Obama Admin Finalizes Rules: $1 Abortions in ObamaCare

Remember Nancy Pelosi: “Well, we have to pass the ‘ObamaCare’ Bill so you can find out what is in it.”

Well… for those who didn’t read the bill in advance, trusted Washington and doubted those who did read the bill… We are now finding out:

The Cost of ObamaCare Has Doubled… From What They Told Us

There are Rationing Boards (Death Panels…. A Mandate Committee) and people/seniors over 76 and special needs patients will get few major services. once ObamaCare takes affect.

And Yes… Abortion ‘Will’ not only be covered, but murder will be wholesaled at $1 for an abortion under ObamaCare.

And that is only the beginning of the ugly!!!  Guess Sarah Palin and those dang Conservatives were right after all…

Obama Admin Finalizes Rules: $1 Abortions in ObamaCare

It’s official. The concern pro-life organizations had about the ObamaCare legislation funding abortions has been confirmed, as the Obama administration has issued the final rules on abortion funding governing the controversial health care law.

Nestled within the “individual mandate” in the Obamacare act — that portion of the Act requiring every American to purchase government — approved insurance or pay a penalty — is an “abortion premium mandate.” This mandate requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion. As a result, many pro-life Americans will have to decide between a plan that violates their consciences by funding abortion, or a plan that may not meet their health needs.

The Department of Health and Human Services has issued a final rule regarding establishment of the state health care exchanges required under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As a knowledgeable pro-life source on Capitol Hill informed LifeNews, as authorized by Obamacare, “The final rule provides for taxpayer funding of insurance coverage that includes elective abortion” and the change to longstanding law prohibiting virtually all direct taxpayer funding of abortions (the Hyde Amendment) is accomplished through an accounting arrangement described in the Affordable Care Act and reiterated in the final rule issued today.

“To comply with the accounting requirement, plans will collect a $1 abortion surcharge from each premium payer,” the pro-life source informed LifeNews. “The enrollee will make two payments, $1 per month for abortion and another payment for the rest of the services covered. As described in the rule, the surcharge can only be disclosed to the enrollee at the time of enrollment. Furthermore, insurance plans may only advertise the total cost of the premiums without disclosing that enrollees will be charged a $1 per month fee to pay directly subsidize abortions.”

The pro-life advocate told LifeNews that the final HHS rule mentions, but does not address concerns about abortion coverage in “multi-state” plans administered by the Federal Government’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

“There is nothing in the Affordable Care Act to prevent some OPM (government administered) plans from covering elective abortion, and questions remain about whether OPM multi-state plans will include elective abortion,” the pro-life source said. “If such plans do include abortion, there are concerns that the abortion coverage will even be offered in states that have prohibited abortion coverage in their state exchanges.”

The final rule indicates: “Specific standards for multi-state plans will be described in future rulemaking published by OPM…”

Set to go into effect in 2014, the unconstitutional provisions found in Section 1303 of the Obamacare Act compel enrollees in certain health plans to pay a separate abortion premium from their own pocket, without the ability to decline abortion coverage based on religious or moral objection.

That provision was the subject of a legal document that Bioethics Defense Fund’s Dorinda C. Bordlee, lead counsel for the group, submitted to the Supreme Court in February.

“This violates the Free Exercise Clause because religious exemptions are made for groups such as the Amish who morally object to purchasing any insurance, but no exemptions are made for Americans who have religious or moral objections to abortion,” Bordlee said.

“President Obama’s healthcare overhaul includes an ‘abortion premium mandate’ that blatantly violates the conscience rights and First Amendment religious rights of millions of Americans,” AUL president Charmaine Yoest said. “Nowhere in the Constitution does it require Americans to violate their beliefs and pay for abortions.”

ADF Senior Counsel Steven Aden says Americans should not be compelled to pay for other people’s elective abortions.

