Quote:

Hi Jim,

Your question " Someone is stirring the pot or is it inevitable?" is definitely a good one. One thing for sure is that the Middle East and the Western world is facing an enormous problem if the crazies in Iran go nuclear. When I say the Middle East I'm not only referring to Israel but all the Muslim countries that aren't in the axis of evil (Iran, Syria, Turkey, Hezbollah, Hamas etc.). Some of those countries are radical as well but not quite as outspoken as Ahmadinejad and the lunatic Mullahs in Iran.

Whether Israel will attack Iran or not is a question many of us are asking as is the question I've seen of late will the United States attack Iran. The truth of the matter is that if any country will eventually attack Iran's nuclear sites I believe it will be Israel. If and when it happens the world will give a great sigh of relief and turn around and condemn Israel for doing what had to be done. That's been the reaction whenever Israel defends itself. Sad isn't it?

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:
Someone is stirring the pot or is it inevitable?

Israel's Netanyahu Poised to Take Out Iran's Nuclear Sites

http://www.newsmax.com/GeorgeWill/Will--Iran--nuclear--Netanyahu--Israel--war--strike/2010/08/16/id/367558

Monday, 16 Aug 2010 09:43 AM

Article Font Size

By: George Will

When Israel declared independence in 1948, it had to use mostly small arms to repel attacks by six Arab armies. Today, however, Israel feels, and is, more menaced than it was then, or has been since. Hence the potentially world-shaking decision that will be made here, probably within two years.

To understand the man who will make it, begin with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's belief that stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program is integral to stopping the worldwide campaign to reverse 1948. It is, he says, a campaign to "put the Jew back to the status of a being that couldn't defend himself — a perfect victim."

Today's Middle East, he says, reflects two developments. One is the rise of Iran and militant Islam since the 1979 revolution, which led to al-Qaida, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The other development is the multiplying threat of missile warfare.

Now Israel faces a third threat, the campaign to delegitimize it in order to extinguish its capacity for self-defense.

After two uniquely perilous millennia for Jews, the creation of Israel meant, Netanyahu says, "the capacity for self-defense restored to the Jewish people." But note, he says, the reflexive worldwide chorus of condemnation when Israel responded with force to rocket barrages from Gaza and from southern Lebanon. There is, he believes, a crystallizing consensus that "Israel is not allowed to exercise self-defense."

From 1948 through 1973, he says, enemies tried to "eliminate Israel by conventional warfare." Having failed, they tried to demoralize and paralyze Israel with suicide bombers and other terrorism. "We put up a fence," Netanyahu says. "Now they have rockets that go over the fence." Israel's military, which has stressed offense as a solution to the nation's lack of strategic depth, now stresses missile defense.

That, however, cannot cope with Hamas' tens of thousands of rockets in Gaza and Hezbollah's 60,000 in southern Lebanon. There, U.N. resolution 1701, promulgated after the 2006 war, has been predictably farcical. This was supposed to inhibit the arming of Hezbollah and prevent its operations south of the Litani River.

Since 2006, Hezbollah's rocket arsenal has tripled and its operations mock resolution 1701. Hezbollah, learning from Hamas, now places rockets near schools and hospitals, certain that Israel's next response to indiscriminate aggression will turn the world media into a force multiplier for the aggressors.

Any Israeli self-defense anywhere is automatically judged "disproportionate." Israel knows this as it watches Iran.

Last year was Barack Obama's wasted year of "engaging" Iran. This led to sanctions that are unlikely to ever become sufficiently potent. With Russia, China, and Turkey being uncooperative, Iran is hardly "isolated." The Iranian democracy movement probably cannot quickly achieve regime change. It took Solidarity 10 years to do so against a Polish regime less brutally repressive than Iran's.

Hillary Clinton's words about extending a "defense umbrella over the region" imply, to Israelis, fatalism about a nuclear Iran. As for deterrence working against a nuclear-armed regime steeped in an ideology of martyrdom, remember: In 1980, Ayatollah Khomeini said: "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

You say, that was long ago? Israel says, this is now:

Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, says Israel is the "enemy of God." Tehran, proclaiming that the Holocaust never happened and vowing to complete it, sent an ambassador to Poland who in 2006 wanted to measure the ovens at Auschwitz to prove them inadequate for genocide. Iran's former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is considered a "moderate" by people for whom believing is seeing, calls Israel a "one-bomb country."

If Iran were to "wipe the Zionist entity off the map," as it vows to do, it would, Netanyahu believes, achieve a regional "dominance not seen since Alexander." Netanyahu does not say Israel will, if necessary, act alone to prevent this. Or does he?

