Skip to comments.Oklahoma's ban on Sharia law thrown out by federal judge
Posted on 08/17/2013 3:05:54 PM PDT by NYer
click here to read article
Her. Her name is Vicki - isn’t that special? - Miles-LaGrange.
Beliefs are personal and one’s own business. Actions based on one’s beliefs are required to be within the limits established by the Constitution.
For example, one may believe in cannibalism, but as long as no act is taken there can be no violation of the Constitution.
Belief and acts are different.
We should be way past tar & feathers.
All I needed to see was her hyphenated name and I knew she hadn’t a brain, just a deep hatred for men and the country.
Why are Republican governors so ultra scared to confont & nullify these liberal ass judge's ruling? Kind of like in Wisconsin, half of what Walker & the Repubs passed in legislation has been thrown out or held up by liberal ass judges. I think that Repub governors & AG's need to grow some balls and openly throw down challenges & nullifications to these dumb ass judges. Quit being so damn conciliatory & acquiescent!
I can’t tell if our elected officials are trying to suck up to Muslims or just taking the “it isn’t reality if I don’t acknowledge it” to an extreme and insane level.
Either way, freedom’s days are numbered and the number is fast approaching zero.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
She is confusing the ban on Sharia law as being a violation of the Establishment Clause with what it really is:
A ban on a foreign law [Sharia] from circumventing the supreme law of the land [US Constitution] and the laws enacted in support thereof ...
She'll be reversed.
By who? As I said in my previous posting, the Olkahoma governor (and other Repub governors) need to grow a pair of balls IMMEDIATELY and issue an executive ruling that nullifies & revokes the liberal ass judge's ruling.
To Repub governors & AG's I say this...... QUIT BEING SO DAMN COMPLIANT & CONCILIATORY! We are at war in this country against the liberals socialist & islam ideology and it is long past time that we need to confront & fight back against these liberal socialist islamic bastards!
This little tract was widely circulated by moi and hundreds of others during the 70s as the Carter fiasco unwound into its well-deserved death spiral.
Never knew who wrote it.
Here are a few examples of Sharia Law:
Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand.
Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.
Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
Girls’ clitoris should be cut (per Muhammad’s words in Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
A woman can have 1 husband, but a man can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
A man can unilaterally divorce his wife but a woman needs her husband’s consent to divorce.
A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
A woman’s testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man’s.
A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
Meat to be eaten must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be Halal.
Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
The list goes on.
How? Seriously, how do you propose to do this? With our House full of RINO's and a Degener-crat Senate?
If you're talking about insurrection, then count me in.
Yes, I said that. You listening, HomoBarach?
I agree. But we still haven't even gotten to that stage and one has to start somewhere!
I think it’s time to give them the fight that they want.
To answer your question, the governors know they’d be vilified as a new George Wallace, and they have no stomach for that kind of fight.
It could also be that they have accepted what all Americans are conditioned to accept; the bogus idea of judicial supremacy. Let’s face it, the Courts have given themselves more power than they were ever intended to have, and the other federal branches and the State governments have just meekly accepted it. This of course only encourages judges to be more brazen in their usurpations. And after decades of this happening the American public has come to accept it as the proper order of things.
I’d love to see judicial supremacy successfully challenged in the way you propose. But I just don’t think it’s going to happen.
It’s time to stop calling Islam a religion. But, if it’s officially called an ideology it still couldn’t be banned. I’ve always said our constitution will be used against us. That’s probably why Franklin didn’t think the experiment would last.
“Miles-LaGrange found “that any harm that would result from permanently enjoining the certification of the election results is further minimized in light of the undisputed fact that the amendment at issue was to be a preventative measure and that the concern that it seeks to address has yet to occur.”
Just think about that for a moment. How many laws are their on the books that are to prevent something from occurring.
Why do they have gun laws. Because they think it will prevent a crime from concurring. Note that the crime has not yet occurred. You could come up with a very long list. Half of today’s laws would have to thrown out as unconstitutional based on this reasoning.
But as we know this rule only applies when it is needed for a certain political side.
Cops in America are taught to ever surrender to the tax payer and to be ready to surrender to muslims before they ever think surrendering to us.
In a way the law was bad to begin with, it should have not mentioned Sharia or Islam but instead mentioned the Sharia system BY DESCRIPTION and described things that were endemic to Sharia without actually mentioning it. That way when CAIR started to bitch about we could say “What the hell are complaining about this law is against any “Political system that is ingrained in religion” “ Instead they opened it up to be cancelled out by an affirmative action POS judge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.