“No one should be forced to violate their conscience by paying for abortions, but that’s precisely what ObamaCare does,” he explained. “ObamaCare requires that employees enrolled in certain health plans pay a separate insurance premium specifically to pay for other people’s elective abortions and offers no opt-out for religious or moral reasons. Such a mandate cannot survive constitutional scrutiny.”

BDF president and general counsel Nikolas Nikas said the individual mandate not only forces individuals into private purchases, it also effectively mandates personal payments for surgical abortion coverage, without exemption for an individual’s religious or moral objections.

He told LifeNews in an email, “Like a Russian nesting doll, the individual mandate has nestled within it a hidden, but equally unconstitutional scheme that effectively imposes an ‘abortion premium mandate’ that violates the free exercise rights of millions of Americans who have religious objections to abortion.”

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 3/12/12 7:11 PM  -  Cross-Posted at True Health Is True Wealth

More Perry Questions… Sharia Law in Texas

Sharia Law enforced in Texas!… Yes, Sharia Law enforced in Texas!

Creepy, creeping Sharia Law is law in Texas

Originally posted in February, 2008; updates below

The parties will ask the courts to refer the cases for arbitration to Texas Islamic court within "Seven Days" from the establishment of the Texas Islamic Court panel of Arbitrators. The assignment must include ALL cases, including those filed against or on behalf of other family members related to the parties. Each party will notify the other party, Texas Islamic Court, and their respective attorneys, in writing of the assignment of all the above Cause Numbers from the above appropriate District Court to Texas Islamic Court.

Hence my motivation to start documenting this disturbing trend. Why disturbing, check back frequently and you’ll soon see why.

From the zTruth blog,

Ever heard of the Texas Islamic Court?:

Islamic Court in Texas may have a role for Muslims. An appellate court appears to have upheld sharia law in a divorce which is shocking.

Isn’t this a dangerous precedent for our democracy? We all have to abide by the laws of our city, state and country. Anytime, any religious law is allowed to take precedent, it should alarm you.

Critiques [sic] have been arguing that Islamists are chipping away at out laws. This may be a great example:

1. The Parties agree to arbitrate all existing issues among them in the above mentioned Cause Numbers in the appropriate District Court, which includes the Divorce Case, the child custody of the [sic] Noor Qaddura and Farah Qaddura, the determination of each party’s responsibilities and duties according to the Islamic rules of law by Texas Islamic Court.

2.All parties agree to sign the Texas Islamic Court required legal forms, and each party pays his required fees.

3.The panel of arbitrators of Texas Islamic Court will be formed according to the rules and regulations of Texas Islamic Court. However, the parties agree and suggest the following names for the panel:

Mujahid Bakhash, the Imam of the Islamic Association of Tarrant County, Fort Worth, Texas. .Main El-quda, the Imam of the Islamic Society of Arlington, Arlington, Texas. .Abdel Salam Abu-Nar, the Imam of Dar Assalam Islamic Center, Arlington, Texas

4.Each Party will submit all of his documents, exhibits, and evidence to Texas Islamic Court.

5.The parties agree that the Ruling of the Texas Islamic Court in the above mentioned Cause Numbers is Binding, and Final, and no party will take any appeal or future legal action of any matter afterwards.

…We reverse the trial court’s orders denying Appellants’ motions to stay litigation and to compel arbitration in these two consolidated cases. We render judgment that the Arbitration Agreement signed by the parties is valid and enforceable and covers all disputes between the parties that arose prior to the date the parties signed the Arbitration Agreement, including all matters that were the subject of the partial summary judgment previously granted by the trial court.

Perry at the signing of the Texas Halal Law

Some questions have been raised about Rick Perry's views on Islam. Islamic infiltration into American politics means that every candidate deserves close scrutiny. My purpose is not to attack Perry, but to conduct a preliminary discussion of the subject. Pamela Geller and Debbie Schlussel have written their own articles, which add more pieces to the puzzle. As with every candidate, the discussion will go on as more materials are brought forward.

