As U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange does the bidding of Hamas-linked CAIR, does she really know anything about what Sharia is or how it contradicts the U.S. Constitution in numerous important particulars? "Oklahoma City judge extends ban on prohibition of Sharia Law," from NewsOK, November 22 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
An Oklahoma City federal judge today extended a temporary ban on implementation of a constitutional amendment that prohibits state courts from considering international or Islamic law.U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange said she will rule Monday after weighing the issues.
Seventy percent of Oklahoma voters approved the measure in the Nov. 2 election, but Muneer Awad, who is Muslim and executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, filed a lawsuit.
Awad said the amendment demonizes his faith.
No mention, of course, of CAIR's Hamas links, its status as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case, the jihad terror convictions of several of its former officials, etc.
And as for the amendment demonizing Islam, Pamela Geller says it best: "No, Awad, Sharia demonizes the faith. Sharia demonizes and brutalizes women and children and Jews and Christians and Hindus and Sikhs and other living things."
YAY.
Another victory for us. Thanks Vicki.
A useful idiot, this activist judge.
She has quite a colorful history too, this U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange....
Muslims and Mushlims (Muslim by culture and streetfighting criminals) have a serious case of whine flu---it is counterproductive, unbecoming and rhymes with swine. No offence intended toward pigs.
A victory to what end exactly?
islamic empire: don't start celebrating just yet. This judge is just enjoying her "15 minutes of fame". She will be over ruled by higher courts and ultimately the will of the people shall be enacted. No matter what you think or believe the truth of islam and Mohammed is slowly being revealed and ultimately it will be destroyed by the brillance of the comming return of Jesus the Christ who will crush it and all other evil with a rod of iron!
Oh come on empire. You are just being silly. Right?
nabi ZK (pbum)
...total nabi to mohametan and pseudo mohametan trolls...founder of the international correspondence school of nabific studies...be a nabi in 10 easy lessons or half your money back...no unusual birthmarks required...accept no substitutes...etc...
U.S. diplomat knows more about minaret ban than a the Swiss Parliament (thanks to Vlad Tepes)
The Swiss Embassy in Washington would, according to the Journal, not comment on this statement. Behind closed doors, it has been referred to as a likely misunderstanding – because ultimately the Swiss Federal Council does not have the legal means to ignore the result of a valid referendum.
The Swiss Foreign Ministry has learned about Mr. Posner’s statements, responded the spokeswoman Carole Wälti to “Sonntag”. Posner’s comments, that there have been efforts by the Swiss government to lift the ban on minarets, are baseless. There have also been “no talks held with Michael Posner,” added Wälti.
Thats it. The Swiss government does not have the authority to overturn the will of the people. Period.
So how is that a nation founded on the principle of government by the people has become a nation where a judge decides that she can negate the will of the people?
The presence of Muslims in America is leading to the destruction of America. Muslim presence in America is wreaking havoc on the trust between the government and citizens (re: the TSA story), as well as opening Pandora's box to something worse viz a dictator who promises to rid us of this Jihadi pestilence.
"Awad said the amendment demonizes his faith."
It seems to me that Islam has been demonizing itself for about 1400 years.
So what are the steps to have U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange removed from the bench? Can our elected law makers remove a U.S. District Judge? What are the steps?
You don't really think this is over do you? How little you know of Oklahoma. LOL
70% voted for this.
How is it possible for a federal judge to "extend a ban" on a local issue?
Wellington?
I need help on this one.
The State will lose on appeal also. Swiss are backward in allow people to decide big issue like than Ban on Minaret.
Americans should have gotten tired a long time ago on activist Federal judges who continuously undermine the majority of voters positions on what should be states rights issues.
The dhimmi feds are continuously putting this country at risk from denying Arizona's SB 1070, to being in support of the mega Mosque being developed by the slumlord and sharia supporter Iman Feisel Rauf, not to mention Obamacare,and stimilus money,or a President who diminishes our country to our enemies abroad, and now we have the feds going once again against the will of the people.
Who will stand up against politicians who do not have the interest of protecting this country economically and so many other ways.
We should be learning a lesson from what happened to what was once a great country nearly a 100 years ago but turned and went the same way our President is going---ARGENTINA
"Awad said the amendment demonizes his faith."
Remember 9/11 Awad? And 1,000s similar Jihad attacks?
You don't need any help demonizing your faith.
Your "faith" is clearly demonic anyway. It is motivated by hatred. Hatred is from hell.
On yer camel, Awad!
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force. "
-Ayn Rand
Mackie it isnot than state right issue, OK have no right at all to pass just than amentment to they constitute.The State Unit Sentra said it was oppose to this amentment an they are better educrate than they parents are.There is not thing as than activist federal judge, the far rightwing came up with that tern to attack good judges. There is no Muslim Brotherhood with the aim to destory the western civilation from within, the western people are doing it on they own.
