Ten Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)

Brigitte Gabriel and Frank Gaffney, JR tackle CAIR for its nefarious agenda to keep Sharia Law on America’s legal plate even though key portions of Sharia would be Unconstitutional if ever implemented in the USA.

JRH 4/27/12

Please Support SlantRight 2.0 - Donations are not tax deductible but are appreciated to help with the bills.

**********************************

Ten Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)

By Brigitte Gabriel and Frank J. Gaffney Jr.

April 18, 2012

Accuracy in Media

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has launched a propaganda campaign attacking a state legislative initiative that is designed to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans, including Muslims.

That initiative is known as American Laws for American Courts (ALAC).

CAIR claims this bill would have the opposite effect — infringing upon Muslims’ and others’ right to freedom of religion. CAIR’s real motivation, however, is not to safeguard the U.S. Constitution, but rather to promote the insinuation here of Shariah, a totalitarian Islamic political-military-legal doctrine. Shariah requires and enforces discrimination against women, children, homosexuals, atheists, members of other religions such as Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians, as well as Muslims who repudiate the dictates of that doctrine.

A review of the actual language of the American Laws for American Courts legislation shows that CAIR is deliberately and falsely characterizing it as anti-Shariah. As we shall see, ALAC is not targeted at either Shariah or Islam. Unlike a constitutional amendment to the State of Oklahoma’s constitution that was approved in 2010 by seventy percent of the voters, neither term is mentioned anywhere in ALAC’s bill language. (A complete comparison can be found here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/american_laws_for_american_courts.html.)

ALAC’s very different approach was vindicated when the Council on American Islamic Relations succeeded in challenging the Oklahoma amendment on the grounds that it singled out Shariah law and therefore was ruled unconstitutional. Instead, ALAC is crafted to prevent the infringement in our court system on individual liberties by any foreign laws or legal doctrines, a phenomenon known as “transnationalism.”

This is made necessary since America has unique values of liberty that do not exist in many foreign legal systems. Among those guaranteed rights and privileges are: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, due process and equal protection under the law, the right to privacy and the right to keep and bear arms.

Unfortunately, increasingly, foreign laws and legal doctrines that would restrict or deny these liberties are finding their way into U.S. court cases, thanks largely to the rulings of transnationalist judges. In some instances, these judges are permitting the use of Shariah to adjudicate disputes on their dockets.

The appeal of the American Laws for American Courts model for preventing such intrusions of unconstitutional foreign laws is evident from the fact that it has been enacted to date in three states: Tennessee in April 2010, in Louisiana in June 2010 and in Arizona in May 2011. And ALAC’s fundamental constitutionality is evident in the fact that neither CAIR nor anyone else has filed a legal challenge to any of these three laws, let alone succeeded in getting ALAC struck down.

Knowing that a legal challenge to American Laws for American Courts is hopeless, CAIR has stooped to launching dishonest and misleading attacks against an initiative designed to preserve our freedoms.

How, one might ask, can an American organization oppose legislation that is crafted to form a reinforcing bulwark to protect our most fundamental freedoms against foreign laws that do not respect them? The answer lies, in part, with the nature of the Council on American Islamic Relations.

The Department of Justice has named CAIR as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood (and its Palestinian franchise: the officially designated terrorist group, Hamas). Evidence introduced in the Holy Land Foundation trial established that the Brotherhood’s mission in America is “a kind of civilization jihad…in destroying Western civilization from within” by our hands. Using our courts to undermine our liberties and Constitution “from within” is one of the most important and effective techniques for advancing this subversive civilization jihad. Two federal courts have refused to strike CAIR’s designation as a Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas co-conspirator and/or joint venturer.

Specifically:

• CAIR has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism finance trial in U.S. history, the 2008 United States vs. Holy Land Foundation case in Dallas, Texas.

• No fewer than four CAIR leaders have been convicted of felonies, including terrorism.

