Flying armadillo attack headed off: Missouri governor vetoes anti-Sharia bill, claiming it would endanger foreign adoptions

“If he would have said the bill might cause an invasion of flying armadillos, that would have been just as valid.”

Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacists argue that anti-Sharia laws would infringe upon Muslims’ religious rights. They still make headway using that argument with judges and lawmakers who are ignorant of the nature of Sharia, such as Jay Nixon.

In reality, no one cares about individual Muslim religious practice or wants to restrict it. The purpose of anti-Sharia laws is not to stop Muslims from getting married in Islamic religious ceremonies or to restrict their religious practice in other ways, but to stop the political and supremacist aspects of Islam that infringe upon the rights and freedoms of non-Muslims, denying the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. This is the case that must be made.

“Nixon vetoes ‘Sharia Law’ bill, saying it would endanger foreign adoptions,” by Kevin McDermott for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 4 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

ST. LOUIS “¢ Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed on Monday an anti-“Sharia Law” bill, saying that in its zeal to address an imaginary problem, the legislation creates a real one for parents seeking foreign adoptions.

The bill would make it illegal for Missouri to enforce any foreign law or legal decision deemed “repugnant or inconsistent” with Missouri or U.S. law. It doesn’t specify Islamist Sharia religious law, but it’s part of a movement by conservative lawmakers in more than 20 states who have pushed similar measures to highlight alleged Sharia influences in the U.S.

“There are certainly problems facing our state and nation, but this isn’t one of them,” said Nixon, speaking to families at Lutheran Family and Children’s Services, a major adoption proponent. The bill, he said, could muck up the works for families attempting to adopt through foreign governments: “The laws passed in Jefferson City have real consequences. This bill could jeopardize a family”s ability to adopt children from other countries.”

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Brian Nieves, R-Washington, scoffed at that explanation for the veto, saying there was nothing in the bill that would have endangered foreign adoptions.

If he would have said the bill might cause an invasion of flying armadillos, that would have been just as valid,” said Nieves. He alleged that Nixon had a different motive but said he didn’t know what it was. “I think the governor owes it to the people of Missouri to come clean” about his reasoning for the veto, said Nieves.

Nixon’s written veto message says the bill “seeks to introduce a solution to a problem that does not exist and, in so doing, puts in jeopardy some of the very liberties that the bill purports to protect.” The statement further warns that the bill, if signed into law, could create “a chilling effect” on international adoptions by Missouri families and “could invite retaliatory action by a foreign country by denying all adoptions to Missourians.”

Nixon’s office cited data showing that, between 1999 and 2011, Missourians adopted more than 5,850 children born outside the U.S.

The original bill passed the Senate 24-9, which is one vote more than needed for a veto override. It passed the House 109-41, which is the exact number of “yes” votes needed….

Gaza: Hamas orders Christian schools closed unless they comply with Sharia gender separation rules
Cameron on London jihad murder: "There is nothing in Islam that justifies acts of terror"
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    Nixon is being stupid as no muslim country would ever allow nonmuslims to adopt their children.
    Sharia law is pure evil just like Islam a Satanic death cult.

  2. says

    Some of this is Nixon — like so many other air head politicos — preemptively submitting to Sharia.

    But some is simply a power hungry politician protecting the prerogative of power hungry politicians to play by whatever rules they like.

    And unfortunately for the rest of us, those two things overlap to a large degree.

  3. says

    “…could invite retaliatory action by a foreign country”

    Succumbing to fear of “retaliatory action” from some person, group, or country = surrender to that person, group, or country.

  4. says

    This is the same governor whose state police first illegally obtained a list of all MO concealed gun permit holders from the MO BMV and then illegally turned the list over to the Feds. MO law specifically forbids the sharing of this type of information with federal agencies. Don’t know if anyone has been prosecuted for this yet.

  5. says

    In some ways, I don’t believe having individual states, one by one, decide the question of infringement by Shar’iah law is the way to go. I’m more in favour of a federal decision on the question of protection against Shar’iah. That would be a far clearer statement of intention toward Shar’iah and it might be a far stronger defense against Shar’iah as well, provided all states agreed w/the law.

    I agree w/Nieves’ belief we aren’t in immediate danger of Shar’iah being imposed. We’re at immediate danger of Shar’iah BEING PROPOSED and if there isn’t great uniformity in fighting its introduction and imposition at the federal level, then I believe we leave individual states vulnerable depending on the fluctuation of their Muslim demographic.

