The Demonization of "Intolerance" : Paving the Way for Sharia Law in Oklahoma

The self-loathing, self-righteous, Western-hating, Islam-loving lunatics with wire rim spectacles at the New York Times seldom reveal themselves for what they really are better than in the fantasy world of their Op Ed pages.

One such example of this holier-than-thou lunacy appeared in today's edition of the Grey Lady's editorials section, on page A22 of the national edition. It is a piece entitled "Intolerance and the Law in Oklahoma," and begins thusly:

"For a few days this month, it was illegal in Oklahoma for a state judge to base a court decision on Islamic religious law or consider any form of international law. It was a manufactured problem; the issue has never come up in the state’s courts. But more than 70 percent of voters in Oklahoma still approved a state constitutional amendment to that effect, apparently persuaded by anti-Islamic activists, and a few cynical politicians, that Oklahoma was about to be brought under Islam’s heel."

The editorials of the NYT are not written by any one Times journalist, and as such are meant to convey the collective philosophy of the newspaper as a whole, one that cannot be contested.

So what we have here is the New York Times defending the inevitability of Sharia law in the United States, and blaming the hated, unenlightened "right wingers" for impeding its spread. Even when by "right wingers," what they are referring to is a solid, 70%-plus majority of Americans.

Ooh, how it must be lonely to be morally superior.

The Grey Lady-Whore claims that Sharia is not practiced in this country, yet. (Try telling that to the residents of Dearborn Michigan). Of course, what the Times fails to mention is that whenever Muslims migrate to historically non-Muslim lands, the customs of Mecca eventually follow. There are fewer than two million practitioners of the religion of peace in the US right now, and though their numbers are growing rapidly thanks to the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, demented asylum laws and poor immigration enforcement, their presence here is a recent phenomenon, and one that is irreversible. Any honest assessment of the situation would result in the fairly obvious conclusion that, based on what is happening in similar circumstances elsewhere (Britain, Sweden, France), large numbers of Muslims within a non-Muslim population will eventually demand Sharia.

But do not expect the Times to be honest.

Consider this out-and-out lie from "Intolerance in Oklahoma":

"Islamic law, known as Shariah, is no threat to our legal system and is not in force anywhere in the United States except within a religious community, in the same manner as Jewish Halakhic law or Catholic canon law."

Notice the way that the psychopaths at the NYT attempt to defend creeping Sharia by confusing the reader with circuitous language: "Except within a religious community" is a blatant attempt to cover up the fact that Islam operates as a political ideology, and not as a religion in the sense of Judaism or Christianity.

In the eyes of the Times, the fact that a majority of Oklahomans would vote to blunt the spread of Islamic influence in their state is "pernicious folly." Because:

"The voters of Oklahoma were badly misled by demagogues into passing a profoundly un-American measure. Now it is up to the federal courts to prevent the hatred from spreading further."

Of course, anyone with enough sense to read COTT instead of the New York Times will recognize where the real insanity roosts.