Where in the World Does He Come Up With These People?

I have been critical of the President for his liberal views particularly on abortion, breath-taking government spending, foreign policy, and power-grabbing actions into private business. I wish I could have some good things to say about this young President’s first few weeks in office. But his actions continue to speak louder than his eloquent words.

Here in Leelanau County, we are all familiar with John Gilligan, governor of Ohio from 1971-1975. Having a summer home on beautiful Lake Leelanau, he shopped at our farm market and attended the same Catholic Church for which I played the organ. Well, his daughter is none other than Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Services Secretary-designate. For all I know, I may have sold cherries to her. Anyhow, she is the latest Obama designee for a cabinet position who has had trouble with…you guessed it…income taxes. She and her husband, Gary, a federal magistrate judge in Kansas, paid a total of $7,040 in back taxes and $878 in interest to amend returns from 2005-2007, claiming “unintentional errors” involving charitable contributions, the sale of a home, and business expenses. New revelations of her receiving big bucks from an abortion doctor will not get her off the hook in my view, and she is not the first Obama choice for administrative high office who has had…well, tax problems. The list is getting longer and one wonders if Democratic politicians know the secrets of IRS avoidance.

The real story, though, is not Sibelius. It is President Obama's nominee to be the State Department's legal adviser. Former Clinton administration official Harold Koh, who has been dean of the Yale Law School since 2004, once wrote that the U.S. was part of an "axis of disobedience" with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Koh also has long held that the U.S. should accept international law when deliberating cases at home.

Huh? Did I miss something in high school civics? I thought we had a Constitution and were a sovereign country. According to his critics, Koh believes U.S. law should be based on foreign precedent, and even Shariah law could find a home here. Now what does Shariah law involve?

Muslims feel that Shariah has been misunderstood by Christians, who have tended to concentrate on the demands for harsh punishments such as amputation of a hand or foot for theft and public flogging for people caught drinking alcohol. I wonder where the ACLU would stand on those issues...

For example, a man’s beard must be long enough to protrude from a fist clenched at the base of the chin. If it is not, he is subject to punishment. Schick and Gillette would obviously go for that.

Under Shariah in Afghanistan, women are not allowed to work in any field except the medical sector. The Islamic law of Afghanistan does not allow the employment of women in government departments or international agencies. Women should not go outside their residences with the exception of those working in the medical sector.

Shariah also places restrictions on what women can wear and whom they can see. It forbids women from wearing jewelry and make-up and from making noise with their shoes when they walk. If a woman does work outside the home, she is forbidden to sit beside the driver when traveling to and from work. Stylish dress and decoration of women is forbidden.

Muslims believe that Shariah is not something the intelligence of man can prove wrong, it is only to be accepted by humans, since it is based on the will of Allah. Muslims see their religion and government being ordained by Allah. It is their conviction that Islam is intended to be the religion of all mankind. It is to be the universal religion to replace Judaism, Christianity, and all others.

Strange as it seems, two U.S. Supreme Court justices have stated that American jurists should include foreign law and precedent in their decisions. In several prominent cases, this has already happened.

In a speech in South Africa, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the March 2005 Roper v. Simmons decision, in which a 5-4 majority ruled against executing murderers who were 17 or younger, "perhaps the fullest expressions to date on the propriety and utility of looking to the 'opinions of (human)kind.' "

More recently, Justice Stephen Breyer said: "We see all the time . . . how the world really . . . is growing together. The challenge (will be) whether our Constitution . . . fits into the governing documents of other nations."

Koh believes laws of places like Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka should carry equal weight with the laws of Virginia and South Dakota, and that it's "appropriate for the Supreme Court to construe our Constitution in the light of foreign and international law" in its decisions.

He also believes foreign law trumps U.S. law on issues such as the death penalty. Echoing Ginsburg, he has said: "The evidence strongly suggests that we do not currently pay decent respect to the opinions of humankind in our administration of the death penalty. For that reason, the death penalty should, in time, be declared in violation of the Eighth Amendment."

Now, I personally am against the death penalty, and believe all law comes from God. While democratic government is the best thing going in a global society, there is always the danger that God's law can be ignored or even outlawed by majority vote. However, Shariah law governing court decisions in the U.S. is a case of the crazies. If “honor” killings become a law that trumps U.S. law, then I will be living in a parallel universe where everything is class-a__ backwards.