Who are “DefenderofIslam” and “Islamic Empire”? They turn up regularly on Jihad Watch and offer their pro-Islam cheerleading bravado and prize-winning illiteracy. They are almost as funny as Jerry Seinfeld, or Bozo the Clown. “DefenderofIslam” this time produced a curious word salad: “Mackie it isnot than state right issue, OK have no right at all to pass just than amentment to they constitute.The State Unit Sentra said it was oppose to this amentment an they are better educrate than they parents are.” Well, many of the letter combinations do not even form words.
Perhaps “DefenderofIslam” is a law clerk in Judge Miles-LaGrange’s office, while “Islamic Empire” is a cross-dresser and wears a burqa. Mr. Spencer, are you paying these guys to provide a little levity? Please forgive me for speculating, but their remarks on your articles are chuckle-worthy.
They'll soon be making adoption illegal http://s1.zetaboards.com/EDL_The_Forum/topic/3951496/1/
There is something very strange about this topic - As long as I can remember and from History at tertiary level, the USA has been an independent country for a few hundred years now. You have your own Lawgiver and laws are written and removed by the guidelines in your constitution through the people who voted in their representatives. Now where where in the world can immigrants dictate to their new country by which laws they want to be governed - its either; adapt or get out. And Mr.Muneer Awad, nothing can demonize Islam - it is at it's very root DEMONIC; just go and study how Islam sarted. It's there for anyone to go and read. Sound recorded History does not lie because of the very fact that it is History.
defender of islam: please note that the Oklahoma ban on sharia law IS constitutional as there is NO basis for sharia in English common law which is the basis of all US law. Sharia law which institutionalizes inequality before the law for nonmuslims and women is illegal and is incompatable with both state and federal constuitions and the bill of rights.
Sharia implemention in UK: Muslims force kafirs to step into the road when they meet them on the sidewalk: http://s1.zetaboards.com/EDL_The_Forum/topic/3951637/1/
Mackie quote Ayn Rand: "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
How true. Aside from ObamaCare being rammed through Congress and the takeover of GM and the willy-nilly inflation of the currency, there is "up front and personal" decision of the TSA to violate Americans' Fourth Amendment rights by assaulting their persons with intimate pat-downs and x-ray scanners, with the conscious intention of making that exercise in futility as obnoxious and invasive as possible. LaGrange's actions are much of the same species of brutality. She doesn't care what the "will of the people" is, or what the nature of Sharia law is. You will obey and submit to her own form of "Islam."
I see no difference between the totalitarian agenda of Islam and that of the federal government, except in the form of their icons. They both require submission to the will of the state. Is it any wonder that Obama is friendly towards Islam? Bush's "tolerance" of Islam stems from his ignorance of it. Obama's stems from an ideological affinity with it.
I have posted the text of recent filings. The TRO
http://www.pdxnag.com/OK_755/
OK_755_Election_Board_response.pdf
OK_755_LINCOLN_INSTITUTE_amicus_brief.pdf
OK_755_Plaintif_reply.pdf
Notably, there is no new order at all from the judge, other than to accept Lincoln Institute as amicus, for which either party could have objected. This notion that the judge "extended" an injunction is poppycock. The judge postponed the obvious, that she must both lift the injunction and dismiss the complaint entirely.
I like this bit from the Election Board's response:
Even if Plaintiff could have made out a complaint after passage, and certification, and if it were applied against him personally, that standing issue is not the same as here where plaintiff makes his facial challenge.
The response notes the interests of the voters, acting through the state. Itself a First Amendment right.
I did not immediately see anything in the response nor amicus brief about an acknowledgment nor articulation about plaintiffs attempted claim that the entirety of the non-Sharia court system suffers from being based on Judeo-Christian "values," and thus that it is itself a violation of the establishment clause, which would necessarily be inclusive of the establishment clause itself and mock the court by appearing before it, to say anything before the court or to pretend to respect the court's authority -- in a comedic non sequitur.
" Swiss are backward in allow people decide big issue like than Ban on Minaret ".
Why are they backward ?
The Swiss ban on minarets, and the Oklahoma vote against sharia, are called democracy.
Are you calling democracy backwards, compared to Islamic sharia ?
Islamic Empire: "Another" victory? In your book, defeat is victory, isn't it? Pathetic.
Followers of Islam: see also; fools, cowards, blind, followers of the demon known as Allah, murderers, killers of children, brutalizers of women, pedophiles and obstructionists of freedom.
When are we finally going to understand that Islam is NOT a religion. It is a political force used to subjegate any and all who oppose it. It is a blunt object used to bludgeon all those who embrace liberty and freedom.
If this Awad has standing to challenge the Oklahoma sharia ban, he must practice sharia, which violates several state and federal statutes. I hope the authorities are paying attention to Mr. Awad.
Shame, shame on LaGrange.
The State will lose on appeal also. Swiss are backward in allow people to decide big issue like than Ban on Minaret.
You just prove how ignorant you are of the American people and the Swiss. You are defending an iron age mentality with your bronze age mind
The State will lose on appeal also. Swiss are backward in allow people to decide big issue like than Ban on Minaret.
You just prove how ignorant you are of the American people and the Swiss. You are defending an iron age mentality with your bronze age mind
The dimness of the feds idea bulb continues to shine darkness all around.