• CAIR has a memorandum of understanding with the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, the world’s most powerful multinational organization and, with 57 members, its largest — second only to the United Nations. The OIC is, like CAIR, dedicated to the imposition of Shariah doctrine and the criminalization of any “blasphemy” against Shariah law.

• The FBI has terminated relations with CAIR as a matter of policy.

• The IRS has reportedly revoked the non-profit status of CAIR’s national organization.

• CAIR is being sued for engaging in fraud against several of its members.

With this important background on the nature of the Council on American Islamic Relations, let’s analyze its critique of American Laws for American Courts by reviewing in the boxes below key passages from the legislation. (The entire model act can be found here: http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?page_id=38.)

Such a review prompts ten questions concerning CAIR’s opposition to this bill and we will address each, in turn.

ALAC: Purpose

“AN ACT to protect rights and privileges granted under the United
States or [State] Constitution.”

Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations:

1. Why is CAIR opposing legislation designed to protect the rights and privileges granted under our U.S. and state constitutions? What is CAIR’s motivation? Do they think Muslims either don’t deserve or do not want to enjoy the same constitutional rights to which all citizens of this country are entitled? Or is CAIR trying to establish that Muslims are entitled to such rights (notably, freedom of religion and freedom of speech) but other people deemed inferior, for whatever reason (for example, for being “infidels”) may not be allowed the same rights as Muslims?

2. Exactly which constitutional rights protected by ALAC does CAIR find offensive or “Islamophobic”? (This made-up term is used by Shariah’s adherents to brand anything or anyone who “gives offense” to their doctrine or its enforcers.) The most important non-Brotherhood Muslim organization in this country, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition, has already endorsed American Laws for American Courts when it was introduced in Michigan. (http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?p=632) Does CAIR consider them “Islamophobic,” as well?

ALAC: Finding

“The [general assembly/legislature] finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.”

Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations:

3. Does CAIR dispute that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes it “the supreme law of the land” and, therefore, that all other laws, including Shariah, must be subordinated to it where there is a conflict? There are, of course, myriad areas in which Shariah is at odds with constitutional rights (e.g., women’s ability to divorce, inherit property, enjoy custody of their children and engage or refuse to engage in sexual relations, homosexuality, freedom of expression, etc.) In such instances, would CAIR have the Constitution defer to Shariah?

4. Which rights does CAIR wish to have violated by or subordinated to foreign law? Does it favor unequal treatment for and/or brutalizing of women, homosexuals, apostates, Jews and others in accordance with Shariah?

ALAC: Definitions

“As used in this act, “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.”

Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations:

5. How can this definition be construed as applying uniquely to Shariah? In fact, it applies equally to all foreign laws. Period. What is more, it does not preclude the application of any foreign law, including Shariah — except insofar as it violates constitutional rights or state public policy.

6. In view of ALAC’s key definition, isn’t it disingenuous and misleading to depict American Laws for American Courts as an “anti-Shariah” bill? CAIR is certainly mischaracterizing ALAC in the campaign that it and other Muslim Brotherhood fronts have been mounting against such legislation. Given the clarity of the language in question, one can only conclude that these Brotherhood groups are doing so knowingly for the purpose of deceiving the American people.

7. Which “foreign law, legal code, or system” does CAIR wish to see incorporated into American constitutional law? Is CAIR seeking the imposition of all foreign laws, even where they violate the U.S. Constitution, or just Shariah?

ALAC: Operative Provision

“Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.”

Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations:

8. What legal authority is the Council on American Islamic Relations defending by its attack on American Laws for American Courts? Specifically, we need to know: What does CAIR prefer by way of a court, arbitration panel, tribunal or administrative agency that bases its decisions on a code that would not grant our fundamental liberties, rights and privileges?

Clearly, as we have seen, ALAC has been drafted in order to provide guidance so that legal disputes in our courts do not result in the violation of the fundamental liberties, rights and privileges enshrined in the U.S. and our state Constitutions.

