Obama supports Sharia Law for US?

Frank Gaffney, Jr. has an interesting article posted at the Center for Security. The post, Farewell to Britain, seems at first glance to be about the slights Obama gave to PM Brown of England, the Islamic Republic of the British Isles. But here is the entire text - highlights added (comments in blue are mine and cannot be attributed to Mr. Gaffney, Jr.) - in which you will see that Britain is really paving the way for Muslims to establish their own "government" easily within Britain and into our nation, as well as globally and, overtime, erode our institutions - the ones left standing by Obama - and convert us to Sharia Law. Please note, this conversion does not and will not be done by virtue of numerial size, it will be slipped into our laws and our way of life in bits and pieces so that you will hardly notice: no deductions for contributions to your church or synagogue; not deductions for the interest you pay on home mortgages. These changes will naturally turn out to be "taxes". One primary example is the non-deduction for charitable giving even to our Christian churches which is "very" Islamic of Obama and effectually taxes us for our church affiliation. Islam can pass muster because it does not accept the "separation of church and state." Islam is the "state" which in our society means it cannot be the "church" in our naive definition. As I mention farther along, the "separation of church and state" - church teachings and state or civil law (although formerly based on the morals and principles of our Judeo-Christian heritage) were separate. We do not speak of church in the United States as "financial Christianity", "spiritual Christianity", "political Christianity" (although the far-left has labeled us with that nomenclature), and "classes of citizenship", let's call it "domestic violence" Christianity in which women generally are beaten and are second class property. But Islam - which we are to revere and of which we cannot speak - has all of those various identifiers: "spiritual Islam", "financial Islam", "political Islam", etc as though each segment is a "stand-alone" separate and distinct part of the "ideology" of Islam - the "religion of peace". Islam is not compatible with our US Constitution and is not a "religion" so if any group should have their "church" designation of a tax-exempt 501 (c) 3 status removed it is "financial, political, spiritual" Islam. Islam is a "cradle-to-grave" ideology which is stringent and demands total obedience to the dictates of the Mullahs. Now, back to Britain... It is only fair to point out that Britain is already an Islamic "nation" and, it is my understanding that England - our once honored ally - is now the haven for the main terrorist planning and freedom of expression across the world. We have more to be cautious of coming out of England in the form of "terrorists" than probably any other "friendly" nation. I could be incorrect here, of course. From Mr. Frank Gaffney, Jr.:

