law is not a right!!

Point two.
Passing legislation to insure against Sharia Law encroachment would be Constitutional!!

Point three
My suggestion that obama be tried for his treason has merit .

Point four
I've made no suggestion that was for doing anything Unconstitutional, unless my calling for our Congress to pass laws is Unconstitutional.

Point five.
Logroller belittles my suggestions and declares that there are no threats to our Constitution by Sharia law which is simply inaccurate.

I am a far right wing Constitutionalist. I make no bones about it, if labeling me an extremist helps go right ahead. I flatly deny it myself!

Seems to me a whole lot of people should look more closely at what I type rather than read and accept what my opponent declares that I said.
As I have repeatedly stated "pass laws" to prevent , not go vigilante or oppress muslims!
Logroller declares passing such laws to be unnecessary then later he declares that I am oppressing muslims as if Sharia Law is a Constitutional -RIGHT- they have!! Its sheer idiocy!!
He misrepresents what I suggest, then falsely paints me to be a "monster" demanding oppression and then I have to read how this was not seen by others!!

For him to be correct my suggestion that an duly elected Congress pass laws insuring the sanctity and validity of our Justice system remain intact and the sole method of jurisprudence here would have to be illegal and actually an oppression of a religion.. It is not unless Sharia law is a -right!!!!
If anybody declares that Sharia Law is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT then they are batshat crazy IMHO!!
NUFF SAID... --Tyr

[Kathianne]

Point one
Sharia law is not a right!!

Point two.
Passing legislation to insure against Sharia Law encroachment would be Constitutional!!

Point three
My suggestion that obama be tried for his treason has merit .

Point four
I've made no suggestion that was for doing anything Unconstitutional, unless my calling for our Congress to pass laws is Unconstitutional.

Point five.
Logroller belittles my suggestions and declares that there are no threats to our Constitution by Sharia law which is simply inaccurate.

I am a far right wing Constitutionalist. I make no bones about it, if labeling me an extremist helps go right ahead. I flatly deny it myself!

Seems to me a whole lot of people should look more closely at what I type rather than read and accept what my opponent declares that I said.
As I have repeatedly stated "pass laws" to prevent , not go vigilante or oppress muslims!
Logroller declares passing such laws to be unnecessary then later he declares that I am oppressing muslims as if Sharia Law is a Constitutional -RIGHT- they have!! Its sheer idiocy!!
He misrepresents what I suggest, then falsely paints me to be a "monster" demanding oppression and then I have to read how this was not seen by others!!

For him to be correct my suggestion that an duly elected Congress pass laws insuring the sanctity and validity of our Justice system remain intact and the sole method of jurisprudence here would have to be illegal and actually an oppression of a religion.. It is not unless Sharia law is a -right!!!!
If anybody declares that Sharia Law is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT then they are batshat crazy IMHO!!
NUFF SAID... --Tyr

I would never say that Sharia in this country is ok in courts. Never. Indeed when a justice suggested using 'other laws' such as ICC, I was flabbergasted and posted about. We've our own Constitution and set of laws, part of which includes British 'common law' as that was the backbone of the colonies.

Two, I've not stated that Obama is not to be held accountable for any charges, including treason. However, the 'charges' have to fit within our law. As I posted earlier, the Constitution itself defines the particular crime of treason, and what is necessary to even bring the charge.

I'm not arguing for LR or for you. I'm just trying to see some order brought to the discussion, so that others might come in. Right now you are all going in circles. That's my opinion and I have every right to hold it.

[logroller]

Point one
Sharia law is not a right!!

Point two.
Passing legislation to insure against Sharia Law encroachment would be Constitutional!!

Point three
My suggestion that obama be tried for his treason has merit .

Point four
I've made no suggestion that was for doing anything Unconstitutional, unless my calling for our Congress to pass laws is Unconstitutional.

Point five.
Logroller belittles my suggestions and declares that there are no threats to our Constitution by Sharia law which is simply inaccurate.

I am a far right wing Constitutionalist. I make no bones about it, if labeling me an extremist helps go right ahead. I flatly deny it myself!

Seems to me a whole lot of people should look more closely at what I type rather than read and accept what my opponent declares that I said.
As I have repeatedly stated "pass laws" to prevent , not go vigilante or oppress muslims!
Logroller declares passing such laws to be unnecessary then later he declares that I am oppressing muslims as if Sharia Law is a Constitutional -RIGHT- they have!! Its sheer idiocy!!
He misrepresents what I suggest, then falsely paints me to be a "monster" demanding oppression and then I have to read how this was not seen by others!!