Thanks to the guarantees incorporated into the Constitution, no U.S. citizen or legal resident should be denied such liberties. Ensuring that is the case, however, is why ALAC is needed, particularly with respect to women and children. These communities have been identified by international human rights organizations as the principal victims of discriminatory foreign laws.

9. Why does CAIR oppose an inclusive bill extending civil liberties and due process to all citizens and legal residents, given the proven cases of discrimination, especially against Muslim women resulting from too much deference to foreign laws?

There is a certain irony at work here, as shown in an analysis of a sample of legal cases in the United States where Shariah has been successfully introduced to resolve the matter (www.shariahinamericancourts.com): The most frequent victims of the trampling of constitutional rights by foreign legal codes in actual cases in the United States, are Muslim women and their families.

That’s bad enough. But CAIR’s stance suggests that it seeks to relegate all women — not just Muslim ones — to an inferior status incompatible with the equal rights they are entitled to enjoy under the U.S. Constitution.

ALAC: Explicit Exclusions

“This subsection shall not apply to a church, religious corporation, association, or society, with respect to the individuals of a particular religion regarding matters that are purely ecclesiastical, to include, but not be limited to, matters of calling a pastor, excluding members from a church, electing church officers, matters concerning church bylaws, constitution, and doctrinal regulations and the conduct of other routine church business, where 1) the jurisdiction of the church would be final; and 2) the jurisdiction of the courts of this State would be contrary to the First Amendment of the United States and the Constitution of this State.”

Question for the Council on American Islamic Relations:

10. Why is CAIR opposed to preserving and protecting religious freedom for all Americans, as spelled out explicitly in the American Laws for American Courts act?

CAIR falsely maintains that American Laws for American Courts trespasses against religious freedom. That assertion is laid bare as patently dishonest by reading this important passage from the model American Laws for American Courts legislation: Far from denying religious freedom, American Laws for American Courts expressly champions and protects that liberty guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and by state constitutions adopted pursuant to it.

CAIR and its allies have been known to claim that American Laws for American Courts would interfere with canon law or Jewish law. As the plain language of the bill makes clear, this is patently untrue. Indeed, prominent interfaith leaders — including experts in the legal codes of their respective faiths — have endorsed American Laws for American Courts, including Rabbi Aryeh Spero, Rabbi Jonathan Hausman, J.D. and the Reverend Canon J. Philip Ashey, Esq. (See the Interfaith letter of support for American Laws for American Courts at http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?p=653).

In short, American Laws for American Courts is a necessary and constitutional initiative that protects our fundamental freedoms against all foreign legal regimes that would threaten them. Representations to the contrary, particularly from groups like CAIR that are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization seeking our destruction, should be seen for what they are — fraudulent deceptions — and rejected in the most effective possible way: by ensuring that every state in the union joins Tennessee, Louisiana and Arizona in enacting American Laws for American Courts.

________________________________

Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.

Brigitte Gabriel and Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
Brigitte Gabriel is an international terrorism analyst and the Founder and President of ACT! for America, the nation’s largest grassroots citizen action network dedicated to preserving national security and combating the threat of radical Islam. She is the author of two New York Times Best Sellers, Because they Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America; and They Must Be Stopped: Why we must defeat radical Islam and how we can do it. Frank Gaffney is the Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. The Center is a not-for-profit, non-partisan educational corporation established in 1988. Under Mr. Gaffney’s leadership, the Center has been nationally and internationally recognized as a resource for timely, informed and penetrating analyses of foreign and defense policy matters.

Copyright © 2012 Accuracy in Media

Birthers May have Found Path to Re-Publicize NBC

John R. Houk

© January 21, 2012

Joseph Farah’s WorldNetDaily (WND) is still on the Birther bandwagon. In case you have had your head in the sand the last five years Birthers are those that believe President Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen (NBC) and therefore is not eligible to be President of the United States of America (POTUS).

