Bob Beauprez Says Sharia Law is “Creeping In” Here in Colorado

Beauprez, via The Colorado Statesman.

Bob Beauprez does not approve of Sharia Law being implemented in Colorado. Just so we’re clear.

Check out this audio clip of Republican Gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez taking questions at a GOP event in Weld County last week. We actually held off on posting this yesterday because we didn't want readers to think this was an April Fool's joke. It is not.

In the clip below, Beauprez answers a question about what he would do to prevent Sharia Law from being implemented in Colorado, which is apparently a concern for some people.

Seriously. Sharia Law.

TRANSCRIPT:

Question: What would you do or not do to stop the implementation of Sharia Law here in Colorado. For any of you who don’t know what that is, it is the martial law that is being implemented in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran. It’s being implemented now in some of the states here in the United States.

Bob Beauprez: You’re on a very good point. It is creeping in. It’s creeping in not only in Colorado, but all across America. And it’s in this same nutty realm of social justice and tolerance, diversity, and 'can’t we all get along.' You remember the mosque case at Ground Zero.  You talk about nuts. And there was a whole lot of people who bent over backwards to say, 'Oh no, this is religious tolerance.' Well, there’s a difference between being tolerant and being stupid.

Lipstick doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a pig. There are a great many people that are Muslim, that embrace the Islamic faith. They’re decent people — I know some. But you can’t ignore the fact that many of them are extreme radicals that are sworn to our destruction. The destruction of us as individuals, the destruction of Western Civilization. We need to recognize that for what it is and fight back against it.

What? 

Maybe we're wrong, and Greeley is now holding public stonings — not the marijuana kind — in the town square. Otherwise, it's hard to understand what Beauprez even thinks he's talking about here. Colorado has a pretty low percentage of Muslim residents, and Islam is not even the most popular non-Christian religion in our state (Buddhism tops that list).

Beauprez may not be the brightest bulb in the political lamp, but we're a little surprised to see him paying lip service to a very old and idiotic "Muslim Brotherhood is taking over the United States" conspiracy theory that even Evangelicals and right-wing talk show hosts have largely abandoned. Maybe Bob is still working off of a 2006 list of conservative talking points.

 

 

83 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. BlueCat says:

    Incredible. And just to make it that much more offensive he had to use the old lipstick on a pig comparison. BWB appears to be too stupid to be allowed to cross a Colorado street by himself, much less serve in any elected office. I'd hide the sharp objects, too.

    • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

      Come on, BC.  He's lived off the land his entire life.  He surely knows a little something about pigs…

    • Republican 36 says:

      I've been thinking about Beauprez's statements since I read them here late this afternoon. BC your first word is exactly correct "Incredible." The questioner and candidate Beauprez reflects the fundamental problem the Republican Party has in Colorado and across the nation. They actually want to give credence to alleged problems that have no basis whatsoever in reality.

      This is a perfect example of why I left the Republican Party. When I was active there were always a few stray fanatics with goofey ideas and conspiracy theories hanging around the party but they were shown the door if they tried to take control.

      In the mid-1960's William F. Buckley, founder of the National Review and one of the founders of the modern conservative movement, wrote the John Birch Society out of the Republican by calling them out for what they are – a bunch of kooks who believe in conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact. Buckley understood that Republicans and Democrats may interpret the meaning of facts based on their respective political philosophies and come to different conclusions, but he had no use for fantasy in policy making.

      What do we have today – the John Birch Society is now one of the annual sponsors of the CPAC conflab in Washington where the so called conservatives come to worship conspiracy theories and other baseless nonsense. The conservative movement has degenerated into mindless beliefs in fantasy issues about things that has no basis in the real world (e.g. the Birthers). Until the Republican Party rids itself of these people, it will continue to loose ground with the voters of Colorado and across the nation.

      And where does all of this leave candidate Beauprez and for that matter Cory Gardner. Beauprez has begun the same self-destruction process he initiated in 2006. When the press and the public look at his blog Line of Sight and read what he has written over the past eight years, he will be finished. He has loaded the Democrats ammunition wagons to overflowing since his loss in 2006, and as is apparent from this thread, he continues to manufacture even more for them this campaign cycle.