For him to be correct my suggestion that an duly elected Congress pass laws insuring the sanctity and validity of our Justice system remain intact and the sole method of jurisprudence here would have to be illegal and actually an oppression of a religion.. It is not unless Sharia law is a -right!!!!
If anybody declares that Sharia Law is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT then they are batshat crazy IMHO!!
NUFF SAID... --Tyr

define sharia law without broad reference to religious practices; otherwise, its covered under the first amendment-- a right to free exercise. For example, If I entered into a marriage with the understanding ( by contract) that sharia concepts of dowry and inheritance be followed-- then a court can recognize that. If however I said in the contract I could beat and rape my wife, that would be illegal under us law and the sharia support would be inferior. Laws must be specific; anti- sharia law is too general.
Now, show me a specific aspect of sharia law which isn't against us law that concerns you.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I would never say that Sharia in this country is ok in courts. Never. Indeed when a justice suggested using 'other laws' such as ICC, I was flabbergasted and posted about. We've our own Constitution and set of laws, part of which includes British 'common law' as that was the backbone of the colonies.

Two, I've not stated that Obama is not to be held accountable for any charges, including treason. However, the 'charges' have to fit within our law. As I posted earlier, the Constitution itself defines the particular crime of treason, and what is necessary to even bring the charge.

I'm not arguing for LR or for you. I'm just trying to see some order brought to the discussion, so that others might come in. Right now you are all going in circles. That's my opinion and I have every right to hold it.

Thanks, some clarification is always a good thing.
Not disputing any of your rights my friend. I believe we are going in circles and also that my opponent has managed to do here what CAIR and the muslims do by twisting and misrepresenting my true stand and intentions.
Nowhere does my suggestion of outlawing Sharia law in this country oppress muslims. Their freedom of religion remains intact . The very ideal that Sharia Law is some - RIGHT- protected by our Constitution is absolutely ridiculous as is log's misrepresentation! Sharia Law by design dominates all and is absolutely Unconstitutional therefore log's defense of it and ridicule has no merit IMHO. The fact that he openly admitted knowing little about it and not even wanting to know should be a big hint that his defense of Sharia Law is based upon his wish to simply oppose me and my views. Its personal with him and that's fine but his announced ignorance of Sharia Law and his openly confessing not even wanting to know about it should clue people in.. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

define sharia law without broad reference to religious practices; otherwise, its covered under the first amendment-- a right to free exercise. For example, If I entered into a marriage with the understanding ( by contract) that sharia concepts of dowry and inheritance be followed-- then a court can recognize that. If however I said in the contract I could beat and rape my wife, that would be illegal under us law and the sharia support would be inferior. Laws must be specific; anti- sharia law is too general.
Now, show me a specific aspect of sharia law which isn't against us law that concerns you.


haha, you genius , Sharia law is religious law , civil law and quasi military law combined. There is no separating it , my God how freaking dense are you!?? Its Islamic law !! Its designed to rule by strict obedience to the Koran and you say they have a right to exercise it here and what--ignore our laws? or remain separate from our laws , or supplant our laws with it?? Sharia law demands that ALL submit to its supreme authority!! Sharia law sets punishments for blasphemy , sets punishments for women that are cruel, barbaric and totally unjust, etc. , sets punishments that make legal amputation of body part for stealing etc.
That you defend it , seek to ok it at any level here points to your duplicity and lack of integrity.
Even were you to only suggest allowing certain parts of it here that's you suggesting giving it a foothold to expand here .
How can you profess such a lack of knowledge about Sharia law and lack of interest in learning about it but then defend it so , while declaring my knowledge and judgement on it to be in error!!??--Tyr

[Drummond]

haha, you genius , Sharia law is religious law , civil law and quasi military law combined. There is no separating it , my God how fraeking dense are you!?? Its Islamic law !! Its designed to rule by strict obedience to the Koran and you say they have a right to exercise it here and what--ignore our laws? or remain separate from our laws , or supplant our laws with it?? Sharia law demands that ALL submit to its supreme authority!! Sharia law sets punishments for blasphemy , sets punishments for women that are cruel, barbaric and totally unjust, etc. , sets punishments that make legal amputation of body part for stealing etc.
That you defend it , seek to ok it at any level here points to your duplicity and lack of integrity.
Even were you to only suggest allowing certain parts of it here that's you suggesting giving it a foothold to expand here .
How can you profess such a lack of knowledge about Sharia law and lack of interest in learning about it but then defend it so , while declaring my knowledge and judgement on it to be in error!!??--Tyr

- - Precisely !

Logroller, support for Sharia Law is support for a system meant to be viewed as ABOVE ALL OTHER LAW. Those loyal to it see it as transcending everything else .. including your Constitution, including any other law you have in place.

Sharia courts only defer to other, more 'local' systems, because they're forced to. Given the opportunity, they'd oppose everything else around. So, Logroller .. if you're going to argue for Sharia Law to be given latitude, you're arguing AGAINST your own American law.

