In our May 13thpost about the Kansas House and Senate unanimous passage of the Kansas Laws for Kansas Courts bills (120 to 0 in the House and 33 to 3 in the Senate), we made a prediction about what Governor Sam Brownback would do when the legislation reached his desk in Topeka.
If the Kansas version of ALAC makes it to Governor Sam Brownback’s desk for his signature and becomes enacted, it could become the fourth such law to protect Americans against the onslaught of intrusive Shariah law in our legal system. Brownback, a former US Senator, knows what Shariah seeks to accomplish against the civil and human rights of fellow Kansans and Americans given his championship of international human rights and opposition to Islamic extremism both here and abroad.
The resounding passage on a bi-partisan basis of the Kansas version of American Law for American Courts by the Kansas [legislature] is a hopeful development. Clearly, the American heartland is aroused about the threat of Islamic Lawfare seeking to undermine both state and national Constitutions reflective of bedrock Judeo Christian values.
Sure enough, as this AP report indicates, Governor Brownback signed the measure into law this past Monday and chose to make the announcement late Friday. The new Kansas law goes into effect on July 1st and becames the fourth one enacted to date.The others include, Arizona, Louisiana and Tennessee. The Fox News report noted:
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback has signed a law aimed at keeping the state's courts or government agencies from basing decisions on Islamic or other foreign legal codes, and a national Muslim group's spokesman said Friday that a court challenge is likely.
The new law, taking effect July 1, doesn't specifically mention Shariah law, which broadly refers to codes within the Islamic legal system. Instead, it says courts, administrative agencies or state tribunals can't base rulings on any foreign law or legal system that would not grant the parties the same rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions.
"This bill should provide protection for Kansas citizens from the application of foreign laws," said Stephen Gele, spokesman for the American Public Policy Alliance, a Michigan group promoting model legislation similar to the new Kansas law. "The bill does not read, in any way, to be discriminatory against any religion."
But supporters have worried specifically about Shariah law being applied in Kansas court cases, and the alliance says on its website that it wants to protect Americans' freedoms from "infiltration" by foreign laws and legal doctrines, "especially Islamic Shariah Law."
Brownback's office notified the state Senate of his decision Friday, but he actually signed the measure Monday. The governor's spokeswoman, Sherriene Jones-Sontag, said in a statement that the bill "makes it clear that Kansas courts will rely exclusively on the laws of our state and our nation when deciding cases and will not consider the laws of foreign jurisdictions."
Muslim groups had urged Brownback to veto the measure, arguing that it promotes discrimination. Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, said a court challenge is likely because supporters of the measure frequently expressed concern about Shariah law.
[. . .]
"This disturbing recent trend of activist judges relying upon the laws of other nations has been rejected by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the Kansas House and Senate," Jones-Sontag said.
House Representativr Peg Mast (R-Emporia) Mast, whom we had worked with back in 2007 over public health and absorption problems with Somali workers at a Tyson Food beef processing plant in her home district sadi in an emaill:
This bill reaffirms our Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land as stated in Article 6 of the Constitution. It assures those who plea their case in our court system will be treated equally no matter what sex, religion, or cultural background they come from. This bill empowers women and children who are sometimes not given equal treatment under foreign law systems.
Enactment of the Kansas Laws for Kansas Courts should please the author of the American Laws for American Courts Legislation, David Yerushalmi, Esq. See our interview with Yerushlami in our collection, The West Speaks.
Congratulations on a job well done to Rep. Mast and her House co-sponsor Jan Pauls (D- Hutchinson), the Senate sponsors and Governor Brownback, for having the moral courage to sign the law in the face of intimidation and threats of litigation from Muslim Brotherhood groups like CAIR.
So how’s that old Arab Spring going? You remember — the “Facebook Revolution.” As I write, they’re counting the votes in Egypt’s presidential election, so by the time you read this the pecking order may have changed somewhat. But currently in first place is the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi, who in an inspiring stump speech before the students of Cairo University the other night told them, “Death in the name of Allah is our goal.”
In second place is the military’s man Ahmed Shafiq, Hosni Mubarak’s last prime minister and a man who in a recent television interview said that “unfortunately the revolution succeeded.”
In third place is moderate Islamist Abdel-Moneim Abolfotoh, a 9/11 Truther endorsed by the terrorist organization al-Gama’a al-Islamiya. He’s a “moderate” because he thinks Egyptian Christians should be allowed to run for the presidency, although they shouldn’t be allowed to win.
As I said, this thrilling race is by no means over, and one would not rule out an eventual third-place finish by a rival beacon of progress such as Amr Moussa, the longtime Arab League flack and former Mubarak foreign minister. So what happened to all those candidates embodying the spirit of Egypt’s modern progressive democratic youth movement that all those Western media rubes were cooing over in Tahrir Square a year ago? How are they doing in Egypt’s first free presidential election?