      And Gardner. He had better hope Beauprez isn't the nominee because when a gubernatorial candidate goes down in flames it harms everyone else on the ticket. In a close race, if Beauprez is nose diving in flames, he will take Gardner with him.

      • VoyageurVoyageur says:

        Right on, R=36.   I was also a Republican for 33 years and a fan of Bill Buckley .   The creeps we used to keep locked in the basement now run the show. 

      • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

        A lot of truth in your comment Republican 36. 

        As for sharia law, if the people privately agree to it what is the big deal?  Obviously if the agreement is for something that is flat out against public policy, it shouldn't be enforced.  On the other hand if it is for the delivery of halaal meat, what is the big deal?

  2. Beauprez has apparently figured out what went wrong in 2006. I'm not sure what the verdict is yet, but it's one of two things.

    1) He didn't swing sufficiently to the right in his "Both Ways" campaign during the primary.

    2) He was wrong to have ever made moves to the center-right and this time he'll stay somewhere to the right of Tom Tancredo through the whole campaign.

  3. Ralphie says:

    Hmmm.  I would have thought that Judaism is the most popular non-Christian religion in the state.

  4. Diogenesdemar says:

    Keeriste . . . and here we were jgiving BWB credit for being the sane one????

    (Is Hickenlooper paying these guys to run against him??)

  5. Old Time Dem says:

    Raises the question of who is stupider:  the questioner or Beauprez.

  6. Not Dame Edna says:

    Coming from the party that doesn't even want women to have access to birth control, this is pretty funny.

    Both Ways in his 2014 form is way sadder than the his 2006 version. 

  7. davebarnesdavebarnes says:

    "Lipstick doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a pig. "
    Doesn't BothWaysBob™ know that pig is not Halal?

  8. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    I don't understand how Christians think they're under attack here. We're not a theocracy and there is no official state religion. But this country is overwhelmingly Christian and no one is being told what they can or cannot do.

    • gaf says:

      "…no one is being told what they can or cannot do."

      Not quite right, David. They are being told they cannot use the force  and resources of government to impose their religious beliefs on others. (Damn those Founders of our country for such an appalling restriction!)

    • Miss Jane says:

      http://www.amazon.com/The-Battle-God-Karen-Armstrong/dp/0345391691

      They think their way of life is under attack.  Normal, white, Christian American values are in danger from the modernity fairy's dust.  So are all of the world religions, and they are having temper tantrums and night terrors like two year olds.  And it has been so for quite some time.  Since a large portion of any given population is afraid of change, afraid of pretty much everything, I suppose it is to expected.  I wish we could find ways to ameliorate this.

      I'm reading the book linked above by Karen Armstrong.   It is quite helpful.  If the fundamentalists weren't so destructive, one might feel sorry for them.  However, I certainly have no pity for those who exploit their fears like our resident librarian does and the likes of BWB.

       

       

      • BlueCat says:

        The problem is in seeing themselves as normal and anyone different as other. normal in our country has always been that we are a nation of immigrants and changing demographics. A US with a single ethnicity and culture has never been normal. New groups are always moving in and bringing their cultures with them.  

        African Americans have been here from the start. They are not other. They are normal. In parts of our southwest Spanish speakers have been here in what is now the US since before there was a US.  One again, not other, perfectly normal. 

        For a group to go from being majority to minority or the other way around is normal. White Christian Americans of northern and western European descent have had a nice long run as the majority but that doesn't make them more normal than anyone else. Pretty soon that run will be over. Our normal culture is whatever it is at a given point in time. Nobody has dibs on preserving one of those moments in historic time forever.

    • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

      Except be forced, against their will, to bake cakes for weddings that they do not approve of. 

