The Rabid Conservative

I really get tired of hearing Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz open her mouth. Every time she does, she says something stupid and irritating. I guess it’s a good thing because if this is the flake that is leading the DNC, then they deserve each other.

So today, while she “hesitated to place blame”, didn’t hesitate to call out the Tea Party for “a very precipitous turn towards edginess and lack of civility” when talking about the Tuscon shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords.

Turns out, Jared Loughner, the shooter in the case, was eventually discovered to be a mentally unstable loner with no immediate partisan agenda and a serious alcohol problem. In other words, he wasn’t motivated by the Tea Party, but by his own mental dysfunction.

So I wonder if the Dem Blonde then blames the Tea Party for Loughner’s mental health. It’s like Bush Derangement Syndrome all over again. Since it’s pretty passé to “blame-it-on-Bush”, well, now this shooting was the Tea Party’s fault.

She continued to deride the Tea Party by saying “when they disagree with you on an issue, you’re not just wrong, you’re a liar.” Well, Debbie, you are either a liar or really, REALLY stupid.

But since she’s on the topic of civility, uh, Debbie, did you happen to notice all the Occupy protests out there and the amount of “civility” that they have? Did you happen to even pay attention to how the Tea Partiers carried themselves and acted? Did you happen to compare that to the OWS people? Or has the bleach in your hair began to dry out your brain?

By the way, as a rabid parting swipe, I wonder if Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a Clinton in disguise.  She’s got Chelsea’s stringy frizzy hair and Hillary’s mega-hips going.  Kinda makes you wonder…she might even be Bill’s type.

What is it with liberal judges these days feeling like we have to look outside the American judicial system for our rule of law?

So the Tenth (short)-Circuit court of appeals handing down a ruling that just made the folks at CAIR giddy with excitement.  The people of the State of Oklahoma, by a 70% vote, decided on a state constitutional amendment to forbid the courts from judging from any body of laws other than Federal law and the laws of the state of Oklahoma.  The amendment specifically singled out international and Sharia law as not to be used in the courts.

The Tenth Circuit, comprised of mostly liberal to moderate appointees (about 12-4), ruled that the law was unconstitutional.  Muneer Awad (funny name – a wad) argued on behalf of the Council on American  Islamic Relations (CAIR), which is basically a front group for Muslims who want to basically turn America into an Islamic state.  He cited all this “personal damage” to which he would be immediately exposed if Islamic law were banned from the courts.

I’ve always found it strikingly odd that an amendment to any constitutional document is “unconstitutional”.  Constitutional documents are supposed to set the basis for all law in the land – that’s why it should be very hard to modify them, but in so doing, represented the will of the people.  In the end, it’s not up to some limited group of legal dolts to tell us what is to be “constitutional”.  The court is only there to interpret the constitution, which is the will of the people.  If the people, collectively, change their opinion of something and codify that in the constitution, then so be it.

Take prohibition for a moment.  In 1919,. the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified which banned alcohol.  Thus, forbidding alcohol was “constitutional”.  Then in 1933, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, thus, forbidding alcohol became “unconstitutional”.

It is not up to the courts to decide what the people call “constitutional”. If the people call something “constitutional” then that is what the court is supposed to say.  But if the people decide to amend their constitution, it is arrogant and wrong for a group of judges to tell them that they can’t.  After all, it’s “By the People, For the People”, not “By the Judiciary, For those in the minority who gripe”.

The thing is, Muslims want to supplant the laws of America which grant individual liberty and freedom with Sharia law.  They gripe about how the amendment called out Sharia law by name and cited anti-Muslim bigotry.  Notwithstanding that Sharia law is one of the most discriminating and bigoted legal systems in the world, but hey, details, right?

I don’t care if a Muslim wants to follow Sharia law or not.  As a Christian, I follow laws that are not codified in the legal lawbooks of the people.  However, I don’t expect the courts to bring the Bible into account when judging people.  And I don’t think Muslims should have the opportunity to cite Sharia law whenever a husband feels like he can beat or kill his wife for doing something that is condemned in Islamic law and tradition, but not in the regular body of laws.

Back in 2009, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the audacious statement about using foreign and international laws and precedents to decide cases in America.  This blows my mind because it basically says that we Americans aren’t smart enough to figure out anything that isn’t already codified in our laws.

This whole thing should irritate you rabid conservatives out there because we tend to believe that we’re smart enough to come up with our own decisions on law, rather than worrying about what some judge in some foreign land says.  The Founders never wanted Americans to be judged from religion, but rather, from individual conscience.  If a Muslim makes law, judges law, whatever from his own personal convictions, that’s one thing, but applying Sharia in the courts, even if the petitioners are Muslim, is inappropriate.

Unless you’re a liberal who thinks that every other system of law is better than ours or something.

Right now, there is quite an uproar over in England.  Muslims over there are protesting and trying to get the UK to adopt Sharia law.  Groups like CAIR simply want it to happen here too, because if one thing annoys Muslims more, it’s American liberty and freedom.  This is why they call us the Great Satan – because we don’t tie our laws to religion and yet, we allow people to believe and vote their conscience.  Muslims are still throwing rocks at women for showing their hair and Molotov Cocktails at those who look at them.

So, Muslims, it’s not about you or your law – if you want to follow Sharia law and wrap your women up in head-to-toe in burquas, that’s fine, go right ahead.  Just don’t expect the rest of us to care about Sharia law, the Quran’s teachings or accept the ramblings of Mohammad as important, particularly when deciding cases in America.