Perry at the signing of the Texas Halal Law

First of all it's important to recognize that the Rick Perry question, is also the Chris Christie question, it's the question that comes with every governor from a state with a large and politically active Muslim population. This question will have more serious implications as the size of the Muslim population expands even further.

The multicultural pandering that used to be associated with the Tammany Hall political machine has become second nature in American politics. There is hardly a governor who does not pay lip service to diversity or do roundups of all the religious groups in America. That's an unfortunate reality.

The initial good news is that Rick Perry did not try to influence the judicial system on behalf of a member of a terrorist organization, or appoint a terrorist Imam's political affiliate to a superior court judgeship the way that Christie did.

The worst thing he seems to have done is played footsie with the Aga Khan and appointed one of his people to the State Health Council. He also seems to have met with a group of black clergy, which included a Nation of Islam minister, and made the usual trips to Dubai to talk up trade and academic exchanges.

Then there's the Texas Halal Law, which makes it a criminal offense to sell Halal and non-Halal meat in the same store, without specifically labeling the two, and of misrepresenting non-Halal meat as being Halal. In theory that's not such a big deal. Similar laws are on the books for Kosher meat. But the problem comes with the definition of what Halal is.

"Halal," as applied to food, means food prepared and served in conformity with Islamic religious requirements according to a recognized Islamic authority.

That comes from the bill's definition. And it raises the question of who is recognized as an Islamic authority. HB 470 leaves that question open. But in a dispute over which Islamic definition of Halal to use, the State of Texas would be forced to rule on a question of Islamic law. And to enforce that law. Texas would become an enforcer of Sharia.

The Texas Halal Law was lobbied for by Mohamed Elibiary and his Freedom and Justice Foundation and is quoted in a recent article about their positive relationship with Perry. Elibiary has spoken at an event honoring the Ayatollah Khomeini and recommends the writings of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Last year he wrote an op-ed warning against assassinating Al-Qaeda leaders. And of course he's busy educating Americans about Sharia.

At the signing, Perry made a point of thanking Imam Bakhash for all that he does. Bakhash also appears to be one of the judges on the Texas Islamic Court, whose decisions have been upheld as binding by Texas appellate courts.

Then there's Perry's friendly relationship with Farouk Shami, who has a rather ugly background when it comes to Israel, and who suggested that 9/11 might be a conspiracy. He is the Palestinian in the Perry quote mentioned below.

Believe it or not, all this is the good news. It's a sad commentary on the state of Islamic infiltration that this is business as usual in state politics. The bad news is that this means Perry's as bad on Islam as George W. Bush. Maybe worse.

Like most of the world’s major religions, the Islamic faith preaches peace, love and tolerance. Indeed, terrorism is the antithesis of the basic tenet to which the one billion Islamic followers all over the world adhere.

The Koran teaches that “whoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as having served all mankind.”

The heartfelt condolences and overtures of cooperation that have been offered by Islamic communities in Texas portray the true spirit of Islam.

That's from a post 9/11 editorial. And it's echoed elsewhere. Perry's views haven't changed since. Witness this NPR piece from last year.

The governor of this swiftly changing state works to take a nuanced approach to a minority group that’s been very much at the center of the news. "We have a huge Muslim community in the state of Texas," he says, and many of these Muslims are "great businessmen and women, very good supporters of mine. ... We are an incredibly diverse state. I sell it as part of our strength."

Perry was asked if he was comfortable with the way that some people talk about the problem with terrorism — their concern to say that the real problem is “Muslims" or "Muslim countries."

"The radicalization of Islam is a great concern," Perry said. "Islam of and by itself is one of the great religions, along with Christianity and Judaism." He recalled meeting one of the Democratic candidates for Texas governor in the recent election. "He’s a Palestinian. And he and I were having a conversation about Ground Zero. How do you deal with this? He said, well, it’s pretty easy. He said, 'Build a synagogue, a temple, and a church there. And bring these people together.'"

