MsUnderestimated

The Islamification of Europe Marches On…

July 3rd, 2008 at 05:54 by MsUnderestimated

h/t to Drudge for this one.

Just breaking, one of the most senior judges in England says Sharia law should be practiced in the U.K. WTF is he thinking? Here’s a piece from the article:

Photo courtesy of the London Daily Mail

Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.

He declared: ‘It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.’

In his speech in an East London mosque Lord Phillips signalled approval of sharia principles as a means of settling disputes so long as no punishments that conflict with the established law are involved, and as long as divorces are made to comply with the civil law.

Is he freakin’ kidding us? Creeping Sharia is already on its way, but now a top official in the high courts in Britain comes out with this excrement sandwich? The people of the U.K. should be completely outraged and call for his dismissal, or whatever means they use, from the court. What a sham. Here are some of the “delightful” points of Sharia Law and Muslims in the U.K.:

* Sharia law is based on the Koran, on associated teaching about the life of the Prophet Mohammed, and on the judgements of Islamic clerics and lawyers down the centuries.
* It is in essence a set of religious principles by which Muslims are required to live. Sharia is interpreted and enforced differently in different countries across the Islamic world.
* Islamic law is often regarded as having four parts: how Muslims should worship; commerce; crime and punishment; and marriage and divorce.
* Sharia says forbidden behaviour, like drinking alcohol and taking drugs, or adultery, should be punished. Islamic scholars say the Koran sets down punishments such as lashes or stoning for adultery.
* Sharia law also permits behaviour not allowed by English law, for example (sic) polygamy, which in some jurisdictions says men may have up to four wives.
* In Britain, sharia courts are often operated by mosques. Muslim families come to sharia courts for justice and agree to be bound by their rulings.
* They have no formal legal status.
* There are around 1.6 million British Muslims, most of whom are of Pakistani origin. The strongest Muslim communities are in London, especially in the East London borough of Tower Hamlets where Lord Phillips spoke yesterday, Birmingham, Yorkshire and Lancashire.
* Orthodox Jews operate Beth Din courts which are subordinate to the civil law and which decide issues among 180,000 people according to ancient Jewish law. They are regulated by the Chief Rabbi. A divorcing Jewish couple first divorce in the civil courts, then come to the Beth Din tribunals for religious judgement.
* The only religious courts in England with full and official legal status are the consistory courts and tribunals which decide disputes and disciplinary matters in the Church of England.

WWTBS (What would Tony Blair Say?)

Boy, is the West ever screwed if B. Hussein Obama gets elected.

Choose Options to Share This Post

More »

Posted in Are You Kidding Me?, Breaking News, Drudge, Islamofascists, Just Plain Wrong, Liberal Indoctrination, P.C. Gone Awry, Video | Comments | TrackBack | | | View blog reactions

Yes, But Where Are They Now?

December 20th, 2006 at 09:31 by MsUnderestimated

h/t Drudge

… the documents that you hid, Sandy Burglar. You took them, with permission (who says Clinton could give him that permission?) from the National Archives in 2003, in order to prepare for your testimony on Bin Laden, the Sudan and Al Qaeda. So, where are they now? Did anybody else get to steal documents from the National Archives to prepare for their testimony? Oh, that’s right… you’re a democrap and you have a different set of rules.

Here’s just a sample of the piece from the AP today:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former national security adviser Sandy Berger removed classified documents from the National Archives in 2003 and hid them under a construction trailer, the Archives inspector general reported Wednesday.

…and further…..

Brachfeld reported that on one visit, Berger took a break to go outside without an escort.

“In total, during this visit, he removed four documents … .

“Mr. Berger said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside Archives 1 (the main Archives building).”

Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.

Berger, with the authorization of former President Clinton, was reviewing National Security Council documents on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, Sudan, and related presidential correspondence. The review was to facilitate Berger’s impending testimony before the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Okay, now can someone please answer the question for me why the CIA non-leak case is still going on, and nothing really significant ever happened to Sandy Burglar?

Choose Options to Share This Post

More »

DRUDGE WORLD EXCLUSIVE - IMs WERE PRANK - BREAKING

October 5th, 2006 at 03:24 by MsUnderestimated

Just now breaking on Drudge (and you MUST cite Drudge if you mention this article), this whole IM thing with Jordan Edmund was a prank!

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU OCT 5 2006 2:53:48 ET XXXXX

CLAIM: FILTHY FOLEY ONLINE MESSAGES WERE PAGE PRANK GONE AWRY
**World Exclusive**
**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**

According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats. This source, an ally of Edmund, also adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund.

Keep watching Drudge for the latest… this is getting VERY very strange.

Choose Options to Share This Post

More »

Josh Bolten to Reid - You’re “Dangerously Misguided”

September 5th, 2006 at 08:56 by MsUnderestimated

HUGE h/t to Drudge for this one.

White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten responds to Harry Reid, slamming him up against the proverbial wall for the idiotic statements he made in his letter to President Bush yesterday. The letter starts off pleasant enough:

A useful discussion of what we need to do in Iraq requires an accurate and fair-minded description of our current policy: As the President has explained, our goal is an Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself. In order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing a strategy along three main tracks — political, economic, and security. Along each of these tracks, we are constantly adjusting our tactics to meet conditions on the ground. We have witnessed both successes and setbacks along the way, which is the story of every war that has been waged and won.

But then Bolten puts goes in for the kill:

Your letter recites four elements of a proposed “new direction” in Iraq. Three of those elements reflect well-established Administration policy; the fourth is dangerously misguided.

Oh, SLAM! That had to hurt! Fastforward toward the end of the letter:

On the fourth element of your proposed “new direction,” however, we do disagree strongly. Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of defending their nation, and when our military commanders believe the time is right. Your proposal is driven by none of these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard to the conditions on the ground. Because your letter lacks specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is contemplated by the “phased redeployment” you propose. (One such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be redeployed as a “quick reaction force” to Okinawa, which is nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad).

That’s a quick one-two jab to the ribs, Josh. Don’t stop now!

Please go read the whole letter on Drudge - he’s got the scoop.

Also seen at Jo’s Cafe.

Choose Options to Share This Post