See ..

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/sharias_encroachment_into_american_courts.html


Increasingly, U.S. courts have yielded to sharia. In effect, our judicial system is failing to adhere to the very beliefs on which this country was founded. Sharia advocates are overturning our long-held legal traditions to follow precepts laid down by a faith that represents less than one percent of our population and whose beliefs are at odds with U.S. legal and spiritual history

Sharia is Allah's law, and it stands above all man-made laws. This immutable Islamic legal doctrine derives from the Koran and other sacred Islamic texts, interpretations, and rulings. It mandates gender apartheid, religious discrimination, Muslim supremacy, cruel punishments, and the denial of free speech and religion, among other things. Requirements are detailed for every aspect of life, from the correct use of the toilet to the treatment of non-Muslims to proper wife-beating techniques.
Perhaps you're happy to give this house room ?? I fail to see why.

I have a favourite Islamist !! That's not to say that the individual in question is LIKED .. not at all. No, from this individual, you'll get the lowdown about the truth of Islam .. its goals, its opposition to any and every creed, set of social values, every legal system, that stands in the way of Islam as a globally dominant force, with Sharia Law universally dominating man's affairs.

I refer to Anjem Choudary.

View this link, Logroller. Note from it Choudary's support for Osama bin Laden, terrorist attacks, and 3 minutes 45 seconds into the video, having set his comment into terrorist-supporting context, he shows us that Islam, and the application of Sharia Law, is meant to totally dominate the world .. INCLUDING America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3idBdzg0MA

All are meant to SUBMIT to it .. Choudary says as much.

Logroller ... show tolerance to an invasive force, and you enable what follows. FACT .. do this with Sharia Law, and you OPPOSE American law.

Once you've studied Choudary's ranting, got past his propaganda, even YOU should be in no doubt of this.

[aboutime]

define sharia law without broad reference to religious practices; otherwise, its covered under the first amendment-- a right to free exercise. For example, If I entered into a marriage with the understanding ( by contract) that sharia concepts of dowry and inheritance be followed-- then a court can recognize that. If however I said in the contract I could beat and rape my wife, that would be illegal under us law and the sharia support would be inferior. Laws must be specific; anti- sharia law is too general.
Now, show me a specific aspect of sharia law which isn't against us law that concerns you.


logroller. Now...you really sound like this guy...


http://youtu.be/Y3KCEpzAcCg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

haha, you genius , Sharia law is religious law , civil law and quasi military law combined. There is no separating it , my God how freaking dense are you!?? Its Islamic law !! Its designed to rule by strict obedience to the Koran and you say they have a right to exercise it here and what--ignore our laws? or remain separate from our laws , or supplant our laws with it?? Sharia law demands that ALL submit to its supreme authority!! Sharia law sets punishments for blasphemy , sets punishments for women that are cruel, barbaric and totally unjust, etc. , sets punishments that make legal amputation of body part for stealing etc.
That you defend it , seek to ok it at any level here points to your duplicity and lack of integrity.
Even were you to only suggest allowing certain parts of it here that's you suggesting giving it a foothold to expand here .
How can you profess such a lack of knowledge about Sharia law and lack of interest in learning about it but then defend it so , while declaring my knowledge and judgement on it to be in error!!??--Tyr

HAHA, NO REPLY..
I wonder why???? Could it be our brazen friend has finally decided to learn for a change?????
Time will tell.. ;)
He can abandon the field and thereby admit defeat, or admit that I am correct , ok by me..-:laugh2:--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

- - Precisely !

Logroller, support for Sharia Law is support for a system meant to be viewed as ABOVE ALL OTHER LAW. Those loyal to it see it as transcending everything else .. including your Constitution, including any other law you have in place.

Sharia courts only defer to other, more 'local' systems, because they're forced to. Given the opportunity, they'd oppose everything else around. So, Logroller .. if you're going to argue for Sharia Law to be given latitude, you're arguing AGAINST your own American law.

See ..

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/sharias_encroachment_into_american_courts.html



Perhaps you're happy to give this house room ?? I fail to see why.

I have a favourite Islamist !! That's not to say that the individual in question is LIKED .. not at all. No, from this individual, you'll get the lowdown about the truth of Islam .. its goals, its opposition to any and every creed, set of social values, every legal system, that stands in the way of Islam as a globally dominant force, with Sharia Law universally dominating man's affairs.

I refer to Anjem Choudary.

View this link, Logroller. Note from it Choudary's support for Osama bin Laden, terrorist attacks, and 3 minutes 45 seconds into the video, having set his comment into terrorist-supporting context, he shows us that Islam, and the application of Sharia Law, is meant to totally dominate the world .. INCLUDING America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3idBdzg0MA

All are meant to SUBMIT to it .. Choudary says as much.

