Muslim group CAIR urges Kansas governor to allow sharia law

It passed the House 120-0 and now the Senate 33-3. Terror-linked CAIR is pressing Kansas’ governor to permit sharia law in Kansas. via CAIR: Kansas Governor Asked Not to Sign Anti-Sharia Bill

 WASHINGTON, May 15, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called on Muslims and all other Americans who value civil liberties to contact Kansas Governor Sam Brownback to ask that he not sign a bill (House Substitute for Senate Bill 79)

via Kansas lawmakers pass effective ban on Islamic law – Yahoo! News.

KANSAS CITY, Kansas (Reuters) – Kansas lawmakers have passed legislation intended to prevent the state courts or agencies from using Islamic or other non-U.S. laws in making decisions, a measure critics have blasted as an embarrassment to the state.

Critics? Hamas-linked, FBI-banned, IRS-revoked, DOJ-confirmed unindicted co-conspirators to the largest terrorist financing conviction in U.S. history – those are your critics! When will the media do its &*#)ing job?

The legislation, which passed 33-3 in the state Senate on Friday and 120-0 previously in the House, is widely known in Kansas as the “Sharia bill,” because the perceived goal of supporters is to keep Islamic code from being recognized in Kansas.

The bill was sent to Republican Governor Sam Brownback, who has not indicated whether he will sign it.

In interviews on Saturday, a supporter of the bill said it reassured foreigners in Kansas that state laws and the U.S. Constitution will protect them. But an opponent said the bill’s real purpose is to hold Islam out for ridicule.

Kansas Representative Peggy Mast, a lead sponsor of the bill for the past two years, said the goal was to make sure there was no confusion that American laws prevailed on American soil.

Mast said research showed more than 50 cases around the United States where courts or government agencies took laws from Sharia or other legal systems into account in decision-making.

Commonly, they involved divorce, child custody, property division or other cases where the woman was treated unfairly, Mast said.

“I want people of other cultures, when they come to the United States, to know the freedoms they have in regard to women’s and children’s rights,” said Mast, a Republican. “An important part of this bill would be to educate them.”

Roughly 20 states have considered legislation similar to what has passed in Kansas, said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington. Some state legislatures, including Kansas, have passed laws that do not mention Sharia by name, he said.

Hooper said there was a movement by conservative-leaning state legislatures to introduce anti-Islam bills that have no legal foundation.

“Really, the goal seems to be (to demonize) Islam and (to marginalize) American Muslims,” Hooper said. “Some (states) have passed these watered-down bills and declared a great victory. It’s utter nonsense, but if your goal is to promote intolerance, I guess you won.”

And if Allah is your objective, the Prophet is your leader, the Qur’an is your law, jihad is your way, and dying in the way of Allah is your highest hope – then there is no place for you in the United States and you must be stopped. We won’t let you win. 

 The Kansas City area is a hotbed of Hamas support with a growing Islamic problem as we’ve noted many times.

19 thoughts on “Muslim group CAIR urges Kansas governor to allow sharia law

  1. The way the Constitution is written and the subsequent case decisions means writing an anti-sharia law is unnecessary. What is necessary is for the people to be willing to enforce what has already been done.

    First Amendment to the United States Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ”
    Together with the Free Exercise Clause (“… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”), these two clauses make up what are called the “religion clauses” of the First Amendment.

    In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey statute funding student transportation to schools, whether parochial or not. Justice Hugo Black held,

    The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.”

    Lemon v Kurtzman (403 US 602 [1971]), established what is known today as “The Lemon Test.” The Lemon Test is used to examine a law to see if it has the effect of establishing a religion. The Court wrote:

    In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: “sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.”

    Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.”

    For a more in depth reading please see the following:

    Additionally no Treaties can supersede the U.S. Constitution as some have tried to claim:

    Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)
    Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:
    “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;… .”

    There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in “pursuance” of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [354 U.S. 1, 17] War, would remain in effect. 31 It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. 32 In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

    For further in depth reading see:

  2. If the muslims would leave the state where these laws are enforced, would they all leave to a friendlier country? If we keep kicking the CAIR thugs, would they leave? I think so especially when Obama loses.

  3. Same old story–if they want sharia law, they should go back to their Middle East sand-box, where they can beat their women and “honour kill” their kids, and behead each other to their heart’s content.

  4. Kudos Kansas! Kick muslim A$$, next step America, is to Kick the KKK (Kuffar Killing Klan) out of the White Kabba next election

  5. How many times have they (publicly) said they have no interest in promoting shariah in the US?

    Now that Kansas has sealed it tight, it’s called intolerance.

    The goal posts have shifted back to a position where Americans are judged by American Law.

    Next up, and this is nothing less than global censorship, is the OIC’s push towards criminalising critisism of religion. As the I in their title indicates there’s only one in the frame.

    And Hillary is all for it.

  6. Isn’t there any limit to our patient? For how long are we going to tolerate the intolerant and bullies in our own backyard? It’s there any reciprocity at all? Since our freedom never came free, it means that we must be prepared in order to fight for it if necessary!

  7. Brownback will almost certainly sign it. It is a taste of things to come as grass roots efforts to assert American legal secular values as primary take hold. There is no such thing as “sharia law” in an American court.

  8. Allowin even the most basic form of sharia law will simply put the wheels in motion for full sharia law in a matter of years. These devils do not stop until they get what they want.
    Parts of sharia law that need to be known.
    1) Taqqiya— Allows muslims to utter any lie they want if it benefits islam
    2)Jizya– A law which allows any muslim to extract payment (money, goods, livestock, products) from non-muslims to keep them alive.
    3) Public floggings for alcohol use
    4) Public stoning to death for infidelity, this includes single women seen speaking to any male before marriage.
    5) The male can divorce a wife by repeating’ I divorce you’ 3 times. The wife has no such option.
    6)Instant death for anyone different . ie gay etc,. Yet muslims males regularily rape young boys.
    7) Death penalty under shria law, minimum ages, boys 15years, girls 9 years.
    8) Males allowed multiple wives
    9)Farthers regularily selling off young daughters (as young as 6) to older men to give her experience.

    These are just a few samples of what sharia law ( Satans Law) is all about.

    Resist it with all your powers.

  9. Pingback: American Laws for American Courts Wins Major Bipartisan Victory in Kansas Legislature | The Counter Jihad Report

  10. Pingback: Muslim group CAIR urges Kansas governor to allow sharia law « WindsorCOAct!forAmerica

  11. Pingback: AFDI/SIOA Action Alert: Fight back as Hamas-linked CAIR targets Kansas Governor to bully him into vetoing anti-Sharia law « Iran Aware

  12. Pingback: Michigan chapter of Hamas-linked CAIR holds presentation on how to aid FBI with anti-terror efforts — no, wait… « Iran Aware

If sharia law continues spreading, you'll have less and less freedom of speech - so speak while you can!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s