You have 0 friends!
I don’t know about you, but I have the feeling that Messrs. Morsi, Shafiq, and Abolfotoh are not spending much time on Facebook, or even on Twitter. Indeed, for a “social-media revolution,” the principal beneficiaries seem to be remarkably antisocial: Liberated from the grip of Mubarak the new Egypt is a land where the Israeli embassy gets attacked and ransacked, Christians get killed and their churches burned to the ground, female reporters for the Western media are sexually assaulted in broad daylight, and for the rest of the gals a woman’s place is in the clitoridectomy clinic. In the course of the election campaign, the Muslim Brotherhood has cast off the veil of modernity and moderation that so beguiled the U.S. State Department and the New York Times: Khairat el-Shater, the deputy leader, now says that “the Koran is our Constitution” and that Mubarak-era laws permitting, for example, women to seek divorce should be revised. As the TV cleric Safwat Hegazy told thousands of supporters at a Brotherhood rally in the Nile Delta, “We are seeing the dream of the Islamic Caliphate coming true.”
Thus, the Facebook Revolution one year on. Status: It’s not that complicated. Since the founding of the Kingdom of Egypt in 1922, the country has spent the last nine decades getting worse. Mubarak’s kleptocracy was worse than Farouk’s ramshackle kingdom, and the new Egypt will be worse still.
At a certain level, there’s nothing very new about this. In the early stages of revolution, students are often on the front line, mainly because they’ve got nothing else to do all day. But by the time the strongman is being sworn in at the presidential palace they’re usually long gone from the scene, supplanted by harder and better-organized forces. Was it ever likely that Western “social media” would change this familiar trajectory? National Review’s editor Rich Lowry, from whose byline picture the pixie twinkle of boyish charm has yet to fade, was nevertheless sounding as cranky an old coot as I usually do when he declared that “Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is to uselessness what Henry Ford was to the automobile” and deplored a world in which millions of people spend their time “passing around photos of pets in party costumes, telling us whether they are having a good or bad hair day, and playing the farming-simulation game FarmVille.” It is not necessary to agree with the full majestic sweep of Lowry’s dismissal to note that neither Lenin nor Mao is known to have taken a photograph of his pet in a party costume, or even a Party costume, and that both men played their farming-simulation games for real, and on an industrial scale. Putting aside its deficiencies in revolution-mobilizing, Facebook, until its shares headed south this week, had a valuation of over $100 billion — or about two-thirds of the GDP of New Zealand. Which seems a little high to me.
Whatever one feels about the sharia-enforcing, Jew-hating, genital-mutilating enthusiasts of the Muslim Brotherhood, they do accurately reflect a significant slice — and perhaps a majority — of the Egyptian people. The problem with the old-school dictators was that in the end Mubarak, Ben Ali, and Qaddafi didn’t represent anything other than their Swiss bank accounts. The question for the wider world is what do “social media” represent? If they supposedly embody the forces of progress and modernity, then they’ve just taken an electoral pounding from guys who haven’t had a new idea since the seventh century.
No one should begrudge Mark Zuckerberg his billions, and decent people should revile in the strongest terms thug-senator Chuck Schumer’s attempts to punish Zuckerberg’s partner Eduardo Saverin for wishing to enjoy his profits under the less confiscatory tax arrangements of Singapore: It is a sign of terminal desperation when regimes that can’t compete for talent focus their energies on ever more elaborate procedures to prevent freeborn individuals voting with their feet.
But it is also a sign of desperation to talk up amiable diversions for pampered solipsistic Westerners as an irresistible force of modernity. One of the basic defects of the Bush administration’s designation of a “war on terror” was that it emphasized symptoms (bombs and bombers) over causes (the underlying ideology). In the war of ideas, the West has chosen not to compete, under the erroneous assumption that the ever more refined delivery systems for its sensual distractions are a Big Idea in and of themselves. They’re not. If you know your Tocqueville, they sound awfully like his prediction of a world in which “an innumerable crowd of like and equal men . . . revolve on themselves without repose,” a phrase which nicely distills the unending busy-ness of our gaudy novelties.
Don’t get me wrong; I like goofy pet photos. But can these gizmos do anything else? Yes, in theory. But in practice is a culture that “revolves on itself without repose” likely to be that effective at communicating real ideas to the wider world? Ideas on liberty, free speech, property rights, women’s rights, and all the other things conspicuous by their absence in the philosophies of Egypt’s new political class. In the end, a revolution cannot be tweeted. Whatever their defects, the unlovely forces running the new Egypt understand the difference between actually mutilating a young girl’s genitals to deny her the possibility of sexual pleasure, and merely “following” your local clitoridectomist on his Twitter feed.