He says CIA Director Leon Panetta is "about right" in saying Iran can be a nuclear power in two years. He says 1948 meant this: "For the first time in 2,000 years, a sovereign Jewish people could defend itself against attack." And he says: "The tragic history of the powerlessness of our people explains why the Jewish people need a sovereign power of self-defense." If Israel strikes Iran, the world will not be able to say it was not warned.


George Will's e-mail address is georgewill@washpost.com.

Hello Jim,

I think you'll find the below article interesting. Please note that in the opening paragraph you'll find that B Hussein "permitted" the Russians to deliver fuel rods for the Iranian nuclear reactor. The reason was to gain their support for UN sanctions. Well by now we know the Russians reneged on that too. They partly supported the sanctions but very soon after that they started selling fuel to the Iranians and other products that are on the sanctions list.

So my understanding is that B Hussein and his administration are accepting the fact that Iran will become a nuclear power. The "moderate" Muslim countries that aren't part of the axis of evil aren't happy with the USA and have stated so publicly. But, B Hussein apparently has his own agenda and a nuclear Iran doesn't seem to faze him even though most of the other Western countries aren't very happy with this state of affairs.

The below article goes into detail and is an interesting read.

Shalom,

Peter

Israel’s Crunch Time

The Obama administration gave Russia permission to deliver the fuel rods for Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor in return for their support for U.N. sanctions. The Russians have announced they will begin the process on August 21 and Iran will begin operating the reactor in mid-September. In making this concession to Russia, the U.S. is forcing Israel to decide within one week if they will bomb the site before it is impossible to do so because of the radioactive fallout it would cause.

Former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton is warning that Israel must immediately decide between accepting a nuclear weapons-capable Iran or a military strike. He noted that in Israel’s previous strikes on Iraqi and Syrian nuclear reactors, action was taken before the insertion of the fuel rods. Bolton’s statement comes as Jeffrey Goldberg writes in The Atlantic that most officials he spoke to felt there was a better than 50 percent chance that Israel would bomb Iran’s nuclear sites by next July. This follows claims by an anonymous senior Egyptian security official that his country had taken measures with the expectation that Israel could attack Iran as early as July.

The Israelis began deploying three nuclear-armed submarines to the Gulf as summer began. They have also unveiled a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles that can fly for an entire day, permitting them to reach Iran. It was not said whether the aircraft can carry the ordinance necessary to destroy Iran’s nuclear sites but they were clearly shown with Iran in mind.

Sunni Arab regimes traditionally hostile to Israel have embraced the Jewish state as the only one able and willing to save them from a nuclear Iran and are silently supporting a potential campaign. The blunt statement by the ambassador from the United Arab Emirates that his country would support military action against Iran if necessary is an indication that the anti-Iran Arab bloc feels the window is closing. The Saudis, who have reportedly offered Israel its airspace to carry out a strike, have simulated the turning down of its defenses in such an event.

The Iranians are claiming that they have acquired four S-300 air defense systems that would complicate an Israeli strike, a move obviously meant to coincide with the announcement about Bushehr. At the same time, Russia has installed the S-300 in the Abkhazia region it has controlled since going to war with Georgia in 2008. The Israeli intelligence website Debkafile says the system was set up to block a potential northern route for a U.S. or Israeli strike on Iran. Russia, China and Turkey have also decided to sell gasoline to Iran just as the regime began seriously suffering from a shortage and the effects of international sanctions.

Israel has numerous considerations as it decides whether it must take out the Bushehr reactor. The attack could ignite a two-front war. The Israelis may decide that they can wait as long as the reactor’s activity is monitored by the IAEA. The fuel for the reactor is being provided by Russia, who will also be responsible for taking it out of the reactor and taking it outside the country. The Obama Administration is apparently confident that these measures will prevent the site from being used to make weapons-grade plutonium.

Fox News analyst General Thomas McInerney, the former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff for the U.S. Air Force and former Director of the Defense Performance Review, told FrontPage that Israel must not allow the fuel rods to be delivered to the reactor. Once that happens, any bombing raid would spread radiation throughout the region including Gulf countries that oppose Iran. Russian personnel at the plant would also be killed.

“The danger is that 40 to 60 plutonium bombs could be manufactured once the Bushehr plant is online so the IDF must strike Iran now,” he said. “Iran may have crossed the nuclear threshold, which is unacceptable.”

