TeaPartyWire.com – Tea Party News by and for Tea Party Members

Missouri to ban foreign law from use in state courts
Bill: SB676 (PDF)

Sponsored by Senator Brian Nieves, SB676 creates the Civil Liberties Defense Act mandating that any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling shall be unenforceable if based on a foreign law that does not grant the parties the same rights as the parties have under the United States and Missouri constitutions. PDF Bill: SB676

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. writes “American Law for American Courts”, Preserving the Constitution means rejecting Shariah.

Shortly before Newt Gingrich’s decisive victory in South Carolina last week, he was asked a critical question by a Palmetto State voter: Would he support a Muslim candidate for president? The former speaker of the House answered in a way that was both characteristically insightful and profoundly helpful with respect to one of the most serious challenges our country faces at the moment.

Mr. Gingrich responded by saying it depends on a critical factor: Is the candidate “a modern person who happens to worship Allah”? Or is he “a person who belonged to any kind of belief in Shariah, any kind of effort to impose that on the rest of us”? Mr. Gingrich observed that the former would not be a problem, while the latter would be a “mortal threat.” The Georgia Republican went on to assert the need for federal legislation that would prevent Shariah from being applied in U.S. courts.

Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are squealing like, well, stuck haram (or impure) pigs. After all, they have been working overtime to try to obscure the true nature of Shariah and to prevent the enactment of legislation that would interfere with the considerable progress being made below the radar in states across the country: the insinuation of Shariah into the American judiciary.

Resorting to their standard technique of ad hominem attacks, CAIR and its friends have derided Mr. Gingrich’s stance as “racist,” “bigoted” and “Islamophobic.” Such comments evidently were not persuasive to South Carolina voters – and they should be equally dismissed by everybody else.

The Muslim Brotherhood in America calls this “civilization jihad.” It seeks through, for example, the use of Shariah in U.S. courts to insinuate their program here at the expense of our constitutional rights and state public policy.

A sense of how far along we are in this process was provided by a study conducted last year by the Center for Security Policy. Titled “Shariah in American Courts,” it examined a small microcosm of U.S. jurisprudence. Its findings were alarming: Out of a sample of 50 cases, in 27 instances in 23 states, the courts involved allowed the use of Shariah to adjudicate the dispute.

In almost all of the cases, that outcome was at the expense of the constitutional rights of American women or children. Under Shariah, they simply do not enjoy the same stature and are not entitled to the same freedoms they are under U.S. law.

Is your state working on Anti-Sharia law?

What’s the best thing about Newt Gingrich?  He isn’t Mitt Romney.  One of Mr. Gingrich’s old friends explained it this way today:  Gingrich is staying in the race to forestall Romney’s leftward drift.  It reminds me of a TV gabfest I saw yesterday.  S.E. Cupp was being assailed by the MSDNC gang about right wing extremism.  She replied there were plenty of moderate Democrats driven from a party moving ever leftward in the 21^st Century.  As for right wing extremism, what’s the problem?  This country was founded by extremists and later the Civil War fought by extremists and all of the great political ideas sure as heck didn’t come from moderates.

Gingrich was on the show with me Wednesday (a link is provided at the bottom of the page).  As a former Upstate New Yorker I wasn’t happy when Gingrich backed moderate Republicans twice in Congressional primaries but I know why he made the decision.  He planned a later return to political office and he cast his lot with the candidates the GOP establishment promised were the best available.  “That’s the way the system works,” is the old adage I heard from politicians when I was a young reporter.  The voting public didn’t like it then and doesn’t like it now and today we’ve a major difference.  Americans don’t envision a pleasant future.  The politicians are like another old adage about generals at battle:  Always fighting the last war.  The angry town halls of 2010 and the Occupy demonstrations of this election cycle are about rage.  It appears to me the Tea Party has now moved from rage to despondency.  Just look at the choices we’ve got at state and national levels!  Even in my home county the conservative Republicans are ignoring the authority of a popularly elected Sheriff.

Newt Gingrich is the guy you knew in school with all the answers.  The smartest guy in the class, whereas Romney is the handsome fellow born with all the advantages.  He’s a nice fellow, I guess.  Happy family man and happy family but not much of a connection with the public, Romney is the product of an insular upbringing.  His fellow Republican candidates despised him four years ago and despise him today.  In Mitt’s defense it’s the weariness of being a member of a religious minority.  Gingrich is the guy you knew in school politicking all over the cafeteria and the playground and he always seemed to intuitively know what everyone wanted.  He did then.  I think he now fights the last war.

A few minutes before his appearance on the program a fellow telephoned and defended the absent Ron Paul.  I like Paul.  He appears to understand not just the crisis but the public anger.  He was also a bright student in school but by choice more of a wallflower with a nose buried in obscure and complex books.  Santorum is now history and I thought he understood the public unease but his solution often sounded like a call for the restoration of Christendom.  As a Catholic I’m intrigued but the United States is a product of the Protestant Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment.

In the old school days Michele Bachmann was the smartest and prettiest girl in class but she didn’t meet media notions of womanhood.  She managed a massive household and work but failed to promote promiscuity and the convenience of infanticide.  From day one she was a marked woman.  Our Thatcher, deferred.

Gingrich, with his outsized personality and sense of history could’ve adopted the cause.  He didn’t.  Had the professor not been still so grounded in his 90s battles with Bill Clinton and instead claimed much of what Paul and Bachmann brought to the arena, well…?

Gingrich would be making a triumphant victory march to his party’s convention.  Next January 20^th he would be standing before the throng and delivering a scintillating call for another reformation.  Instead we’ll get the plodding, uninspiring Romney.

http://www.wgmd.com/?p=53521