    The nut graf from the story to me: At a committee hearing on the bill in March, Nieves acknowledged that Missouri isn’t in immediate danger of being overtaken by foreign legal theories, saying, “Missouri’s been pretty fortunate as far as this goes.” But he said he wanted to make sure the state “keeps things the way they are.”

  6. says

    Flying armadillo attack headed off: Missouri governor vetoes anti-Sharia bill, claiming it would endanger foreign adoptions
    …………………………

    Um”what? For one thing, pious Muslims don’t allow adoptions anyway, due to the lust of their vile founder (long story”look up “Zainab”).

    And they wouldn’t want their little future suicide bombers brought up by “filthy Kuffars”, either.

    Moreover, is Nixon implying that any decent Infidels who might manage to adopt Muslim children are honor-bound to raise them as Muslim supremacists under Shari’ah? This simply makes no sense.

    Certainly, though, Nixon has derailed protection for Missourians from brutal Shari’ah law. What a dhimmi tool.

  7. says

    There is no government on earth that currently allows adoptions by U.S. citizens that could in any way object to this law. Does the law even imply that these foreign courts that handle such adoptions are “repugnant”? No, it does not.

    So, can a foreign adoption get “mucked up” on the Missouri side? Just how? Current Federal law not only recognizes the validity of an adoption in a foreign court but now even automatically confers U.S. citizenship upon the adopted child. No Missouri law can countermand that. And who in Missouri would challenge such an adoption (a requirement because laws don’t enforce themselves)? How would anyone have standing in any court to do so? This law does not grant any such power.

    Governor Nixon is a liar.

  8. says

    The sly Muslim apologist “Americana” wrote:

    In some ways, I don’t believe having individual states, one by one, decide the question of infringement by Shar’iah law is the way to go. I’m more in favour of a federal decision on the question of protection against Shar’iah. That would be a far clearer statement of intention toward Shar’iah and it might be a far stronger defense against Shar’iah as well, provided all states agreed w/the law.
    ……………………………

    Very often, of course, state laws precede and fuel federal law in the United States. And even where it does not, it provides at least partial protection to Americans. “Americana” no doubt knows that, and is, once again, counseling that we fail to protect ourselves from the depredations of Islam.

    More:

    I agree w/Nieves’ belief we aren’t in immediate danger of Shar’iah being imposed. We’re at immediate danger of Shar’iah BEING PROPOSED and if there isn’t great uniformity in fighting its introduction and imposition at the federal level, then I believe we leave individual states vulnerable depending on the fluctuation of their Muslim demographic.
    ……………………………

    More slyness. Shari’ah would never be imposed *all at once* at the federal level in the United States. Instead, it would be imposed piecemeal in individual localities. By the time there was any federal imposition of Shari’ah, most of the country would be “Shari’ah compliant”.

    If we only guarded against a federal imposition of Shari’ah, we would find that we had lost most of our rights in the interim. That is, of course, what “Americana” is counseling here.

    More:

    The nut graf from the story to me: At a committee hearing on the bill in March, Nieves acknowledged that Missouri isn’t in immediate danger of being overtaken by foreign legal theories…
    ……………………………

    ‘In other words, nothing to worry about here, folks…

    Never mind that that wasn’t Nieves’ point at all…

  9. says

    “In some ways, I don’t believe having individual states, one by one, decide the question of infringement by Shar’iah law is the way to go. I’m more in favour of a federal decision on the question of protection against Shar’iah…”

    This is a rather ignorant understanding of Federal presumption of state law. Even if “Americana” got her wish, it would only apply to Federal law and to Federal Courts. State law and state courts are independent, and a “decision” (whatever that is) would have little influence on them.

    “…That would be a far clearer statement of intention toward Shar’iah and it might be a far stronger defense against Shar’iah as well, provided all states agreed w/the law.”

    And how would “all states agree w/the law”? One by one, that’s how.

  10. says

    Here she is at her very, BERRY BESTEST! Missgrievouslymistaken brings you the new, the noteworthy, but the needed-to-be-REVISED thoughts of Americana!!!!! (Cue the Superwoman theme.)