Farewell to Britain Center for Security Policy | Mar 09, 2009 By Frank Gaffney, Jr. London: The British are understandably mystified. Long accustomed to a "special relationship" with the United States, they are trying to figure out why the latter's likeable new president would be going to such lengths to distance himself from the country that has for generations been America's closest ally. [May I humbly suggest that Obama is only showing his support for his Islamic backers in the Middle East.] First, there was Barack Obama's decision to return the Churchill bust that had graced the Oval Office since then-Prime Minister Tony Blair gave it to George W. Bush as a post-9/11 gesture of solidarity. Then, there were the successive affronts during the visit by Blair's successor, Gordon Brown, to Washington last week: A seemingly thoughtless official gift (a set of DVDs of popular American films); a painfully chilly and brief press availability before the start of the two men's private meeting; and no formal joint press conference of the kind Bush afforded Blair on all but one of numerous visits to Washington (the exception a hastily arranged trip right after the September 11 attacks). The British press has offered several face-saving explanations for these serial rudenesses. Perhaps Obama is "exhausted." Alternatively, he is simply "focused elsewhere" in the midst of cratering capital markets, collapsing automakers and skyrocketing unemployment. The real answer, however, was supplied by an unnamed State Department official whom London's Sunday Telegraph reported on March 8th "reacted with fury" when asked by the paper why the Brown visit was so, er, "low-key." According to the Telegraph: "The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship. ‘There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment.'" [Obama's State Department working on building coalitions, eh?] Such a comment by a representative of the State Department - an institution that never saw a foreign government it wanted to offend - is a sign of how serious Team Obama is about "resetting" the U.S.-U.K. relationship. Of course, as that term applies to friendly Britain, it means something very different than when used to describe the administration's desire for improved ties with America's enemies, actual or potential, like Russia, Iran and "Palestine." (Consider, for example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's tendering to her Russian counterpart a symbolic "Reset" button - one whose label, incredibly, used instead the Russians' word for "overload." This unserious conduct in the face of the Kremlin's increasing aggressiveness at America's expense constituted the most appalling and degrading public spectacle by the top U.S. diplomat since her husband's appointee, Madeleine Albright, danced with North Korean despot Kim Jong Il in 2000.) Arguably, the need for a special relationship with Great Britain rooted in shared Western values and a mutual commitment to the common defense is as great today as at anytime since World War II. Unfortunately, Gordon Brown's government is conducting itself in ways that undermine those values and jeopardize the security of the Free World. Particularly worrying are British concessions to the repressive and seditious theo-political-legal program authoritative Islam calls "Shariah": Shariah-Compliant Finance (SCF): Even though promoters of this industry, like "Shariah advisor" and al-Jazeera host Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, have described SCF as "financial jihad" and al Qaeda has publicly embraced its practice, Mr. Brown has declared he wants Britain to be the world capital of Shariah finance. [Can anyone say, "Moron!"] Shariah courts: Brown's government has begun institutionalizing the practice of separate legal systems for Muslims with the proliferation of "family law" courts where women can be treated, in accordance with Shariah, as second-class citizens - less-than-equal to male Muslims and entitled to a fraction of the property due the latter in the adjudication of divorce or testate matters. [But when it comes to welfare, a Muslim man in England can have 4 wives plus children and get welfare money for them at tax payer expense.] Terrorism charities: The British government has refused to take punitive action against British-based Islamic "charities" that provide money to terrorist organizations. The latest is Interpal, a Palestinian organization that even the BBC was able to figure out provides support to Hamas. Engaging with terrorists: British civil servants are paying thousands of dollars to attend a conference next month on "Political Islam" at which Ibrahim Moussawi has been invited to speak. Moussawi is a top propagandist for Hezbollah. The same Brown government that prevented Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders from presenting his film "Fitna" to the House of Lords on the grounds that he constituted too much of a threat to "community harmony" is evidently untroubled by having a flak for terrorists inciting in the U.K. The irony of the evident distancing from Britain by the Obama administration is that Brown's government is pursuing policies that Barack Obama seemingly espouses. The U.S. taxpayer now owns most of AIG and Citigroup, two companies massively engaged in Shariah-compliant transactions, at odds with our constitutional separation of church and state. [Now, it is clear why we are bailing out AIG and Citigroup - Islam. Do you think if either were overtly owned by Baptists we would have bailed them out?] In this and other ways, Mr. Obama is effectively acquiescing to Islamists' demands to establish here as in the U.K. their own, "parallel" society observing Shariah rules, not the laws of the land. Among the concessions in the works appears to be bans on so-called "hate speech" that defames Islam, an idea implicit in the President's injunction to use "respectful language" towards Muslims. Last week, moreover, Hillary Clinton effectively promised a whopping $900 million charitable contribution from the U.S. taxpayer to Hamas - or at least a future Hamas-Fatah "unity" government. This is a part of the President's determination to reset Mideast diplomacy by forging what might be called "special relationships" not only with Syria and Iran but the major terrorist organizations they sponsor, Hamas and Hezbollah. As the Free World increasingly engages in submission to Shariah, it appears the special U.S. tie to the U.K. that served to block the global ambitions of successive totalitarian ideologies will no longer operate. Under President Obama, the question increasingly is: Will the U.S. perform that vital role alone, or succumb as Britain is doing to what Islam scholar Robert Spencer calls the "Stealth Jihad" now being mounted against every freedom-loving country?

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is the President of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times. The items in "blue" were my comments. Yes, we are submitting to "financial Islam", "political Islam", "terrorist Islam" and now even speaking about Islam will be considered "hate speech". Very Islamic of our new president, Mr. Obama. But then, Obama is Muslim by birth and perhaps owes his "presidency" to his backers in the Middle East - just another lobbying group he has to reward. It could be argued that Mr. Obama did not snub PM Gordon Brown but rather gave him a "wink and a nod" for the good work Brown is doing submitting to Islam. But now we know why our tax dollars are bailing out AIG and Citigroup...Shariah Law, the financial laws of Islam. The "Stealth Jihad" according to Robert Spencer. Is there any wonder that our retirement plans are "in the tank?" In case you missed the film by Geert Wilder, here is Fitna.... You recall that Geert Wilders was not allowed to show this true 15 minute film to the British Parliament. Obama did not snub Gordon Brown; he rewarded him. How? The irony of giving Brown a set of DVDs - films... In 2007 there were 54,000,000 (million) Muslims throughout the European West. That is nearly the total population of France. And what are we importing into the United States: drug cartels/armies; Islamic terrorists who hid within Muslim communities... There is no "race" in Islam, it is a political ideology such as Marxism but less benign. Total domination of the world is the goal and the total eradication of Western Culture and Capitalism is the goal. For a list of the Obama administration's activities just for the first 50 days, see the excellent list at Gateway Pundit: Obama Disaster: 50 days that changed the world.