WND writer Bob Unruh reported yesterday that a Georgia State Judge has stood up to the POTUS and has refused to quash a citizen’s civil suit requiring BHO to attend a hearing with documents in tow to prove his eligibility.

BHO’s lawyers are claiming POTUS has Federal jurisdiction that outweighs State jurisdiction. Thus BHO’s lawyers have turned the Birther issue into a States’ Rights issue. Ultimately this could lead to the Federal judiciary process deciding if State judicial jurisdiction on a State issue can indeed make a ruling affecting the standing of the POTUS within the confines of a State.

This could develop to be a thorn in BHO’s side depending how far such an issue proceeds through Federal judiciary system from Federal District Judge, Appellate Court through to the ultimate stop of the Supreme Court. In a Presidential election year whether the GOP nomination uses Birther beliefs or not, a court case like this will re-ignite reasons for voters to distrust incumbent President Barak Hussein Obama.

JRH 1/21/12

Sharia MUST NOT be Applied in American Law!

John R. Houk

© October 28, 2011

Compare the U.S. Constitution with Sharia Law. As an American you should become outraged. Most of the body of Sharia Law becomes irrelevant in America by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment)

In Sharia the religion of Islam MUST be established as the State Religion with all other religions (or lack of religion) not able to practice their faith openly or in many cases not at all.

A Dhimmi lives in fear of Islam but agrees that they will not resist political Islam and they will even support it. In return dhimmis can live safely. …

…

The Dhimmi was a unique invention by Mohammed. He created a new type of creature and that creature is a semi-slave. Dhimmis started with what Mohammed did to the Jews. He took their land and then let them work the land and the dhimmis paid a tax, the jhizya, that was half of their income. A Dhimmi was a kafir who lived in an Islamic country. The first dhimmis were the Jews, but Christians and others were added later.

… The laws were Islamic; the dress was dictated by Islamic law. A Dhimmi was not really free. For instance a church couldn't ring its bells because bells are a sign of Satan, according to Mohammed. A Dhimmi couldn't hold any job that made him a supervisor over Muslims. This limited rank in the military. If Christians wanted to repair the church, or Jews the synagogue, they had to get permission from the government. All of these laws are dreadful because they established a second-class citizenship; the dhimmi did not have civil rights. A dhimmi couldn't sue a Muslim or prosecute a crime against a Muslim. This type of citizen had no power and had to pay a special tax--the Jhizya. The Koran says that the dhimmi had to pay the Jhizya. Classically when the Christian or the Jewish dhimmi came to pay their yearly Jhizya tax, they were humiliated-- grabbed by the beard, slapped in the face, or made to kneel and give the money. They were humiliated because that was the Koran said to humiliate the dhimmi. (From The Dhimmi; Political Islam 10/28/11)

There is no religious freedom in Sharia Law!

Can Sharia Law abide this portion of the First Amendment: “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”?

Here is an example of American law bending toward dhimmitude by ignoring Free Speech:

In 2009 the toxic, politically correct atmosphere in the U.S. reached out and touched an American Christian group personally. The Christian Action Network (CAN) had its non-profit status revoked [SlantRight Editor: If this CAN link fails, GO HERE for story] and was fined $4,000 by the state of Maine in 2009 for "an inflammatory anti-Muslim message."

CAN sent information to its members exposing schooling programs that took place in Byron, Calif., that required students to dress up as Muslims, chant "Praise be to Allah" and learn the Five Pillars of Islamic faith. The letter asked parents to sign a petition to the governor of their state to prohibit such Islamic teachings and activities in their public schools.

CAN eventually prevailed in court spending thousands of dollars to fight the precedent-setting fine for "insulting" Islam. (From: Sharia Law’s Threat to Free Speech; by Connie Hair; Human Events; 10/11/10)

Clearly the State of Maine’s attempt to label the Christian Action Network of partaking in “inflammatory anti-Muslim message” for exposing a School District in California for forcing students to learn Islamic precepts while denying the same learning of Christian or Jewish precepts. The Leftists that be in Maine were upset with CAN for encouraging their supporters in Maine to send letters to their Governor urging the same issue does not spread to Maine.