    Because littlemissgrievouslymuchmistaken doesn’t comprehend that I’m getting at the issue of the different levels of vulnerability of the U.S., she’s chosen to portray my point as being suspicious. She fails to grasp this country straddles states’ rights and federal rights so she interprets my remark as intentionally unleashing the opportunity for stealth Shar’iah. Her blinkers prevent her from seeing that I’ve stated many times we have got to figure out what the best legal protections are at both state level and federal level. But, nevermind that point, littlemissgrievouslymuchmistaken waves her magic keyboard, and presto change-o, she magically transforms my statement……

    (AMERICANA) I agree w/Nieves’ belief we aren’t in immediate danger of Shar’iah being imposed. We’re at immediate danger of Shar’iah BEING PROPOSED and if there isn’t great uniformity in fighting its introduction and imposition at the federal level, then I believe we leave individual states vulnerable depending on the fluctuation of their Muslim demographic.

    ……..INTO HER STATEMENT

    (MISSGRIEVOUSLYMUCHMISTAKEN) More slyness. Shari’ah would never be imposed *all at once* at the federal level in the United States. Instead, it would be imposed piecemeal in individual localities. By the time there was any federal imposition of Shari’ah, most of the country would be “Shari’ah compliant”.

    (MISSGRIEVOUSLYMUCHMISTAKEN) If we only guarded against a federal imposition of Shari’ah, we would find that we had lost most of our rights in the interim. That is, of course, what “Americana” is counseling here.

  11. says

    “Americana” wrote:

    Here she is at her very, BERRY BESTEST! Missgrievouslymistaken (sic) brings you the new, the noteworthy, but the needed-to-be-REVISED thoughts of Americana!!!!! (Cue the Superwoman theme.)
    …………………………………

    “Americana” is ranting in all caps again.

    And I am not “revising” “Americana’s” thoughts, but just exposing her ugly agenda.

    More:

    Because littlemissgrievouslymuchmistaken (sic) doesn’t comprehend that I’m getting at the issue of the different levels of vulnerability of the U.S., she’s chosen to portray my point as being suspicious.
    …………………………………

    This isn’t really “suspicious”””Americana” has been quite consistent in her suggestions undermining our attempts at defending ourselves against Jihad.

    More:

    Her blinkers prevent her from seeing that I’ve stated many times we have got to figure out what the best legal protections…
    …………………………………

    “Americana” has several times suggested that we adopt foreign systems of law, because the American system is (supposedly) entirely insufficient here. Really, I wonder just which system she has in mind?

  12. says

    John, MUSLIMS lack the ability under sharia to adopt children. Remember how Muhammad had an adopted son, then desired to possess his son’s wife but was unable to do so because of the family relationship, and Allah then told him that the adoption was invalid because adoption itself is a sin? Muhammad did get his daughter-in-law in the end. Allah made sure of it.

    The best that a Muslim orphan can hope for is some kind of legal guardianship. That’s it. The alternative is life on the streets. True adoption cannot exist where sharia is practiced.

    To your other point, this 7th century adoption story is a great depictions of evil, both in the immediate effects on Muhammad’s son and daughter-in0law, and the continuing effects on subsequent orphans.

  13. says

    gravenimage,

    I just want to post for the benefit of any newcomer to JihadWatch that you are a long time and well respected contributor.

    Any newcomer should know that when ‘Americana’ challenges you with the disrespectful methods we have seen, it is in no way a valid reflection of you.

    From day one ‘Americana’ has posted as if she were due a respect that she denies you. Even if she were not a troll I would have no sympathy with her approach. It is plain wrong.

  14. says

    Well said !

    And it demands a respect it has in no way **earned**, either by intelligent debate/discussion, or simple civil discourse.

    In it’s**very first post**, the pigeon came barrelling in, stridently stating we didn’t know what we were talking about. Then it posted reams of irrelevant tripe about it’s antecedents and where it lived, as if anyone gave a toss.

    The pigeon shows disrespect for any poster who challenges it’s sly insinuations, but our own gravenimage has got particularly under it’s skin: it knows it’s hopelessly outclassed.

    I’m confident anyone of normal intelligence and good manners who reads the tripe posted by the pigeon, and then gravenimage’s calm, measured and devastating responses, will know who deserves respect, and who merely demands it.

    By the way, I’ve noticed what type of people consistently demand unearned respect; muslims and leftists !

  15. says

    Tom Davis wrote:

    The best that a Muslim orphan can hope for is some kind of legal guardianship. That’s it. The alternative is life on the streets. True adoption cannot exist where sharia is practiced.
    …………………………..

    Very, very true, Tom”and frequently, for all of Islam’s nattering about being “just” to orphans, they don’t even get that. Almost all orphanages in the Muslim world are are run by charitable Infidels.