How problematic is this? Again this is Bush territory. It's insipid and dangerously ignorant. It's one thing to hear it from the governor of a state with a sizable Muslim population. But it's inappropriate for a president. And yet it's also inevitable.

As some have pointed out, Perry is pro-Israel. So was Bush. It didn't stop him from toadying to Saudi Arabia and Abbas, or from pressuring Israel to make concessions to terrorists during his second term. It's possible to be pro-Israel and pro-Islam. And when the scales are weighed, then Islam comes first. If you doubt that, go look at what happened when Bush was pressured by the Saudis.
But this isn't about Israel. It's about Islam. Specifically it's about addressing the threat of Islamic terrorism.

Perry has pandered on Mexican illegal immigration and on Islamic terrorism, as Bush did before him. Will he keep it up once he gets elected the way that Bush did? Hard to say, but the odds are good that he will.

Some will note that this article is not particularly harsh compared to my original piece on Christie. And with good reason. There's no fundamental breach here, just a slow erosion of ideas and values. But there's a larger reason too.

Christie's position as US Attorney and his role in prosecuting terrorists meant that he knew exactly what he was doing. And he did it anyway. For all his smirking and bellowing, that's the unforgivable thing.

I don't know how much Perry knows or understands. Which is the larger reason why I'm not harshly attacking him for what he did and said at the state level. A slow trickle of criticism may move him to the right, better than a complete rejection. Pandering to Muslims was part of Texas politics. But he's running for nationwide office in a country where Muslims are less of a political force than they are in his state. That may give him more freedom to break with the past.

The very fact that two Texas governors have done it this way suggests that the entire political path to the top is badly contaminated. That it's easier to pander than to take a stand. But while I keep comparing Perry to Bush, and this is a personal view, I don't read the same sincerity in Perry, that I did in Bush. There's too much showmanship and I'm not sure who the man underneath is. He may be more to the right, he may be more to the left, or he may not care at all. As the race continues, it may be easier to get a read on him. Maybe.

The last four years are a reminder that we could do worse than Bush II, but maybe we could do better. With Perry in the race, the two frontrunners, Romney and Perry will be clones of each other. (There are also many other questions about Perry… his relationship with the Bilderberger Group, his record of crony capitalism and the list goes on!) Two aggressively business oriented governors with no real interest in protecting American manufacturing or resisting the Islamization of America. One of whom looks like a Tea Party friendly populist, but more in style than in substance.

Perry may shoot a gun into the air, but his rhetoric is the same old Compassionate Conservatism. He may be more authentically Texan than Bush, but the substance of his ideas is the same. NAFTA, education for illegal aliens, and Islam is a great religion.

Whatever we say and do, he may be the inevitable candidate. The man who merges the strongest points of Huckabee and Romney into one populist friendly package. Who sells a pro-business compassionate conservatism that comes off as a low pain alternative to Obama. But before that it might not be such a bad thing to pore over the details of his record in office.

Perry is certainly an improvement on Obama. But in a race where Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, Palin and Gingrich have spoken out about the dangers of Islam -- everyone is gathering to cheer a man who celebrates it. Is this what the struggle of the last 3 years comes down to? Did we go through all this just to put Bush era policies back into office?

Source: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

Related:

Archbishop in England has submitted to Islam and has declared that sharia law in the UK is unavoidable…

THIS IS WORTH KNOWING ABOUT!!!

This did not happen to me personally, it was forwarded to me as is from a friend. --- You should know this the next time you are in Costco

I just didn't want anyone to think this was my experience! )

I did some shopping at Costco on Saturday. Nothing too special, just looking to pick up some meat to BBQ. My eldest son was down with his fiancée from Iowa, so we wanted to have some family time. My wife and I worked our way past the various displays and only picked up an ice chest to keep the meat from spoiling on the return trip to Magdalena, (we were strong willed for a change). We arrived at the refrigerated section and began the difficult task of choosing our cuts of meat for the family get together. Right away, I spotted the chicken breasts, they were already boneless and vacuum sealed. The price was good as it was organic chicken from Oregon, but then I saw on the sign a note that stopped me cold.

