Oklahoma election results: Oklahoma bans sharia law
State Question 755, better known as the "Save Our State" constitutional amendment, would prevent courts from using international or Sharia law.
First of all, why does Oklahoma have ballot "questions"? Everyone else has propositions or initiatives. Ballot questions, I don't know, just sounds so British. "I say, Cecil, how are you planning to vote on the question before us this year?" "Well, Basil, I rather thought I might vote against it!" Which would be great. It would be terrific if Oklahomans were more like Britons. But that isn't too likely to happen. Probably about as likely as an Oklahoma judge factoring Sharia law into his decisions.
But it's not just Oklahoma worried about this imaginary menace.
At the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. in September, Newt Gingrich positioned himself perhaps to the right of Sarah Palin in a potential bid for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination by saying, "I am opposed to any efforts to impose Sharia in the United States, and we should have a federal law that says under no circumstances in any jurisdiction in the United States will Sharia [law] be used in any court to apply to any judgment made about American law."
And for once, Newt is right. We shouldn't have government officials like judges using religious statutes to decide American laws. So, I'll tell ya what, Newt, how about we all agree not to use Sharia laws in the courtroom and we won't use the Old Testament to decide who gets to marry whom, hmm? How would that be?
How soon can we start printing up pictures of Mitch McConnell with a Hitler Mustache?
How soon can we bus packs of gullible idiots to every public appearance by a Republican to scream "Tyranny!" and "Communism!" and "You Lie!"
How soon can we start insisting that every piece of legislation proposed by the house contains a provision to euthanize old people?
How soon are we allowed to protest in front of Eric Cantor's office with loaded guns?
When can we start insisting that Marco Rubio prove his citizenship? That's a pretty foreign sounding name, and I know I've never seen his papers! I can prove I'm a citizen, why can't he?
Is it too early to start complaining that this country is just turning into something we don't even recognize?
In the first interview of the publicity tour for his new book, Decision Points, Bush told Matt Lauer that he didn't want to use force.
"Not everybody thought you should go to war, though," Lauer said. "There were dissenting voices."
"I was a dissenting voice. I didn't want to use force," Bush said
But what could I do, he did not add, "I was only the commander in chief of the Armed Forces. If everyone else wanted to go to war, who was I to stop them?"
Seriously? Weren't you "the Decider?" If you didn't want to use force, you could have just not used force. It's really that simple!
I didn't want to use force," Bush said. "I mean force is the last option for a President. And I think it's clear in the book that I gave diplomacy every chance to work.
I believe that the book which I had ghostwritten for me explains what a great guy I am. And I'm sure the ghostwriter would have no motivation to lie. So, you know, case closed!
"And I will also tell you the world's better off without Saddam in power.
And so are 25 million Iraqis."
Well, you know, the ones who are still alive. And not maimed. Or widowed or orphaned. And aren't living in refugee camps. And aren't in constant fear of being blown up for being in the wrong Muslim sect. Basically, other than them the whole world is better off now that Sadam Hussein is not keeping Al Quaida out of Iraq and providing a counter-balance to the mullahs in Iran.
Bush went on to say that he still feels like going to war was the right decision. And as he wrote in the book, "No one was more sickened or angry than I was when we didn't find weapons of mass destruction."
Oh, yeah. I remember how upset you were about that.
And of course no one in the "liberal Media" is going to call bullshit on any of his ridiculous claims. It's just simply not done. We need to move forward, not look backward, and put our petty differences aside, and blah, blah, blah, and meanwhile the war criminals of the previous administration face zero consequences for their crimes, not even public disapproval. Which pretty much ensures that there will be a next time. If this country had any balls, we'd send these guys to the Hague and let future administrations know that this will not be tolerated. But of course, that will never happen. You only get tried for war crimes when you lose a war.
.
