Newt Gingrich Warns of Sharia Law in U.S.

(h/t iOTW)

Here are related videos of Geert Wilders warning the U.S. on Sharia Law:

Part 1:

                                        

Part 2:

Hotel Cancelled Anti-Sharia Conference

Nashville's Hutton Hotel is described by its management as a place where "four-star luxury adopts a stylish and accommodating new spirit."

That accommodating spirit apparently doesn't extend to conservative Americans concerned about the spread of Sharia, or Islamic law.

According to the Nashville Tennessean, the Hutton Hotel has backed out of an agreement to host a November conference called "The Constitution or Sharia: A Freedom Conference," billed as "the first true national conference on Sharia and the Islamization of America sponsored by major freedom oriented organizations!"

The paper reports that the hotel received complaints about the event from members of the public and other hotel clients. Owners said they weren't aware of the conference's main topic until recently.

"If this group had let us know what kind of program they were planning and who was involved, we wouldn't have booked it," Steve Eckley, a senior vice president with Amerimar Enterprises, the hotel owner, told reporter Bob Smietana.

Discomfort over the presence of Muslims in Tennessee flared up most prominently of late in Murfreesboro, about 45 minutes away, where opposition to the expansion of a local mosque received national media attention, including coverage of arson at the construction site and a spray-painted message reading "Not Welcome."

In more-cosmopolitan Nashville, the planned conference is sponsored by a group called the Sharia Awareness Action Network. Speakers were to include Pamela Geller, an activist blogger whose Atlas Shrugs website is dedicated to the "Islamization" of America.

On their site, conference organizers said the hotel cited "threats" in canceling the event.

"We are following a dual track of legal action and seeking a new venue," the site says, vowing that the event would be held "one way or the other."

LA Times

We Abolished Sharia Law in U.S. When We Abolished Slavery; Don't Bring Sharia Law Back!

Our next president must be a man who uses the resources at his disposal to resist, reject and prevent the implementation of Sharia law anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances in the United States.

Sharia law is already making encroachments in American culture in large ways and small, whether it’s Target cashiers getting a pass for refusing to serve customers who want to buy bacon, or Christians being arrested for handing out free copies of the gospel of John to Muslims on a public sidewalk.

But making concessions to Sharia law over against the moral code of the Judeo-Christian tradition is nothing new for America. We started doing it in 1619 when we began to tolerate the slave trade, as the first shipment of 30 African slaves arrived on the shores of Virginia.

By the way, the first legally recognized slave in America, John Casor, was actually the property of a black man, a colonist by the name of Anthony Johnson. A Northampton County court ruled in 1654 that Casor was “owned” by Johnson, and was his property for life. There were many black slave-holders in the South at the outbreak of the Civil War, and many of them took up arms against the North.

Here’s how Thomas Sowell puts it: “[T]here were thousands of … blacks in the antebellum south who were commercial slave owners, just like their white counterparts. An estimated one-third of the ‘free persons of color’ in New Orleans were slaveowners and thousands of these slaveowners volunteered to fight for the Confederacy…”

The slaves who were brought here in chains in 1619 were Africans who had been kidnapped by other Africans and sold to slave traders who in turn brought them to America. The kidnappers, the ones who went into the interior of Africa to capture their fellow Africans to sell them into bondage, were predominantly Muslims.

In fact, according to Thomas Sowell, a million or more Europeans were enslaved by Muslim pirates from North Africa from 1500-1800, and whites were sold at slave auctions in Egypt until at least the year 1885. Muslims still openly practice slavery today in places like Mauritania, Saudi Arabia and Sudan.

Muhammad himself practiced slavery, and directed his followers to do the same. Since Muhammad is the ultimate role model for Muslims, and Muslims believe that everything he did will be worthy of imitation until the end of time, slavery will always have moral approval in Islam.

Estimates are that over 17 million slaves were transported out of Africa by Islamic slave traders, and a staggering 85 million are believed to have died en route. About 645,000 of those wound up in what became the United States.

Quoting Sowell: “…the region of West Africa…was one of the great slave-trading regions of the continent – before, during, and after the white man arrived. It was Africans who enslaved their fellow Africans, selling some of these slaves to Europeans or to Arabs and keeping others for themselves.Even at the peak of the Atlantic slave trade, Africans retained more slaves for themselves than they sent to the Western Hemisphere…Arabs were the leading slave raiders in East Africa, ranging over an area larger than all of Europe.” (Emphasis mine.)

Now, in contrast to Islam and Sharia, the Judeo-Christian tradition from day one has been adamantly opposed to the slave trade.

read the rest here

Herman Cain Defends His Sharia Conspiracy: ‘Call Me Crazy’

On ABC’s This Week, host Christiane Amanpour confronted Herman Cain about a comment he made to ThinkProgress. “There’s this creeping attempt…to gradually ease Sharia Law and the Muslim faith into our government,” Cain told us in March.