Logroller ... show tolerance to an invasive force, and you enable what follows. FACT .. do this with Sharia Law, and you OPPOSE American law.

Once you've studied Choudary's ranting, got past his propaganda, even YOU should be in no doubt of this.

My friend , this type of evidence has been presented before , log ignored it. I expect he will do so again. Always easier to run from the truth than it is to face it like a man!! -Tyr

[ConHog]

I think it's clear actually. Many, many Muslims feel that they should be able to resolve disputes based on their own laws instead of the laws of the country they reside in. If you haven't seen the tons of stories, then you are out of touch and naive. Do I think they'll be successful in altering our COTUS in favor of Shariah? Nope. But there are already instances of Muslims handling matters themselves, based on Islamic law, and avoiding our courts. They need to understand, that if they live on our soil, they need to adhere to our laws.

If they had their way, they would have large areas (like Indian reservations) and have their own societies and legal systems. Not gonna happen, but that doesn't mean that they won't try.

Absolutely thats what they want. They can want in one hand amd shit in the other. Sharia law is in direct opposition to the cotus and so will never happen. Ergo no threat

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Absolutely thats what they want. They can want in one hand amd shit in the other. Sharia law is in direct opposition to the cotus and so will never happen. Ergo no threat

Never say never... Sure thing , no threat. Just like Islam wasn't a "real" threat until they knocked down the twin towers and murdered over 3,000 Americans. A religion totally dedicated to destroying by any means all that oppose it isn't a threat?? right...:rolleyes:

Just like all this is fantasy and lies , right?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

[Abbey Marie]

define sharia law without broad reference to religious practices; otherwise, its covered under the first amendment-- a right to free exercise. For example, If I entered into a marriage with the understanding ( by contract) that sharia concepts of dowry and inheritance be followed-- then a court can recognize that. If however I said in the contract I could beat and rape my wife, that would be illegal under us law and the sharia support would be inferior. Laws must be specific; anti- sharia law is too general.
Now, show me a specific aspect of sharia law which isn't against us law that concerns you.

Unless those "concepts" violated the State's inheritance Code.

[Abbey Marie]

Absolutely thats what they want. They can want in one hand amd shit in the other. Sharia law is in direct opposition to the cotus and so will never happen. Ergo no threat

While I admire your total confidence that bad things will never happen, I do not share it. I am sure we can all think of things happening in this country today that we would have said 20 years ago would never happen. And so it goes. As long as we have a Marshall court review of our laws, almost anything is possible.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

While I admire your total confidence that bad things will never happen, I do not share it. I am sure we can all think of things happening in this country today that we would have said 20 years ago would never happen. And so it goes. As long as we have a Marshall court review of our laws, almost anything is possible.

Right you are Abbey. Radical change is in the air and obama is the greatest culprit in that.
I find it simply amazing today that anybody can simply declare that there is --no threat-- as if denial is reality!

[ConHog]

Right you are Abbey. Radical change is in the air and obama is the greatest culprit in that.
I find it simply amazing today that anybody can simply declare that there is --no threat-- as if denial is reality!

Are you even remotely capable of posting without bringing up Obama? Christ man, you're obsessed.

He has nothing to do with this topic, unless you have evidence that he supports replacing the COTUS with Sharia Law???

[ConHog]

While I admire your total confidence that bad things will never happen, I do not share it. I am sure we can all think of things happening in this country today that we would have said 20 years ago would never happen. And so it goes. As long as we have a Marshall court review of our laws, almost anything is possible.

Things are always changing Abbey. But change is one thing. Outright throwing the COTUS away is another.

[red states rule]

Coming soon to a US city near you. I am sure many in England never thought this would happen just like many here in the US believe
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) posted unbelievable video (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3721.htm) Sunday of Islamists rallying in England a little over one week ago to protest the French intervention in Mali.
The chants of the Islamists, though, appear to target the West in its entirety. Far from objecting to French foreign policy, the speakers repeatedly threaten that an Islamic caliphate will begin in Africa and the Middle East, but will eventually spread to “the whole world.”
“We will not stop as Muslims until the whole world is governed by Islam,” one man says evenly and calmly.
The video begins with a bearded individual leading chants, saying things like “Shariah for Mali! Jihad for Mali!” and “Allah Akbar!”
Soon, though, he launches into a more informative speech.
“We got rid of some of our dictators– Ben Ali, Mubarak, and al-Qadhafi. But now it’s time for the dictators in Mali, in Pakistan, in Bangladesh, and all over Muslim lands to be removed and replaced by the shariah, by Islam,” he states. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/20/watch-the-wild-vid-of-islamists-protesting-in-england-shariah-is-an-inevitability/