Recently we covered the debate in Montana where a vote was reached in favor of a bill to ban abusive sharia Islam from ever having recognition in the state. Some officials were trying to compare the old Jewish practice of sewing two garments together as being on par with beating women in the street under sharia practices in an attempt to stop the ban, but that too failed. Most people thought that the issue was settled. After all, who would want sharia law in Montana? Public beatings, genital mutilation, acid being thrown in faces; it doesn’t seem like a system that will go over very well in America, right?

Well, Governor Steve Bullock of Montana is not so sure that beheadings and throwing people from towering architecture is something that won’t work in his state. Instead, he is leaning towards the radical’s side and has vetoed the legislation to ban sharia! He even went so far as to say that stopping things like enforced sharia burka wearing would “upend our legal system and debase what we stand for as Montanans and Americans.” There must be some way in his mind that all of the horrors thus far listed and more are things that some people in Montana support. We must not debase them, after all.

There are 13 other states trying to decide if radical sharia law is right for them or not, as absurd as that sounds. No one expected the push back in Montana, however. Bullock said, “There is absolutely no need for this bill.” He also thinks that outlawing hate would breed hate, as he stated that such a ban would bolster “nationwide surge in hate crimes.” Bullock is clearly saying that he is not opposed to the idea that a system could be set up in his state that would possibly be open to allowing the legal structure of Saudi Arabia and the Middle East to be recognized in the U.S. in areas that are under strict Islamic control!

America has seen some bad governors. Bob Taft ruined Ohio so badly that, even though his family bears the family lineage of a past President, the name Taft won’t get a person elected as street cleaner in that state. “Gray Out” Davis had California living as if they were Amish, and for that matter, Jerry Brown is hardly any better in that state now. Still, those men were and are great leaders of world renown compared to what Montana is seeing today. To even have to address this as anything but “mockumentary” news is almost too ridiculous to even have to convey.

“NO GO ZONES” are what certain places in London and Sweden are dealing with, sections of town within their free societies that are crippled by radical Muslim extremism. Smoking, dancing, singing, and at certain times, LAUGHTER is outlawed. Anyone caught engaging in any of that or who does not pray at the allotted times are punished with great severity. Women may not walk without a man who is her husband or a close relative. If she dares, she will be beaten or killed for doing so. Whole families may have to be “dealt with” (beaten or killed) depending on what “crime” the lowly woman committed. If she looked a man in the eyes, for instance, it could be all over.

It is better to be a cockroach in a sharia Islamic caliphate than a gay or bisexual man or woman. Non-radicals, Islamic or not, may be raped, enslaved, or used as their masters wish. Any Jew is to be looked upon as lower than a pig. Drinking alcohol, even in respectful moderation, is grounds for flogging in the square. The horrors are limitless, and yet for reasons of political correctness, the common sense implementation of laws to ban the nightmare in the U.S. is being stopped.

Even other Muslims in America are outraged by what Montana has done. Dr. Deeba Abedi, a self-described founder, Muslim activist countering extremism says, “Muslims that run from lands where sharia law is in place find such a move by Montana an undermining of the U.S. Constitution. It is like chasing us with a knife in terms of how scary it is. This is agitprop in an effort to be so politically correct that it is decimating the U.S. Constitution.” The fact that the majority of Muslims that we do NOT read about are simply living peacefully and attaining great things are facts that we don’t often think of. We also forget that they have many times fled this very sharia law that Bullock is allowing a chance to come into being someday.

If this were about limiting free speech, it is not likely that Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) would be in favor of banning sharia on a federal level. Many of those in the liberty movement see this as not a matter of free speech, but a matter of enslavement and “cruel and unusual punishment.” Anyone is free to espouse hateful radical speech, for example. Some would argue that if a someone is foolhardy enough to WANT to live under such precepts, that too is fine. However, when it is put into place and supersedes the existing law of the land, then it is a Coup de’ Tat at that point. We have gotten so politically correct that we have the Governor of Montana wanting to allow a legal takeover of his state so as not to “debase” anybody.

It can not be thought that very many veterans and those who have always supported the ideals that made America wonderful are going to be very pleased with Governor Bullock from here on out. He may get to hang his name beside Davis, Brown, and Taft in no time at all. His name will be used alongside those of Judas Iscariot and Benedict Arnold. At least, this should be the case unless there is the bulk of voters in that state who feel that religious based torture is something that thought to coexist nicely within the American experience. If this is the case, then we have already lost the war and there is no hope for us at all.