General McInerney said that Israel should use submarine-launched cruise missiles and special forces to target the underground sites and should try to spark an uprising by the Iranian people.

“I believe an air campaign without attacking Bushehr does not make it complete which is why I believe they must do it now,” he said.

About a dozen other nuclear sites must be targeted, according to General McInerney. Surface-to-air missile sites, air bases, and Shahab ballistic missile sites would also have to be struck to minimize Iran’s retaliatory capabilities. Despite the mammoth undertaking such a campaign would be, he felt there was a “high probability” of Israel attacking Iran.

The Israelis may believe that covert measures can be taken to delay the time when a strike becomes necessary. The Mossad is suspected of being involved in the deaths of important Iranian nuclear scientists and has used cyber warfare against the nuclear program. The Israelis are likely the ones responsible for greatly damaging the uranium enrichment efforts at Natanz by providing Iran with faulty equipment. The Iranians are running short on raw uranium and it is unknown if they have the ability to reprocess plutonium for a bomb. The Israelis may believe they can tolerate the operating of such facilities if their performance is hindered enough to prevent a bomb from being made and delivery capability from being achieved.

The Israelis must also consider whether the regime actually wants them to strike their facilities. The regime may believe it would bring them stability as their people continue to challenge them. They may even believe that such a strike would commence the final days when the Hidden Imam will arise during a final great war to bring victory for Islam. According to one cleric, Ayatollah Khamenei is telling his inner circle that he has met with the Hidden Imam and was promised that he’d appear before his time as Supreme Leader ends.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty permits Iran to build the infrastructure it needs to quickly build a nuclear arsenal before actually constructing a bomb. According to the treaty, Iran can cite a security threat and announce its withdrawal from the treaty to build nuclear weapons as long as it is done with 90 days notice. Iran may actually be hoping to use an Israeli strike to justify the creation of nuclear weapons and attribute the subsequent crisis to Israeli aggression. The sites are dispersed and underground, potentially allowing the regime to believe they can rejuvenate their program relatively quickly.

A remark by Ahmadinejad last September indicates that Iran is planning to point to some threat to declare that its “peaceful” program must become a weapons program. When pressed by reporter Ann Curry as to whether Iran was seeking nukes, he said “We don’t need nuclear weapons. Without such weapons we are able to defend ourselves.” She then said to him that he didn’t rule out building them in the future if he saw the need and he replied, “You can take from this whatever you want, madam.”

The Israelis have much to consider as they decide whether it’s worth attacking the Bushehr reactor. They currently have less than one week before the fuel rods are sent in, removing the option of a bombing raid on the site in the future. Israel must now decide whether to destroy the reactor or allow Iran to have a critical piece for a plutonium-based nuclear weapons program.

Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com, National Security Advisor to the Christian Action Network, and an intelligence analyst with the Asymmetric Warfare and Intelligence Center.

Quote:

Shariah Law Seeks to Replace Our Laws IMHO So We need to Know something about it before the luvvers pull the wool over more eyes.

thanks to folks at Townhall and Resistnet http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A2502558&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

Louisiana At Leading Edge In Fight Against Shariah

• Posted by Elena on August 17, 2010 at 8:05pm in General, Uncategorized Town Hall
• Send Message View Discussions

Shariah can be accurately described as reactionary, deliberately vague and, in its implementation, barbaric.
Posted on Alipac

Louisiana At Leading Edge In Fight Against Shariah

Tuesday, August 17, 2010
By Christopher Holton, Vice President, Center for Security Policy

There is a term which you may have seen or heard mentioned in the news, the blogosphere or on talk radio lately that you should know more about: Shariah. (Sometimes spelled Sharia or Shari’a, as well as some other variations.)

Readers of The Hayride may also be interested to learn that Louisiana is actually at the forefront of the fight against Shariah.

Background: What Exactly Is Shariah?

Polling done by Family Security Group back in 2008 indicated that only 3% of Americans were even aware of the term Shariah—and an even smaller percentage actually knew what it was.

So we will begin with a basic description of Shariah.

Shariah, often referred to as “Islamic Law,” is in actuality a legal doctrine based on the Quran and Hadiths (sayings and acts of Mohammed), but one which goes far beyond what Westerners would regard as religious matters or routine legal matters.

Shariah covers all aspects of life, including criminal law, domestic law, statecraft and warfare (Jihad). Shariah encompa**** personal ethics and legal issues, religion and state governance, this world and the afterlife. Shariah is said to enforce the will of Allah, as opposed to the will of humans. Shariah regulates belief, speech and religious practice, criminal and legal matters, and other fields including finance and war. There is no such thing as a separate secular authority or secular law under doctrinal Shariah, since religion and state are not distinct, but are one.