After showing Cain his quote, Amanpour asked him to respond to Chris Christie, who has said, “This Sharia law business is crap, it’s just crazy, and I’m tired of dealing with the crazies.” Cain responded:

Geert Wilders Warning To America

PART 1

PART 2

The Case Against Sharia Law in the U.S. ...From The New York Times!!

Federal Court Considers Oklahoma Shariah Ban

mother jones

(Judge) Matheson asked, "Why is there any need to mention Sharia law," to which Wyrick answered: "To avoid confusion."


Often questions from judges during oral arguments are less about getting information than making a point, and in this case Obama-appointee Matheson (the older brother of Utah Rep. Jim Matheson, a Democrat) seemed to be offering Wyrick a chance to explain the ban's obvious problems. Instead, Wyrick just reiterated that the law was targeting a particular religion, lest anyone get confused. That's unusual. Laws explicitly singling out certain religions are rare, precisely because the authors of those laws know that doing poses obvious constitutional problems that could lead to the measures being overturned. In previous cases like this, lawmakers have at least tried to pretend that there was a compelling public interest beyond simply curtailing the religious activities of one particular group. But thanks to the language of the amendment and the public statements of Oklahoma lawmakers, there's little doubt who the amendment was targeting.


Oklahoma's Shariah law ban was called the "Save Our State Amendment," but only in the most fevered imaginations is Tulsa in danger of being annexed by Islamic extremists. Instead, the ban will simply interfere with the ability of Muslim Oklahomans to execute wills and uphold business contracts drafted according to their religious beliefs. There is no danger of "Shariah" replacing American law. Where religious practices come into contact with civil law, the latter prevails.

Lawsuit Can Affect Anti-Sharia Ammendments In 20 States

Voice of America

A U.S. federal appeals court began hearing a case Monday on an amendment to Oklahoma's state constitution that bans Sharia, or Islamic law, as well as international law from being considered in state courts. Legal scholars say the case could affect similar moves in more than 20 other U.S. states.


In a referendum last year, 70 percent of voters in southwestern state of Oklahoma approved an amendment to the state's constitution that forbids courts from citing international or Sharia law in their judgments.


Last November, a judge in Oklahoma blocked the amendment after the leader of a Muslim civil rights group filed a lawsuit. The judge said the so-called "Save Our State Amendment" probably violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which separates religion and state. The lawsuit is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals based in Denver, Colorado.

Oklahoma seeks to reinstate anti-Sharia measure

Lawyers for the state of Oklahoma urged a federal appeals court on Monday to reinstate a voter-passed state constitutional amendment barring Oklahoma judges from recognizing Islamic and international law.


Defenders of Oklahoma's "Save Our State Amendment," approved by 70 percent of state voters last year, say they want to prevent foreign laws in general, and Islamic Sharia law in particular, from overriding state or U.S. laws.


But foes of the Oklahoma measure have argued it stigmatizes Islam and its adherents and violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment prohibition against the government favoring one religion over another.


Sharia or Islamic law covers all aspects of Muslim life including religious obligations and financial dealings, and opponents of the ban say such a move could nullify wills or legal contracts between Muslims because they incorporate by reference specific elements of Islamic prophetic traditions.



Oklahoma is the only state to have passed a law explicitly banning consideration of Sharia by its courts, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. But the Religion News Service has reported moves afoot to pass similar legislation in more than 20 states.


A report this month showed that the percentage of Americans who believed American Muslims want to establish Sharia law in the United States grew by 7 points to 30 percent over the past eight months.


The same report, by the Brookings Institution and the Public Religion Research Institute, showed 88 percent of Americans acknowledged knowing little about Muslim beliefs.


A lawsuit challenging the Oklahoma measure, also called State Question 755, was brought by the ACLU on behalf of Muneer Awad, director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). A U.S. district judge in Oklahoma City, Vicki Miles-LaGrange, issued a court order last November barring the measure from taking effect while the case is under review, finding a likelihood that Awad would prevail on the merits. The Oklahoma Elections Board then petitioned the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver to set aside the injunction, and a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit heard arguments from the two sides on Monday.


The panel gave no indication how it would rule, but at least one judge, Scott Matheson, asked why the measure was crafted to apply explicitly to just one religion.


"There's no mention of any other specific law," Matheson said in the hearing. "We just have Sharia law singled out."


Oklahoma Solicitor General Patrick Wyrick replied, "The intent here was to exclude Sharia law and international law."


Matheson asked, "Why is there any need to mention Sharia law," to which Wyrick answered: "To avoid confusion."


Asked to explain why the issue was ripe for judicial review before anyone could demonstrate any overt harm from it, ACLU attorney Micheal Salem said the measure, by its very enactment, "conveyed hostility" toward one religion.


Salem, arguing that the measure sought to impose the will of the majority over the rights of a minority, said upholding it would establish a precedent that "it would only take 50 percent plus one to ban the next religion."


The clerk of the court told Reuters it takes an average of three months for the 10th Circuit to render a decision in a case after hearing oral arguments.



read it here