A century ago, the West exported its values. So, in Farouk’s Egypt, at the start of a new legislative session, the King was driven to his toytown parliament to deliver the speech from the throne in an explicit if ramshackle simulacrum of Westminster’s rituals of constitutional monarchy. Today, we decline to export values, and complacently assume, as the very term “Facebook Revolution” suggests, that technology marches in support of modernity. It doesn’t. Facebook’s flat IPO and Egypt’s presidential election are in that sense part of the same story, of a developed world whose definitions of innovation and achievement have become too shrunken and undernourished. The vote in Egypt tells us a lot about them, but it also tells us something about us.
Timmerman along with former US Un Ambassador John Bolton had been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for their effort warning the world about the Islamic Regime nuclear project agenda, weaponization.
In his article, Timmerman noted:
Don’t hold your breath for a meaningful agreement over the Tehran regime’s illegal nuclear program any time soon, no matter what you read in the propaganda networks.
We’ve seen this movie before. Many times, in fact.
Tehran hints it is prepared to make big concessions ahead of some make-it-or-break-it meeting with Western powers, only to offer some new excuse at the last minute that makes it necessary to hold yet another negotiating session.
It would be comic, if only the results were not potentially so deadly.
In mid-April, negotiations held in Istanbul between Iran and the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany (the P-5+1) were supposed to “resolve” the Iranian nuclear crisis.
Last weekend, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency flew unexpectedly to Tehran, for meetings the propaganda networks wanted us to believe foreshadowed another major breakthrough.
This week, this magical mystery tour disembarked in Baghdad for yet another round of smoke and mirrors
[. . .]
Allowing Iran to retain uranium enrichment technology and materials is a deadly concession, one that ultimately will lead us to war.
The reason is very simple: The very same centrifuges that spin uranium gas to 3% enrichment to make fuel for nuclear power plants can spin a bit longer to enrich the gas to 90% to make nuclear weapons material.
Same centrifuges, same process, same materials. The only added ingredient is time.
Guess what the Iranians have been buying over the past three years? Time.
Throughout these past three and a half years, Iran’s centrifuges have never stopped spinning, and they continue spinning today even as we “negotiate.”
Iran is clearly talking about talks, not about substance; and the Iranians’ goal is to buy more time.
[ .. .]
After three difficult years of negotiations with the Europeans, which I chronicled in my 2005 book Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran, the Bush administration finally convinced the Europeans that the Iranian regime could not be trusted with centrifuge enrichment technology because Tehran had violated its commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
That led to a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions condemning the Islamic Republic of Iran, and calling on the world to impose a series of increasingly tough sanctions on Iran if it failed to comply with its NPT commitments.
Those commitments required Iran to come clean about its past nuclear weapons-related research. They also required Iran to put all of its nuclear activities under IAEA monitoring, and to eschew any research relevant for nuclear weapons development.
To this day, Iran remains in defiance of those Non-Proliferation Treaty-based requirements, and thus has no legal right to any nuclear-related technology, period.
In a separate campaign email Timmerman noted the fecklessness of the Obama Administration in these P5+1 talks:
Here's the news. Obama is going to trade away the hard earned victories of his predecessor, who managed to convince the Europeans to stand firm against Iran and demand that it abandon its illegal uranium enrichment program.
Believe it or not, Obama is saying they can enrich, just not up to weapons grade. That’s like telling a teenager who’s borrowed a Corvette on Saturday night that he can drive 25 mph, but no faster
Timmerman concluded his Daily Caller op-ed with these questions:
Does the administration actually want Iran to succeed in testing a nuclear weapon, so that we can move toward a containment policy once and for all?
Or do they want to empower Iran as a virtual nuclear weapons state to become the predominant power in the Middle East?
Is it any wonder that Iran’s Press TV reported that Israeli PM Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak refused to meet with US Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman to hear about the failure of the Baghdad round of P5+1 talks. As Lenin might say, the P5+1 led by EU Foreign Relations Minister Catherine Ashton are “useful fools” for Iran’s Ayatollahs pressing ahead with nuclear weapons development. Nuclear Weapons aimed square at Israel. No wonder Netanyahu, Barak and the Israeli security cabinet are in a lockdown mode. They are deliberating over when to undertake a possible unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities about to enter “the zone of immunity”. The Washington –based Institute for Science and International Security just reported the recent increase of centrifuges by 50 % at the mountain bastion of Fordow near the holy city of Qom and Iran may soon have enough fissile material to make five bombs.
Watch this CNBC Kudlow Report discussion on Iran’s nuclear program with former US Ambassador to Morocco and Middle East expert, Marc Ginsburg, Ken Timmerman and ABC’s John Batchelor.