Source: Associated Press
Republican state lawmakers have proposed a bill that would make following the Islamic code known as Shariah law a felony punishable by 15 years in jail.

Andrew Breitbart filled in for Michael Savage on “The Savage Nation.” He interviewed national security expert and Big Peace editor Frank Gaffney. They talk Sharia law and the infiltration of radical Islam inside US institutions.

From WND:

An investigation by three Republican congressmen has revealed the Obama administration has secretly spent $23 million of U.S. taxpayer dollars in Kenya to fund a "Yes" vote on a constitutional referendum scheduled for Aug. 4 that would increase access to abortions in Kenya and establish legal status for Islamic law tribunals.

Meanwhile, trusted sources in Kenya tell WND that the White House has used Vice President Joseph Biden’s trip to Kenya in June and the office of U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Michael E. Ranneberger to put out the message that passage of the referendum would enable the White House to open the floodgates to allow millions of dollars of additional U.S. government aid and private investment capital to flow into Kenya.

Obama’s cousin Raila Odinga is the prime minister of Kenya and a radical Muslim. Obama has been working ever since he was a US Senator to influence Kenya’s politics in favor of his cousin.

The new constitution being pushed by Odinga and Obama forces all Muslims in Kenya to follow Sharia law. Odinga cut a deal with radical Islamic groups to help win their support for the radical new constitution.

The heavy involvement of the Obama administration in Kenya’s politics often against the will of the people is quite the story in the Kenyan press — and has been for some time.

Obama was instrumental in his cousin’s rise to power. Obama campaigned across Kenya for Odinga and advised him on how to win.

How close was Obama to the election in Kenya?

Odinga’s campaign slogan was…Vote For Change — pure coincidence I’m sure.

(hat tip Smart Girl Politics)

Islamic militants in Somalia are patrolling the streets looking for people watching the World Cup on television. The Muslim thugs have already killed two people and arrested 10 others.

A spokesman for the group, Sheikh Mohamed Abdi Aros said the rest of Somalia should respect their ban on the World Cup.

"We are warning all the youth of Somalia not to dare watch these World Cup matches. It is a waste of money and time and they will not benefit anything or get any experience by watching mad men jumping up and down," he said.

Locals say they watch the game with the sound turned down while keeping one eye on the TV and one on the door.

Like the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Somali militants have banned all forms of entertainment considered “un-Islamic” — which includes pretty much everything.

The main reason for the bans according to local Islamic radicals is that watching sports or other entertainment distract from waging “holy jihad.”

Sounds like a perfectly good reason for banning entertainment wouldn’t you say? It looks like that darn “religion of peace” strikes again!!

(image via Islam Review)

One of the most important things America can do is continue the War on Terror and resist the global Islamic movement in general. That means opposing any form of Sharia-law in a democracy. Most democratic countries have acted like sheep and capitulated to radical Islam and allowed a parallel society to take root.

America has long been resistant to the idea of parallel societies, particularly of the Islamic variety — until now. The U.S. treasury recently began teaching so-called “Islamic finance” to U.S. banking regulatory agencies, Congress, and other parts of the executive branch.

The forum is called “Islamic Finance 101” and it’s designed to help inform the policy community about Islamic financial services — which according to the treasury is an “increasingly important part of the global financial industry.”

Islamic finance is a system of banking which adheres to the rules of Islamic Sharia law. Meaning that some cleric must decide that an investment meets the standard of Sharia or Muslim law before it’s approved. Which I would assume also means that any other type of investment is for infidels or non-believers.

It’s inconceivable that our treasury is so greedy that it’s willing to overlook what is an obvious sham to spread the reach and power of Islam around the world. Not just any kind of Islam, but the radical and militant variety.

Take for instance the countries in the world that govern by 100% Sharia law. There are 3 of them and they’re Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan. Not exactly the folks who need to be spreading their influence around. Through unchecked immigration and liberal attitudes, countries throughout Europe have allowed Islam to wield tremendous power and influence. Large, concentrated populations of Muslims in Britain and France rise up and threaten to destroy the city from time to time whenever they’re challenged.

Allowing Islamic banking to get a foothold in America is an incredibly bad idea. Where do you think terrorists are going to invest their money? We already fund both sides of the War on Terror by spending billions on Middle East oil — this is just another step. We should not recognize Sharia anything. We should have one set of laws which governs everyone in the United States — including Muslims.

If they don’t like that then they can always go back to their 3rd world sh*thole and leave us infidels alone.

For more on Islamic banking check out WWW.SHARIAHFINANCEWATCH.ORG

Christopher Hitchens has a great piece in Slate about the ridiculous endorsement of Sharia law by the archbishop of Canterbury. The worldwide criticism of the archbishop’s comments has now turned to calls for his resignation, which frankly are more than justified considering the stupidity of his comments.

Picture the life of a young Urdu-speaking woman brought to Yorkshire from Pakistan to marry a man—quite possibly a close cousin—whom she has never met. He takes her dowry, beats her, and abuses the children he forces her to bear. She is not allowed to leave the house unless in the company of a male relative and unless she is submissively covered from head to toe. Suppose that she is able to contact one of the few support groups that now exist for the many women in Britain who share her plight. What she ought to be able to say is, “I need the police, and I need the law to be enforced.” But what she will often be told is, “Your problem is better handled within the community.” And those words, almost a death sentence, have now been endorsed and underwritten—and even advocated—by the country’s official spiritual authority.

You might argue that I am describing an extreme case (though, alas, now not an uncommon one), but it is the principle of equality before the law that really counts. And just look at how casually this sheep-faced English cleric throws away the work of centuries of civilization:

[A]n approach to law which simply said “there’s one law for everybody and that’s all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts”—I think that’s a bit of a danger.

In the midst of this dismal verbiage and euphemism, the plain statement—”There’s one law for everybody and that’s all there is to be said”—still stands out like a diamond in a dunghill. It stands out precisely because it is said simply, and because its essential grandeur is intelligible to everybody. Its principles ought to be just as intelligible and accessible to those who don’t yet speak English, in just the same way as the great Lord Mansfield once ruled that, wherever someone might have been born, and whatever he had been through, he could not be subject to slavery once he had set foot on English soil. Simple enough? For the women who are the principal prey of the sharia system, it is often only when they are shipped or flown to Britain that their true miseries begin. This modern disgrace is deepened and extended by a fatuous cleric who, presiding over an increasingly emaciated and schismatic and irrelevant church, nonetheless maintains that any faith is better than none at all.