Everything inherent in the tenets of Islam is diametrically opposed to the U.S. Constitution:

Islam has no fundamental concept of Inalienable Rights as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Islam does not permit the individual to enjoy the freedoms of action and association characteristic of the Democracy that so many Western cultures currently enjoy today. Islam is a religion in name only because of a reference to "Allah" as their Deity. A well known fact is that Islam is a totalitarian ideology that rejects Democracy, personal freedom, and every other religion. The ideals of anti-Semitism and anti-Western Culture run rampant throughout Islam. The Laws of Man are meaningless and have absolutely no relevance in Muslim culture because they are without any direct reference to the Koran or Shariah Law and therefore they have no place in Muslim life. Islamic law is completely incompatible with Freedom, Democracy, or any other government where the people have an actual voice in government or the will of the people matters.

"True Islam permits neither elections nor democracy."

-- Sufi Mohammed, Muslim Cleric

(From Islam - A Religion Based on Terrorism; TargetOfOpportunity.com)

The webpage about Islam from TargetOfOpportunity.com is humongous. The whole page is about exposing the dark side of Islam that includes quotes that Muslim Apologists will tell you are from Radical Muslims. The webpage has an article about “Moderate Islam”. You should check it out. The point you should notice is that Islamic holy writings is the basis for Radical Islam. In essence the writings of Islam are anti-American anti-Constitutional tenets that would doom the America we know if it is allowed to spread like a culture ending cancer as it has in Europe. There is no freedom to express speech or to freely write truth in the press.

The Sharia Law of Islam would not permit the last portion of the First Amendment which stipulates as the rule of law: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Suppose Christians living in a Muslim land wanted to refurbish their Church or even build a new Church:

Egyptian Muslim leaders are caught in a storm of controversy after a human rights group confronted them about a fatwa (Islamic edict) that stated the building of a church is “a sin against God.”

…

The controversy began when the president of the Egyptian Union Human Rights Organization, Dr. Naguib Gabraeel, asked the Fatwa Council about a statement found in a textbook at Cairo University on inheritance and execution of wills.

Students, both Muslims and Christians, were taught “it is forbidden for a person to donate money for what would lead to sin, such as donating in his will money towards build[ing] a church, a nightclub, a gambling casino, towards promoting the alcohol industry or for building a barn for rearing pigs, cats or dogs.”

…

The council replied by affirming the law found in the textbook and issuing a fatwa on it.

Included in the fatwa is an explanation on why it is a “sin” to build a church. According to the fatwa, Christians believe salvation is achieved through belief in Jesus as Lord while Muslims don’t. Muslims believe that Issa [Jesus in Arabic] “is a slave of Allah and His Messenger, and that Allah is one.”

The Islamic edict said God did not have a son and that Christianity deviated from absolute monotheism. Therefore, a Muslim is forbidden to donate funds towards a building that does not worship Allah alone.

The author of the textbook, Mohammed el-Maghrabbi, said it is sinful for even a Christian to devote money in his will towards building a church because it would be considered in Islamas separation from God.

In other words, it is illegal for even non-Muslims to offer money in their will towards building a church or synagogue.

…

After receiving the shocking response by the council, Gabraeel and a delegation from his human rights group visited the Grand Sheikh Mohamed Sayed Tantawi of the famous Al-Azhar University, a chief Sunni Islamic learning center in the world.

Tantawi contradicted the council and said “sharia does not prevent Muslims from donating to the building of a church, as it is his free money.” He also went on to say sharia law does not interfere with other faiths “because religion, faith and what a person believes in is a relationship between him and his God.”