Shariah is a code which is best known for being the law of the land in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan, three nations with some of the most horrible human rights records in the world. It is no coincidence that these three nations are also heavily involved in Jihadist terrorism.

Shariah can be accurately described as reactionary, deliberately vague and, in its implementation, barbaric.

Shariah mandates as a religious obligation:

• Violent jihad against non-Muslims to establish Islam’s rule worldwide (known as the caliphate).
• The killing of apostates from Islam.
• The killing of adulterers and h***sexuals.
• Severe discrimination against women. This includes persecution of women and execution by stoning of women who are suspected of adultery. Often these women are in reality victims of rape.
• Barbaric punishment (limb amputations, gouging out of eyes) for petty crimes such as theft.
• Severe discrimination against, and the subjugation of, non-Muslims.
• For those Muslims who cannot engage in physical jihad using force, shariah mandates that they support jihad financially—“Jihad with money.”

Shariah and its tenets are completely at odds with everything America and Western Civilization stand for: freedom, equality, tolerance and justice. The promotion of shariah represents a commitment to the replacement of secular political orders. In other words, shariah sets as its goal the destruction of documents like the US Constitution and the basic liberties set out therein.

The purpose of Shariah is submission. Shariah seeks to establish that Allah is the divine lawgiver and that no other law may properly exist but Allah’s law.

Shariah tries to attain this objective using non-violent methods. However when required, and under specified sets of conditions, the use of violence and outright war to establish the supremacy of Shariah is not just allowed, but required. This use of force or war is called Jihad.

A key objective of Shariah is to establish submission to Allah’s law by either converting people to Islam or subjugating them to rule under Shariah law

The doctrine of Jihad is fundamental under Shariah because it is based upon unambiguous verses in the Quran and Hadiths. Jihad is regarded as key in Islamic jurisprudence: until the kafir (unbelievers: infidels and polytheists) are converted, subjugated, or eliminated, their mischief and power will injure the Islamic world. Jihad is waged chiefly through violence and war but it also includes other non-violent methods such as infiltration, subversion and information/psychological warfare.

Here is a very important point: Shariah is very different from other forms of religious law, such as Jewish halacha law or Catholic canon law in that neither of the latter is meant to apply to non-Jews or non-Catholics respectively. In contrast, much of Shariah is explicitly meant to apply to non-Muslims.

Shariah requires that it be dominant and it is an outright crime under Shariah for a Muslim to adhere to a secular law system that does not explicitly state and make clear that Shariah is the “highest law of the land”.

Shariah and Violent Jihad

The connection between Shariah and violent Jihad is important because it represents the most apparent—though far from only–threat from Shariah.

A detailed review of Jihadi literature reveals that, in fact, Shariah is the enemy’s threat doctrine.

Shariah is the basis for everything the Jihadists do and it is also their main goal.

Don’t take my word for it, here it is in their own words:

• The sharia has forbidden us from taking infidels as confidants, inducting them into our secrets.


• The sharia forbids us from appointing infidels to important posts.


• The sharia forbids us from adopting or praising the beliefs and views of the infidels.


• The sharia forbids us from assisting infidels against Muslims; even the one who is coerced has no excuse to fight under the banner of the infidels.


• The sharia commands us to battle infidels–both original infidels and apostates, as well as hypocrites. As for waging jihad against the infidels who have usurped the lands of Islam, this is a duty considered second only to faith, by ulemaic consensus.


• The sharia does not accept the excuses made by hypocrites–that they befriend the infidels because they fear the vicissitudes of time.


• We are duty-bound by the sharia to help Muslims overcome the infidels.

- Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda Ideologue and 2nd in Command

“Democracy is based on the principle of the power of creatures over other creatures, and rejects the principle of God’s absolute power over all creatures; it is also based on the idea that men’s desires, whatever they may be, replace God absolutely, and on the refusal to obey God’s law. In Islam, when there is a disagreement or a difference of opinion, one refers to God, his Prophet, and the commands of sharia.”

- Ayman al-Zawahiri

“From the point of view of ideology and sharia, we are required to establish God’s rule over any part of this earth, regardless of particularities and details. This can only happen, however, if the nation adopts this ideology and safeguards it.”

- Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Commander of Hizballah

“The laws of the shari’a embrace a diverse body of laws and regulations, which amounts to a complete social system. In this system of laws, all the needs of man have been met: his dealings with his neighbors, fellow citizens, and clan, as well as children and relatives; the concerns of private and marital life; regulations concerning war and peace and intercourse with other nations; penal and commercial law; and regulations pertaining to trade and agriculture.”

- Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic Of Iran 1979-1989

“Reason also dictates that we establish a government in order to be able to ward off aggression and to defend the honor of the Muslims in case of attack. The shari’a, for its part, instructs us to be constantly ready to defend ourselves against those who wish to attack us.”

- Ayatollah Khomeini

“It will be the duty of the Muslims to engage in an armed jihad against the ruling group in order to make the policies ruling society and the norms of government conform to the principles and ordinances of Islam.”

- Ayatollah Khomeini

“If the enemy attacks the lands of the Muslims or their borders, it is the duty of all Muslims to defend them by any means possible, including the sacrificing of one’s life and the expenditure of one’s wealth. With respect to this matter, there is no need to seek the permission from a shari’a judge.”

- Ayatollah Khomeini

“Our whole struggle is for the enforcement of Shariah law.”

- Muslim Khan, Taliban spokesman

“Practically everything valued by the immoral West is condemned under sharia law. The sharia provides a true and just path, securing Muslims, and providing peace to the world. Muslims, and especially the learned among them, should spread sharia law to the world–that and nothing else. Not laws under the “umbrella of justice, morality, and rights” as understood by the ma****. No, the sharia of Islam is the foundation.

They say that our sharia does not impose our particular beliefs upon others; this is a false assertion. For it is, in fact, part of our religion to impose our particular beliefs upon others.

Thus whoever refuses the principle of terror[ism] against the enemy also refuses the commandment of Allah the Exalted, the Most High, and His sharia.”

- Osama Bin Laden

Whenever an attempted Jihadi attack occurs or terrorist plot surfaces here in the US, it is important to realize that there is a doctrine underlying these actions.

(The Center for Security Policy has made available, free of charge, the definitive work on the subject of Shariah and Jihad on its web site: To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad ).

Stealth Jihad: The Civilizational Threat

The threat from Shariah extends far beyond that of violent Jihad. The threat also manifests itself in other ways. This threat is sometimes referred to with three interchangeable terms:

• “Creeping Shariah”

• “Stealth Jihad”

• “Civilizational Jihad”

When Jihadist forces are not powerful enough to impose Shariah by force, Shariah slowly infiltrates a target society and culture over time.

This has already occurred in much of Western Europe:

• In the United Kingdom, 85 Shariah courts operate openly with the force and authority of common law. Originally meant to strictly settle disputes between Muslims, 15% of the cases they hear now involve disputes with non-Muslims.

• In several nations, including Sweden and France, Muslim enclaves have developed which are essentially autonomous zones that are ruled by Shariah law.

• In the United Kingdom and South Africa, due to the “necessity” of accommodating Muslims into the welfare system and succession and inheritance laws, polygamous Muslim marriages are now de facto recognized by the respective governments.

Lest you think that this will not become a problem in the United States, think again. Shariah is already starting to appear in our courts, especially in the area of family law:

• You probably didn’t know that there is something called the “Texas Islamic Court.” It decides cases according to Shariah and its rulings sometimes end up in actual state court:

• The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood organization and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing conviction in US history (United States versus Holy Land Foundation), runs arbitrations here in the US according to Shariah:

• There have been dozens of instances in which Shariah has been invoked in US courts, mostly unsuccessfully, but not always. Here are two of the most infamous cases, brought to our attention by Stephen Gele of Lawyers Against Shariah:

