GAFFNEY: Treasury submits to Shariah

So? Today it looks as though we will elect a socialist. This is mere icing on the cake. We are destined for the trashbin of history. Might as well make it complete and quick.

I am shocked there aren't more Comments to this article. Is there something I don't see here? I sent an email to my Congressman citing your article and am anxious to see his reply. This is so amazing it defies further remarks on my part!!!

balboatom: I am speechless. I am nauseated. If things keep on as they are, it is not unreasonable to worry about war in the streets before too long.

So much for separating church and state! What are the politicians getting us into? Financial bondage to not only a communist country but with Islamic countries!! I forwarded this to Bill O'Reilly--everyone knows how much he loves Barney Frank who is the Chair for the Finance Committee.

Short on facts. Long on scare-mongering. Devoid of any explanation of what Islamic Finance is. Islam prohibits usury (as once did Xty). Islamic Finance is about finding ways get round that, mostly devised by clever lawyers in London and New York, I suspect. You've said nothing to suggest it's worse than conventional finance or that anyone wants to replace conventional finance. However bloggers commenting on this piece are saying it going to be imposed on the American banking system. This is nonsense. V poor article.

Since Obama was enrolled in school as islamic; he should have no problem with sharia 101 and we should smoothly move right into beheading, Christians, Jews, homosexuals and the prophet's favorite the child molestation of underage females; icluding the murder of women who are raped but have not enough witnesses to contend with the four or five rapists. God bless America and as for me and my house, Give me Liberty of Give me Death.

"Islamic banking" is a euphemism for a practice better known as "Shariah-Compliant Finance (SFC)." No it's not “better known as Shariah Compliant Finance”. Google them. Islamic banking out hits SFC by a factor of over 100. Indeed SFC is so well known that Gaffney can't even get the acronym right – surely it would have to be SCF not SFC?. Pathetic. The point of course in using the more obscure term is to reference sharia and send wilesnakeskins et al off on thoughts of beheadings, tweak their hatred and demonise muslims.. Quite vile. It tell us nothing about Islamic finance and has nothing to do with it. Since this piece tells us nothing about its ostensible subject - Islamic finance - fostering hatred seems to be about the sum of it. Quite vile.

Oh, hey look what I found from way back in 2002: http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/05.02/12-islamic.html I guess the US Treasury Department has been conspiring against us for years now. Gaffney, your article would be funny if not so damn cheap and pathetic.

dgun - a couple of things to think about: 1. The article you are referring to was published by the very organization that is pushing this agenda - Harvard University, which is very disappointing considering Harvard was set up as a Christian Seminary and 2. The article was written in 2002 and the national media is just now picking up on the classes that have been taught to Congress and others about Islamic Finance? It just goes to show that something, no matter what it is, if presented in the correct manner and over a period of time, will be accepted as being the norm and indoctrination will begin. Look, this WT article is important because the majority of Americans are not aware of what Washington does and what policies are voted on in day to day operations. We try to take of our families and work and so forth - we don't have our head in the dirt, we just have priorities that need attention. This is a Washington insider program. This article exposes some of the ideology (secular and spiritual) that is being passed around our Capitol. Do our leaders need to know this information - absolutely! But do we submit our Constitution to this "law"? No way! jamonjamon - This has nothing to do with one financial system being "better" than another one. It has to do with power and money. Right now, the US is in a position to choose its destiny for many, many years. Do we do our best to retain as much sovereignty as possible - govern ourselves, provide for ourselves, help ourselves, defend ourselves, etc. or do we give up the authority and sovereignty we currently have in world affairs just so that world leaders who have "it" will be cooperative with us and provide assistance. Islamic leaders will at some point, if they haven't done it already, require the US to incorporate some, if not all, of the precepts of the Islamic Finance "law" in its public policy - if we want their oil. Do we willing submit our sovereignty to another nation for something we can produce ourselves or get from another source? I hope we choose independence and not dependence, although the past 25 years we have not done so.

Islam suc ks and so does Sharia law.

jcrvan, don't you find it a little too sensationalistic that the US Treasury Department is considering adopting Islamic anything? Isn't there something about this claim that gives you pause? Do you think, perhaps, that the US Treasury Department may conduct some business in Islamic countries? And wouldn't it be great if the employees of the Treasury Department responsible for handling this business had the first clue about what they were doing? The reason I pointed out the article from way back in 2002 is to hint that the reporting of this "scoop" at this particular time may have special significance. The Washington Times is the only big news agency commenting on this. But that's what happens when you allow your op-ed writers to get their leads from WorldNetDaily and NewsMax.

Treasury "SUBMITS" to Sharia? I see the Washington Times is obediently cranking up the BOOGA BOOGA!!!! factor, turning Sharia into a trigger word that shuts off the brain's rational thought processes. Too bad this attempt was so pathetically transparent. Does the reader, ignorant of what Sharia compliant banking is all about, come away from this article more informed? NO. For all we can tell from this article, maybe Muslims put little veils on their coins and behead people who don't pay back their loans? The Federal Reserve Bank must control the Washington Times. The US FRN is dying and the Ponzi scheme that is fractional reserve banking is exposed for all the world to see. Meanwhile, Sharia compliant banks are thriving, because USURY is anathema to Muslims. They don't "do" fractional reserve banking. They think it's immoral and in the long run unsustainable. Guess what? They are right. Perhaps the next article in the Washington Times will highlight the differences between fractional reserve and Sharia compliant banking, so banking consumers can make informed choices about which banks to do business with, and which ones to avoid. For myself, the day I hear the Dinar has become backed by gold I'll be laughing all the way to the bank: One of theirs.