Immediately after Tantawi’s statements were publicized, there was a backlash from the Muslim community and he revoked his statements less than 24 hours after the visit by the human rights delegation. Tantawi claimed the delegation had misunderstood him, even though everything he said was recorded and sent to media outlets and uploaded on Coptic advocacy web sites. (From Egypt Muslim Council: Building of Churches is 'Sin' Against God; By Ethan Cole; The Christian Post; September 1, 2009)

Egypt has the largest concentration of Christians of any other nation in the Muslim Middle East (including North Africa). If Sharia Law trumps the secular Egyptian Constitution just imagine how much more intolerant other Muslim nations are that have a deeper affinity to Sharia Law would have with Christians building Churches to meet peacefully to practice their religious faith.

There is no freedom to assemble in Muslim nations if those assembling have a non-Muslim air pertaining to their assembly. The article above also demonstrates that a non-Muslim has little to zero right to petition the government for redress to a wrong. A government in a Muslim nation will either persecute the non-Muslim for daring to ask a redress pertaining to grievances or will be ignored if a Muslim nation has a pseudo-secular rule of law such as in Egypt.

Why in the world would anyone in the West especially in the United States of America even consider allowing a theopolitical legal system like Sharia Law even a little toehold in American jurisprudence? You would think even Leftists would be hip to the stupidity of Sharia adulterating the American rule of law, right? I mean the Left are the guys so big on making sure religion (cough … err … Christianity) has no part with anything to do with any kind taxpayer related function, right?

The moronic Left through activist Judges in the name of multicultural diversity and the Leftist imagination of the Living Constitution (pro-Living Constitution and Anti-Living Constitution) has used every legal maneuver to reverse the will of State voters that have passed laws to ensure that NO foreign jurisprudence can be used as judicial precedent by American Courts (at least on the State level). The intent of not allowing foreign jurisprudence into the American rule of law is aimed at Sharia Law however most bills and State Constitutional Amendments had the forethought to NOT ALLOW foreign jurisprudence like say a precedent from the International Court.

Unfortunately many State and Federal Judges have been allowing Sharia Law to creep into America by either outright allowing Sharia precedents into the American rule of law or wear blinders to legally not recognize an Islamic Sharia act occurring in America by refusing to read the merits of the Islamic religious nature of crimes committed in America.

Recently a Florida State Appeals Court upheld the ruling of State Judge Richard Nielsen to allow a decision based on Sharia Law. I have to give that State Appellate Court a little credit though. Its decision was purely based on the merits of the law. Judge Nielsen ruled that a dispute between Muslims over the control of money should be allowed according to the arbitration both sides agreed to for a ruling. The losing side of the arbitration went to litigation. Essentially Judge Nielsen did not rule in favor of the defense or the plaintiffs as much as he ruled with the agreed upon arbitrator.

The problem that Judge Nielsen made for American jurisprudence is that the arbitration was entirely based on Sharia Law. Judge Nielsen’s ruling essentially gave Sharia a toehold in Florida State’s legal system. Judge Nielsen’s ruling can actually be used as a precedent in future cases involving the acceptance of Sharia Law as precedent even if the precedent is unconstitutional.

Although the Florida Appellate Court validated Judge Nielsen’s ruling, it did so by shelving the plaintiff’s petition by not even looking at the danger of Sharia Law. The Appellate Court should have examined the petition! Ruled in favor of the arbitration decision, BUT specifically spell out the ruling was based on the merits of the law and NOT Sharia Law.  

JRH 10/28/11

The Evil of Sharia in American Courts

John R. Houk

© March 18, 2011

I reside in the State of Oklahoma. The issue of the validity of foreign international and religious law utilized as a part of foreign nations’ legal code came to the fore on the general election of November 2, 2010. In Oklahoma a citizen’s Amendment was voted on that if passed would prevent State Courts from using International law and Sharia Law to be used as judicial precedent in decisions and rulings. The Oklahoma voters passed SQ 755 by over 70%.

This means at least 70% of Oklahoma’s voters comprehend the nefarious anti-constitutional nature of Sharia Law. In a political heartbeat the Oklahoma Chapter of Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed a lawsuit to prevent the will of the people from making foreign legal law and foreign religious law illegal as judicial precedent in State Courts. Then CAIR-OK found a Federal Judge to stay the implementation of SQ 755 until an outcome resulted from the civil suit.