The whole chickens that looked wonderful for the family bar-b-que, just a moment before, were now an offense to me. Right on the sign were the words “Certified Halal”.

Halal is the Islamic term that basically means the meat is lawful to eat for a devout Muslim. What makes it lawful or acceptable is that the meat has been processed in a very specific way. Now, you may think that this is no different than meat that is acceptable to the Jewish people or kosher. Unlike kosher food, where the physical processing of the meat is the focus, for Islam it is the spiritual component that makes the meat lawful.

For lawful (halal) meat in Islam, the animal must be killed while the butcher faces Mecca, and either the butcher cries “Allah Akbar” or a tape plays the words over a loud speaker. Understand, that when they face Mecca, they face the black stone, the very definition of idol worship.

I am glad that Costco is finally telling us plainly that the meat is halal or sacrificed to an idol, but I have a feeling that this not to benefit the Christian, but rather the Muslim. I will state again that I have not fear of a lifeless false god, but the book of Acts plainly tells us that we are not to eat meat sacrificed to idols. The false religion of Islam continues to make inroads into America as they attempt to force some of our communities to submit to Sharia law and demand that halal food be sold in mainstream stores.

I would point out that normally this type of food has been called “ethnic” food or given a special section like the Chinese food or whatever. That is not what we see here. This food is being sold with the standard fair, and one must read the small labels on the back of the food to find out if it is halal or not.

I believe in freedom of religion. What I am starting to observe, however, is that one religion (currently the minority) is being given a wide berth and allowed special status. Those that know their Bible are not surprised by this. But it still amazes me that it can (as the Bible predicted) happen so suddenly and without anyone really taking notice.

You should know this the next time you are in Costco… and this is at Costcos all over the country… not just Texas, Michigan and other states that have succumbed!

Dear Friends and Christians:

Please be aware of what you buy. Also, know that the Gulen-Islamists took over Turkey while we were busy debating the debt limit. They know how to infiltrate. They (Gulen) have 36 schools here in Texas (Harmony Science Centers, etc.). Our children are being indoctrinated by our own tax dollars thru these charter schools. Imam Gulen lives here in the US and runs a $25 billion empire from PA... most paid for by our tax money. We need to wake up.

I checked this – found the following links . . .
http://halaladvocates.org/2011/07/costco and Lamb too http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2708982/posts

Related:

Rick Perry

Rick Perry’s Vaccine Shocker

Rick Perry - Lies About Dying Woman and His HPV Decisions

NC Governor Suggests Scrapping the Constitution and Elections…

Pocket Constitution… Get One, You’re Gonna Need It!

Student Threatens Man Passing Out Constitution Copies »

Two days ago, North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue suggested that elections be suspended for Congress for two years!  She is the highest elected official to suggest we simply scrap the constitution and replace liberty with the tyranny of the bureaucracy.  

Perdue said:

I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that.

Tea Party Nation Response:

Of course, Perdue and liberals would love to skip elections.  Not only do they not like elections on general principles, but in 2012, they are really going to hate the elections because we the people are about to put a lot of those liberals into the unemployment line.

Perhaps Perdue should familiarize herself with the United States Constitution.   Article One, Section Two of the Constitution states:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

That’s right Beverly.  The Constitution requires elections for the House of Representatives every other year.

When a governor is sworn into office in North Carolina, they take an oath of office that says they will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

We know liberals do not like the Constitution.  In fact, we know they consider the Constitution to simply be an impediment to be worked around.

As mentioned earlier on Tea Party Nation, Perdue is not the first liberal to try and suggest we abandon democracy and move towards the tyranny of liberalism.