      • Progressicat says:

        and to serve, against their will, people at their lunch counters

        and to provide, against their will, rooms in their motels to travellers

        and to allow, against their will, movie watchers in their cinemas

        and to provide seating in any car on their train, against their will, to any passenger who can afford to book it

        Elliot, I've seen enough of your postings here to know that you know why we have public accomodation laws.  You know that the choice is made when these folks open their dorrs to the public, not when they take the order for the cake.  If the religious don't wish to serve all comers, they simply need not open a business.  If they do open one, they need to just bake the f***ing cake.

        • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

          That point has been made to our rightie counselor many times. As with all things…IOKIYAR…as far as Elliot is concerned.

        • orange.crush says:

          RE: "serve, against their will …"

          * The bakery didn't deny service.  It offered to sell existing products to the couple.  The couple was more than welcome to buy pastries on the shelf, as other customers were doing on that day.

          * The bakery invited the customers to dine in their establishment (i.e., sit at the counter to eat products from the shelf, just as other customers were doing).

          Using your logic, a Jewish-owned deli could be forced by the gov't. to prepare and serve pork products.  In your world, diners would have the right to demand that all Jewish delis have pork on the menu.  

          Why must you try to deploy the full force of gov't. coercion over a matter as trivial as a wedding cake?  Must every thought that doesn't conform to your rigid, politically correct worldvie be stamped out?

      • langelomisteriosolangelomisterioso says:

        I was once forced against my will to participate in a war I did not approve of.Seems somehow more serious to me , after many years perspective than anything those poor bakers might have to endure.

      • BlueCat says:

        Nobody is forced to bake cakes for anyone or to sell anything to anyone. However if you choose to make your living with a business that sells goods and services to the public you have to obey laws against discrimination. If your personal beliefs won't allow you to do that then you should be looking for a way of making a living other than selling good and services to the public. 

  9. DavieDavie says:

    We get closer to imposing Sharia Law every time an American Taliban from the GOP is elected to office.

    We certainly can't tolerate any more of this:

    t’s in this same nutty realm of social justice and tolerance, diversity, and 'can’t we all get along.' – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/56335/bob-beauprez-says-sharia-law-is-creeping-in-here-in-colorado#sthash.WYzOsEsW.dpuf

  10. CaninesCanines says:

    There are so many intelligent follow-ups that an intelligent reporter could ask of…Beauprez. What states are implementing Sharia Law? Name a place. How is it "creeping into Colorado"?

  11. horseshit GOP front grouphorseshit GOP front group says:

    Sharia Law.   The Gay agenda.  Statewide Fracking bans.  An assault on Christian values. Illegals taking our jobs.

    Yes, election season right-wing fearmongering has arrived.  Be very afraid !

    • The realistThe realist says:

      And don't forget, the lefties are confiscating your guns!

       

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      To be fair, there are a lot of people, including many on this board, who would love a statewide (indeed, worldwide) fracking ban if they could get it.   local control is an obvious starting point, not a philosophy for the anti-frackers.

      • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

        Voyageur – I'm not sure a worldwide ban would even be necessay.  Just like coal (whose demise will be driven by geology, not regulations), shale gas may be short-lived.  It's yet another Wall Street Ponzi scheme….

      • BlueCat says:

        Lots of people want lots of things but they don't get to say a statewide ban has been proposed until some legislator proposes it or somebody is out there collecting signatures for it. Same goes for taking away our guns. Some people would probably like to do that, too. Somebody somewhere would probably like to do anything you could name or imagine. But that doesn't make slippery slope fears facts.

      • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

        Agreed.  Luckily, we know Hickenlooper will stand up to the fracking opposition even if he wins.  

        • ct says:

          So you think that local government is the government that…

        • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

          No, Elliot, no matter who wins the Governors race, they will be obliged to execute the will of the people.  Just as the Govenor has reluctantly embraced Amendment 64, it is his duty as CEO of the state.  It will be the same scenario if the Local Control initiative passes as well.  

          I think the balance of contributors here would agree, in contrast to your above statement, that the Governor does not personally support the Local Control movement. For God sakes, he's suing four municipalities right now for instituting bans and moretoriums.

