Gadhafi's Son is Killed; Lookout for angry videos of Farrakhan and Shabazz

Louis Farrakhan and New Black Panther Party leader Malik Zulu Shabazz were incensed when Obama took the United States into war with Libya. The news that NATO almost killed Gadhafi and DID kill his youngest son and three grandchildren are virtually guaranteed to get the two racist men talking again. The odd thing is that I agree with the stance of both Farrakhan and Shabazz when it comes to staying out of Libya, though for far different reasons. They love Gadhafi; he's been a gravy train for Farrakhan for years. As stated previously, my opposition to the kinetic military action in Libya has to do with the alternative being far worse and the insurmountable debt we're dealing with.

Via Washington Post:

TRIPOLI, Libya — Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi escaped a NATO missile strike in Tripoli on Saturday, but his youngest son and three grandchildren under the age of 12 were killed, a government spokesman said.

The strike, which came hours after Gadhafi called for a cease-fire and negotiations in what rebels called a publicity stunt, marked an escalation of international efforts to prevent the Libyan regime from regaining momentum.

Rebels honked horns and chanted “Allahu Akbar” or “God is great” while speeding through the western city of Misrata, which Gadhafi’s forces have besieged and subjected to random shelling for two months, killing hundreds. Fireworks were set off in front of the central Hikma hospital, causing a brief panic that the light would draw fire from Gadhafi’s forces.

Our defense of rebels with ties to al-Qaeda and who shout "Allahu Akbar" kind of prove my point about the United States doing the wrong thing here.

If going to war against Libya sent Farrakhan and Shabazz into racist rants, surely the death of Gadhafi's son and grandchildren is bound to do the same thing.

Stay tuned....


h/t Drudge

Pennsylvania Court uses Sharia Law in Decision on Will

Plant this story firmly in the 'Creeping Sharia' category. At first blush it might not look that bad but remember, those who want Islamic law in the United States push it incrementally. This is a prime example and the court's decision sets a dangerous precedent. Imagine if a man leaves a will that says 1/8 of his estate is to go to each of his sons and 1/16 of that estate is to go to each of his daughters. Assuming he was of sound mind when he wrote the will, one would think those wishes should be honored. Though they appear sexist, that's why they call it a 'will.'

Now, suppose a Muslim male simply states in his will that his estate is to be divided among his family according to Sharia Law, which calls for distribution of that estate in the same 1/8 and 1/16 manner. Does the U.S. Constitution allow for a judge to rule in such a way? The short answer is no.

Here is the relevant part of the will of Abbas Alkafaji via Volokh:

(4) About my pension, the beneficiaries are all my biological kids and my current wife, ... after reducing all costs associated with the house.... [The] rest of the pension, if any left, should be divided according to Islamic Laws and Sharia....

(9) In case I have additional monetary benefits from my job, such as life insurance, 401K, 403B or any other retirement funds that I am not aware of, Allah as my witness, They should be divided, after costs associated with the payment of those funds according to Islamic Laws and “Sharia.”

Aside from precedent that states American courts cannot rule on religious law, this case highlights exactly why Sharia Law is not a First Amendment issue; it is an Article VI issue, which states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This judge should have distributed the man's will according to American law and let his beneficiaries duke it out on the back end. Period.

h/t Weasel Zippers

Video: NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre calls for Resignation of Eric Holder

The Project Gunrunner scandal really is huge, but it's still under the surface. Some have said it's too complicated for people to latch onto but it's really not. Our government intentionally let guns be put in the hands of Mexican drug cartels and those guns were used to kill innocent people, including Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. The reasons behind WHY our government did this involve gun control. The ATF has been stonewalling incessantly as Rep. Darrell Issa and Senator Chuck Grassley have been demanding documents to no avail.

It's time to add the NRA to the list of entities that are engaged on this issue. In Pittsburgh, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre called for the resignation of Eric Holder, whose Department of Justice oversees the agency - ATF - that has been leading this operation.

Via POLITICO:

PITTSBURGH—The National Rifle Association’s CEO Saturday said Attorney General Eric Holder should step down for allowing an operation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to occur on his watch that involved the sale of guns to suspicious customers with ties to Mexican drug cartels.

The ATF allegedly encouraged gun dealers to sell multiple firearms to known and suspected criminals as part of a broader sting operation to crack down on gunrunning. In a speech to thousands of gun activists here, NRA chief Wayne LaPierre said two assault rifles that the ATF “let walk” were found at the crime scene where a border patrol agent was gunned down in December.

“Operation Fast and Furious may have gotten one or perhaps two federal agents killed, and countless other innocent victims have been murdered with the illegal guns that our own government allowed into Mexico all to advance a political agenda,” he said.

The degree to which LaPierre and the NRA are willing to back up this rhetoric with action by putting consistent pressure on Congress, remains to be seen but the words ring true here. Holder is pleading ignorance while he stonewalls. The problem is if he knew about the operation, he should be removed from his position; if he didn't know about the operation, he was derelict and should be removed from his position.

If Holder authorized Operation Fast and Furious, which was part of the larger Project Gunrunner, he should also face serious criminal charges.