We cannot allow this to stand.  We must push back against this.  It is one thing to simply express an idea.  It is another thing to call for what amounts to not necessarily an overthrow of the government but an overthrow of the Constitution.

The Democrat Convention is going to be held in North Carolina next year.  While it would be great to have Perdue as governor welcoming Obama, while we hang this on her, the simple truth is her comment is so far out of bounds that she must go.

Tea Party groups and other Patriot groups in North Carolina are taking action.  On Saturday, October 1^st, Tea Party groups are rallying in Raleigh North Carolina at the North Carolina’s Governor’s mansion.  The rally will start at 11 AM and the address of the mansion is 200 N Blount Street, Raleigh, NC  27601.

The Patriots of North Carolina are going to tell Beverly Perdue that only dictators suspend elections.  This is America.  Real Americans love liberty.  Real Americans support and defend the Constitution.  Real Americans support the rights of the people to vote.

If there is any way you can support the rally in Raleigh, please go to North Carolina.  If you cannot make it to the rally, consider creative ways your Tea Party group can support the Patriots in North Carolina.

One of the major sponsors of this rally is our friends at Moore Tea Citizens in North Carolina.  You can find out more about the rally on their website.

Help send a message to the Party of Treason, which thinks the Constitution, liberty and voting are, inconveniences they must work around, suspend and abolish.

This is America.  We are the land of the free.  Support freedom and support the Patriots of North Carolina.

America, let’s speak with one voice and tell Beverly Perdue to resign. 

A dangerous new chapter is being written in American history that, if successful, is destined to impact the history of the West. It’s called ‘Re-Election by Suspended Election Revolution’

Warning: The threat of suspended elections is real

With absolutely no proof of any kind of who he really is, Barack Obama made it to the Oval Office in 2008.  There was no media vetting of the largely absentee senator from Illinois, who even back then had the temerity to compare himself to Abraham Lincoln.  All anyone ever had to go on was an autobiographical book suspected of being ghost-written by an unrepentant domestic terrorist.  We all know how it goes with politicians and autobiographical books.

When Nancy Pelosi writes hers she will claim she trumps Mother Teresa, the Calcutta saint, not the one married to John Kerry.

If Harry Reid ever gets around to it, writing his, wine will turn to vinegar overnight.

You can claim to be anyone you want in a book, and that’s what Barry Soetoro did.

The point is that Barry Soetoro took the name Barack Hussein Obama, got himself elected and immediately began pushing the country so many look up to, right up to the precipice and nobody—nobody—has been able to stop him.

Now when we have a narcissistic Obama plunging in the polls, a democrat governor in North Carolina is pushing the envelope for suspending elections and covering up a notion she dropped a bombshell by claiming she was only using hyperbole to make a point for a Rotary Club.

If the election were held tomorrow,  Obama would go down in a landslide strikingly more humiliating than the shellacking he and his party got—and never got over—in the midterms.

But the 2012 election is more than a year away, and the man who made it all the way to the most powerful office on earth sans identity documents has all the booty, and the absolute power it brings, at his command.

This is Obama’s well-stocked position at a time when only suspended elections would guarantee his re-election.

North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue was not joking when she spoke about suspending elections.  Nor did she pick the idea out of thin air.  Perdue was giving the suspend-congressional-elections idea its first oxygen for her hell-bent-for-leather boss.

It is crucial to not let this day go down without remembering what Perdue said.

Don’t let the state-controlled mainstream media lure you back to sleep by saying if there is no election, then why is Obama so diligently campaigning.

Obama is not campaigning.  He is preparing for Stage Two of the Total Transformation of America, using taxpayer money to prepare his Internet-identified “troops” for the coming Marxist Revolution.

He must not be allowed to get away with it.  Patriots should now be doing everything legal to stop him in his tracks.