          • BlueCat says:

            Details, details. Hick has a D connected with his name so he obviousy can be ascribed whatever rightie's think the generic D attitude is regardless of what he actually does. Why are you s hung up and on living in a reality based world?  Relax and create your own. Chill.cool

      • Andrew Carnegie says:

        V, Bingo.

        • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

          Elliot and Andrew are fracking acolytes because they they have never lived next to a well site or compressor station. Please, fellas, tell us about your real time experience in the O&G business. Describe to us the joy of living next to a poorly maintained tank battery. Share with us the pleasure of having 5,000 barrels of crude oil spilled next to your house, or diesel trucks parked next to your bedroom window, idling, 24/7.

          But mostly, tell us how much you enjoy the aroma of petro-carbons…ethylene, toluene, benzene, and all those exotic, aromatic, perfumes so lovingly dispersed by our oily billionaire friends.

          Do tell….

          • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

            At the core of this argument is really the question of how we are going to develop a broad, diverse economy statewide using Colorado's plethora of natural resources and human assets.  In contrast to what the O&G industry would like us to believe, we are not going to build a long-term, sustainable economy on the back of fracking – an industry that accounts for just over 2% of our state GDP.

            Every community and region of the state has different resources.  Yuma County isn't going to draw high-tech into the Ogallala region any more than Boulder County is going to develop large pork and cattle confinement operations.  The chances that Yuma County would institute a local fracking ban is nil; t will be a different story on the Front Range (and possilbly in the sacrifice zone on the western slope).  If Boulder County, for instance, decided it's long term economy should be built around its environment, human assets and research instituional capacity, they should be able to do that. (btw, the high-tech sector produces 2x more jobs per dollar of state GDP than O&G). 

            Weld County is an economic powerhouse because it has mastered the exploitation of its gas resources.  That is their energy resource.  Eastern Colorado has the energy-equivalent of the Weld County gas reserves – it just happens to be in a different form,  'wind'.  Ditto for the San Luis Valley, the "Weld County of solar resources). 

            "Energy" is "energy".  Natural gas is no more important to this states job creation and economy than any other form of energy.  And it's increasingly apparent that betting our long-term future on the extraction of these prehistoric forms of energy is a bad bet.

            Our detour from Ritter's 'New Energy Economy' (a platform that gave him a 16-point advantage over BWB on election day, 2006) over the past four years has provided us little in any long-term benefits to the state economy.

      • ct says:

        And there are others on this board, and around the state, that believe local jurisdictions should have the same types of authorities they have on other issues, and not face getting sued by their own governor.  The actual language on the ballot measure is what sets the policy–not what lies in the hearts of fractivists.  On one hand industry touts local government in Brighton reversing a drilling moratorium, then on the other hand these same boosters scream that allowing local control would leave to statewide fracking bans.  On one hand industry says ‘a statewide fracking ban would never pass’ that local control will lead to a ‘defacto ban.’  And while I doubt the troll, now V’s newest fan, will no doubt ignore or fail to see the glaring inconsistencies in these two-faced positions, I suspect others will. 

  12. The realistThe realist says:

    These words are stunning:

    And it’s in this same nutty realm of social justice and tolerance, diversity, and 'can’t we all get along.' – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/56335/bob-beauprez-says-sharia-law-is-creeping-in-here-in-colorado#comment-545059

    And it’s in this same nutty realm of social justice and tolerance, diversity, and 'can’t we all get along.'

    The same nutty realm of social justice and tolerance?!! Tells you EVERYTHING you need to know about BothWaysBoob.

     

  13. yameniyeyameniye says:

    Someone from out of state made a statement to me about how the Colorado Republicans seemed "moderate" to him.  I pointed out that the Colorado clown car went empty of "moderates" about fifteen years ago.  The ones left are flat out nuts.  They see and hear things that the rest of us do not.  They are beyond the foil hats and micro-chip scanners. They need help, a lot of help, and that is a form of help they are refusing.