In S.D. v. M.J.R. in the state of New Jersey, a New Jersey judge saw no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife — not because he didn’t do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: “This court does not feel that, under the circ***tances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.” Fortunately, an appellate court overturned this atrocious decision, and a Shariah ruling by a U.S. court was not allowed to stand.
In a Maryland case, Hosain v. Malik, 108 Md.App. 284, 671 A.2d 988 (Md.1996), a Maryland Court granted comity and enforced a Pakistani custody order turning a child brought to the US by the mother over to the father. The Maryland Court held that: the burden was on the mother to prove the Pakistani court did not apply law in “substantial conformity with Maryland law” by a preponderance of the evidence; the case was “not about whether Pakistani religion, culture, or legal system is personally offensive to us or whether we share all of the same values, mores and customs, but rather whether the Pakistani courts applied a rule of law, evidence,or procedure so contradictory to Maryland public policy as to undermine the confidence in the trial”; the best interest of the child should not be “determined based on Maryland law, i.e., American cultures and mores,” but rather “by applying relevant Pakistani customs, culture and mores”;“a Pakistani court could only determine the best interest of a Pakistani child by an analysis utilizing the customs, culture, religion, and mores of … Pakistan”; “in the Pakistani culture, the well being of the child and the child’s proper development is thought to be facilitated by adherence to Islamic teachings”; the Pakistani order was not the result of “a trial by fire, trial by ordeal, or a system rooted in superstition, or witchcraft”; the “longstanding doctrine [of Hazanit1] of one of the world’s oldest and largest religions practiced by hundreds of millions of people around the world and in this country, as applied as one factor in the best interest of the child test, is [not] repugnant to Maryland public policy”; and, the granting of the order by the Pakistani Court without representation for the mother was not repugnant to Maryland public policy because although she may have been arrested for adultery if she returned to Pakistan for the custody proceedings and have been subject to “public whipping or death by stoning,” such punishments were “extremely unlikely.”
Louisiana residents may be interested in knowing that similar cases have arisen in the Bayou State, including a child custody case with fortunately a very different outcome from that in Maryland (again, thanks to Stephen Gele):

In Amin v. Bakhaty, 01-1967 (La.10/16/01), 798 So.2d 75, the Louisiana Supreme Court refused to enforce an Egyptian custody order stating that: The only other forum that could possibly determine custody would be Egypt. However, the Egyptian Court is not compelled to consider the minor child’s best interest. [The father] would have the absolute right to guardianship, as well as the right to physical custody. This Court believes that a parent’s interest in a relationship with his or her child is a basic human right. Egypt follows Islamic family law, which structures some of the rights between family members based solely on gender. Under the Egyptian concept of “guardianship,” the father has the absolute right to the guardianship and the physical custody of the minor child. [The father]‘s affidavit when he petitioned for a civil warrant confirmed this structure in Islamic law, stating that by operation of Egyptian law, both the temporary guardianship and physical custody of [the child] rested exclusively with him. The unique circ***tances of this case required moreconsideration for the best interest of this child than for the extension of comity toward the Egyptian/Islamic legal system.

American and Louisiana Laws for Louisiana Courts

State lawmakers across America are starting to take action to prevent the US from ending up like Western Europe, a victim of Creeping Shariah. Potential presidential candidate and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich recently addressed the issue in a policy speech:

Video: Newt Gingrich: Ban Sharia - It is" totally abhorrent to the Western World"

http://thehayride.com/2010/08/louisiana-at-leading-edge-in-fight-ag...

Some of you may have heard of the upcoming ballot initiative in Oklahoma to outlaw Shariah law. This initiative will appear on the ballot there in November.

Most people do not realize, however, that, along with Tennessee, Louisiana already took the lead in preventing Shariah from creeping into our legal system with a new law which has been nicknamed “American and Louisiana Laws for Louisiana Courts.”

This law, Act 714 of the regular Louisiana 2010 legislative session, http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/Authors.asp?sessionid=10RS&am... was a collaborative effort by Rep. Ernest Wooton and Senator Danny Martiny. Governor Bobby Jindal’s office was aware of this bill and its intent from the earliest stages and the governor dispatched staff to appear in support of the bill in committee:

The key passage in this important piece of legislation explains its intent and effect:

“The legislature finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.”

Because Shariah is inherently violative of the basic constitutional liberties which Americans hold dear, this law arms judges and attorneys with the tool they need to prevent anything such as happened in Maryland and New Jersey from happening in Louisiana.

Act 714 is now model legislation for the rest of the country and has already been used by legislators in states from coast to coast to prepare legislation in the 2011 legislative session.

http://thehayride.com/2010/08/louisiana-at-leading-edge-in-fight-ag...

many links on this post; go to the link above if you wish to view them

Quote:
Hello Friends,

A lot's been written about the Ground Zero mega mosque the "Cordoba House". The Muslim agent in the White House came out in support of it and then retracted his support a bit and again retracted his retraction. How typical of this spineless man.

The below video looks at the issue in a different manner and one well worth listening to. Historic mistakes and not learning from them are the cause of most of our problems today. Listen to what Bill Whittle has to say and open your minds and eyes to facts and not progressive liberal mumbo jumbo that eventually ends up as you're a racist since they have nothing else to support their position. Another very handy excuse that B Hussein, his goons and the liberal MSM leans on is it's Bushs' fault. Both are boooooring and have no legs to stand on.

Shalom,

Peter