Nothing is impossible when all the control is held by a tyrant.

Obama and his masters already pulled the biggest scam on any country in modern times by making it to the White House without legitimate I.D.

A dangerous new chapter is being written in American history that, if successful, is destined to impact the history of the West.  It’s called ‘Re-Election by Suspended Election Revolution’.
Patriots who want their grandchildren to grow up in a Marxist-free America should start the counter revolution called the ‘Revolution for an Obama-free America’ and they should start it “like yesterday”.

By: Judi McLeod  -  CFP (Canada Free Press)  -  Copyright © Canada Free Press

Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.

Judi can be emailed at:judi@canadafreepress.com

Related: 

MAYBE WE SHOULD 'SUSPEND ELECTIONS'
Imagine the outrage if an elected official suggested that we should just stop all elections for a few years... Oh wait, that actually happened. Listen as North Carolina's Governor Beverly Perdue suggests that we just put those pesky elections on hold HERE.

NC Gov Declares Elections Are What’s Holding Us Back On Road To Recovery

Australia: Sharia - Sanctioned Polygamy and Child Marriage

Posted By Andrew Boston On July 21, 2011

Despite an overall apologetic tone borne of transparent obeisance to cultural relativism, two legal academics, Dr. Ann Black and Dr. Kerrie Sadiq from The University of Queensland TC Beirne School of Law are "suggesting [2]" in their research publication, "Good & Bad Sharia: Australia's mixed response to Islamic Law" (due to be published in the University of New South Wales Law Journal on Monday July 25, 2011) that, "Australia is right to act with caution in dealing with Sharia law."

Why are even these obviously [2] devout votaries of the academic social religion of cultural relativism concerned about the practice of Sharia in Australia at all, or what they term, with revealing euphemism, "legal pluralism?"

One reason was extracted from the forthcoming paper of Drs. Black and Sadiq, and cited by The Australian's legal affairs editor, Chris Merrit [3]:

"Valid Muslim polygynist marriages, lawfully entered into overseas, are recognized, with second and third wives and their children able to claim welfare and other benefits."

Merrit's background article on Black and Sadiq's findings also noted [3] how this practice of Muslim polygamy in Australia involved "marriages where one party is under the lawful marriage age." And Merrit provided this additional context [3]:

"The findings come soon after Ikebal Patel, president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, triggered a backlash inside the Islamic community when he called for Australia to compromise with Islam and embrace legal pluralism

"...The latest research has found that while polygamy is unlawful, mainstream law accommodates men who arrive in Australia with multiple wives and gives some legal standing to multiple partnerships that originate in Australia."

More alarming "context" not addressed by the report of Drs. Black and Sadiq, and in fact dismissed by Dr. Black [2] in these words, "The 'foreignness' of Sharia law is increased by media reports which highlight 'differences' and feed into fears about the Muslim presence in Australia," was provided by The Australian Daily Telegraph [4]:

"On Sunday, a recent convert to Islam in Sydney was allegedly lashed 40 times with electrical cable by men from his mosque, in a terrifying home invasion, as punishment for drinking alcohol - forbidden under Shariah law. Two people have been arrested in connection with the attack."

The staid report by two Australian cultural relativist academics should (but won't) make our mainstream media talking heads curious about how mainstream Islamic opinion views polygamy in the United States. For example, what have the esteemed mainstream Islamic clerics of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) opined regarding polygamy? The AMJA [5] mission statement maintains:

"[The AMJA was] founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America. ... AMJA is a religious organization that does not exploit religion to achieve any political ends, but instead provides practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and the nation's laws to the various challenges experienced by Muslim communities."