  14. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    This Sharia Law crap almost makes me miss John McCain. I'd like to think that he would dismiss a "Sharia Law" question as nonsense, the way he did with the woman who was worried about Obama being "an A-rab".

    • BlueCat says:

      The most decent thing McCain's done in years.

    • orange.crush says:

      You're misinformed.  It's not nonsense.  Sharia law has infected Europe (83 Sharia Law courts now exist in the UK), and we're starting to see the same disease arrive in the USA.  I'll repeat what I mentioned in another post on this board:

      In 2009, Hudson County Superior Court Judge Joseph Charles Jr. ruled (S.D. v. M.J.R.) that the Muslim ex-husband repeatedly had sexually assaulted his Muslim ex-wife, both before and after their divorce. Following testimony from the Muslim man's imam, however, the judge denied the ex-wife's request for a permanent restraining order against her ex-husband, citing the Muslim man's "belief" and "practices": "The court believes that [defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices." – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/56335/bob-beauprez-says-sharia-law-is-creeping-in-here-in-colorado#comment-560043

  15. Conserv. Head Banger says:

    Sharia law won't be happening in Colorado or any state for that matter. It's a violation of the 1st Amendment.

    As for Colorado Republicans being moderate, if somebody can develop a persuasive reason for Rob Witwer to make a comback………he is sorely missed. 

    Sincerely, Conservative Head Banger  (AC/DC Rules!)

    • orange.crush says:

      You're misinformed.  You really need to do some research on this topic.  Here's something to get you started:

       

      In 2009, Hudson County Superior Court Judge Joseph Charles Jr. ruled (S.D. v. M.J.R.) that the Muslim ex-husband repeatedly had sexually assaulted his Muslim ex-wife, both before and after their divorce. Following testimony from the Muslim man's imam, however, the judge denied the ex-wife's request for a permanent restraining order against her ex-husband, citing the Muslim man's "belief" and "practices": "The court believes that [defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices."

      • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

        Crush, you just make this crap way too easy. Give me a challenge.

        Y'all come on in here with the same old tired racist bat droppings that my crazy ex's crazy Muslim-hating freaky-sex-obsessed BBF has been trashing my inbox with for years.

        Anyway….I did find the case you referenced, S.D. v. M.J.R. from Hudson County.  I'll let the legal experts on this forum weigh in, but the way it looks to me, the judge decided AGAINST applying Sharia law to the victim's complaints of domestic violence. To quote from p. 20:

        The Court concluded:

        The government's ability to enforce generally

        [*35]

        applicable prohibitions of socially harmful conduct, like

        its ability to carry out other aspects of public policy,

        "cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental

        action on a religious objector's spiritual development."

        To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law

        contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious

        beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling"

        –permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a

        law unto himself," –contradicts both constitutional

        tradition and common sense.

        [

        Id

        . at 885, 110 S. Ct. at 1603, 108 L. Ed.2d at 889-90

        (citations and footnote omitted).]

        Did you get that, OC? Let me repeat it for you: "Contradicts both Constitutional Tradition and Common Sense."

         

        That is the precedent which your vaunted exhibition of Creeping Sharia (which sounds like an attractive porch planting, btw) has established.

         

        I am glad to be able to put Both Ways Bob's fears to rest.

         

         

        • ct says:

          Crushed, Orange.Crush has fled the belfry, leaving the guano behind…

          But if Both Ways thinks it will help scare some more old white folks out to the polls, he'll keep at it IMO. 

           

          • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

            My juicer stands ready. I forgot to mention that, in the case OC referenced, the victim got her restraining order against her abuser, not for anything to do with Sharia law, but because the second judge thought it was necessary for her safety, reversing and remanding the first judge's order, (which again had nothing to do with Sharia law, although the husband/defendant had tried to argue "religious freedom" – the first judge just had the typical Christian American tolerance for wife-beating).

            So that dreaded "camel's nose" of Sharia law was well and truly stomped upon in that '09 case. I haven't found a single instance of anyone arguing a Sharia defense in Colorado, BWB's claim notwithstanding.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.