A report in The Muslim Observer [6] published October 21, 2010, highlighting AMJA's "seventh annual American conference of imams," confirms that the organization is accepted [6] as such by the mainstream American Muslim community. AMJA and its recent "training" conference for American imams were described [6] in these banal terms:

"The organization AMJA (Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America) has a list of scholars associated with it which stretches from Al-Azhar University to Virginia's Open University, and back across the ocean to the professors at Saudi universities. Its website, amjaonline.com, provides fatawa on many issues and promises 24-hour access to scholars who can give legal opinions on the issues people face. AMJA focuses on providing fatwas to Americans, and believes it is able to provide culturally appropriate fatwas although many of their scholars are not American-because they have some American scholars and because of the technological ties that bind AMJA's American scholars with those abroad. AMJA just had, in Houston, its seventh annual American conference of imams, and two local Michigan imams attended, namely Imam Musa of Bloomfield's Muslim Unity Center, and Imam Ali of MCWS. Mr. Sadiqul Hassan of AMJA explained that 'the event was the 7th annual imam workshop.' Mr. Hassan said that AMJA is 'a fiqh council basically,' with 'scholars who live abroad and inside the U.S.; we have experts in different fields to educate about life in the U.S. -- fatwa are based on life in the U.S.'"

Not only does AMJA extol polygamy in accordance with the Sharia, AMJA endorses its extra-legal (i.e, vis a vis US law) application here in America, as can be readily gleaned from these two "fatwas" or Islamic legal rulings:

Fatwa 2134 [7] Dr. Main Khalid Al-Qudah Date 2006-10-27

Polygamy in Islam is permissible for different reasons, like:

1- The sexual energy of men is more than that of women in general. So, in some cases, one wife is not enough to fulfill the conjugal desire of her husband

2- Pregnancy and delivery negatively affect the shape and physical attraction that women have.

3- World wide, the percentage of females is always more than that of males, eventually, there must be a solution, either to permit adultery and prostitution, or to allow polygamy

4- One husband could take care of more than one wife at the same time; socially, financially, and even sexually as I mentioned above. However, the opposite is not right because of the physical and psychological capability that Allah the all mighty gave men.

Fatwa 3370 [8] Scholar Dr. Hatem al-Haj Date 2007-08-08

Comment from Muslim questioner: We know that polygamy is against USA law. But I heard from my friend that as long as you don`t register your marriage to the registrar, it is okay to have more than one wife here in the states, i.e., all the wives are living here. The argument that he made was that the law that prohibits marrying more than one is against the shaariah so, it is okay for us to break it...There are some scholars in the USA are practicing polygamy without the knowledge of the authorities using that argument....

Dr. Hatem al-Haj's response: Polygamy is halal in Islam and may be highly recommended when the number of females is bigger than that of males to afford all females a decent life that suffices their physiologic, emotional and other needs. The US law about polygamy is against the Islamic law, for no one can make prohibited that which Allah specifically made allowable.

Wake-up America!!  In order for Utah to become a state, the majority population there had to give up Polygamy, a part of their religion.  This is no different.  If immigrants wan to come here or people want to practice a religion that goes against the law of our land, they have to change their practices or choose not to come here.  Americans have been so brainwashed to politically correct that we’ve lost all our common sense!

The column below by Andrew Bostom zeroes in on one aspect of the threat of sharia to the West: Islamic polygamy. An NPR article in 2008 cited sources estimating that as many as 100,000 Muslims live in polygamous families in the U.S. Click here to read the article: http://tool.donation-net.net/Act4America/Polygamy20110722.cfm?dn=1097&commID=67068112&ID=274727

Note that the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America has issued fatwas sanctioning polygamy, in keeping with sharia law. One ruling declares American law prohibiting polygamy "against Islamic law."

The petition supporting Tulsa police Captain Fields is now at 51,000 signers. If you haven't yet done so, please add your name today!

Click here to read and sign the petition: http://tool.donation-net.net/ACT4America/CaptFields.cfm?dn=1097&commID=67068112&ID=274727

--------------

ACT for America

P.O. Box 12765

Pensacola, FL 32591

www.actforamerica.org

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America's national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam.

We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website.