Since Oklahoma enacted their anti-Sharia law fourteen other States have gone on to do the same.

The inspiration for Oklahoma to prevent Sharia Law in their State is because a New Jersey Judge ruled that forced sex by a husband against a wife is not rape among practicing Muslims because Sharia Law allows for forced sex. That was heinous by that Judge. Fortunately the Judge was overruled on appeal.

NOW a Florida Judge has decided to allow Sharia Law to be the deciding factor among practicing Muslims in a civil property case. ACT for America has caught this story and has sent it to their email list.

JRH 3/18/11

*******************************

Judge orders Muslims to follow sharia law!

From: ACT for America

Sent: 3/18/2011 9:02 AM

The eyes and ears of ACT! for America are everywhere. Make sure you’re sitting down when you read what we became aware of this week!

In Tampa, Florida, a dispute arose over who controls the funds a mosque received in 2008 from an eminent domain proceeding.

Former trustees of the mosque are claiming in court they have the right to the funds. Current mosque leaders are disputing that claim.

The current mosque leaders want the case decided according to secular, Florida civil law, and their attorney has been vigorously arguing the case accordingly.

The former trustees of the mosque want the case decided according to sharia law.

Here’s the kicker.

The judge recently ruled “This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic law,” (sharia law), “pursuant to the Qur’an.”

You can read the judge’s ruling here.

Now it’s not unusual for a dispute to arise within a religious institution and for a court to order a mediation or arbitration, in order to resolve this without the court having to render its own judgment.

But what makes this case unusual, and highly troubling, is that a group of Muslim leaders—the CURRENT mosque leaders—who do NOT want to be subject to sharia law, are being compelled to do so by an American judge!

This is reminiscent of the 2009 New Jersey case, where a Muslim woman sought a restraining order, in civil court, against her Muslim husband, who was raping her several times a day. The judge denied the restraining order because, in his opinion, the husband did not commit a crime because he was following his Islamic beliefs.

In the New Jersey case, and now in this recent case in Tampa, Muslims found themselves being subjected to sharia law against their will.

Last October, ACT! for America aired a radio ad across Oklahoma in support of the referendum preventing Oklahoma judges from using sharia law in their decisions. The referendum won with 70% support.

The point we made then, which now bears repeating, is that such legislation protects non-Muslims AND Muslims alike from being subjected to sharia law.

When someone claims that opposition to sharia law in America is “anti-Muslim,” make sure you tell them about the New Jersey woman and the mosque leaders in Tampa.

Don’t forget our EARLY BIRD REGISTRATION for the 2011 National Conference and Legislative Briefing! Register by March 25th and save $40. Gala banquet keynote speaker will be Rep. Allen West. To find out more or register click here.

_________________________________

The Evil of Sharia in American Courts

John R. Houk

© March 18, 2011

______________________________

Judge orders Muslims to follow sharia law!

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

Activist Conservative Constructionist Judiciary

John R. Houk
© February 4, 2010

Okay I have to admit I am a Chuck Norris fan from his martial arts, Hollywood and TV entertainment. Saying that I am gratified Norris is in the Conservative realm of thinking. Does being a noted Personality discredit him from having political opinions made public? I believe the answer is no. If it was yes then the huge profile of politically active Leftist actors should have no influence, yet we all know they do.

Norris wrote an article which I read at Human Events concerning the danger our nation faces with President Barack Hussein Obama nominating Federal Judicial appointees of the same mold as his extra-Constitutional Czars and many of his Executive Branch appointments. That mold is Leftist. Indeed, the Leftist mold is radical.

The scope of the appointees is a decent snapshot of what BHO meant when he campaigned for Change. That Change is a socio-political transformation away from what has made America great. And it is true, America is great. Regardless of American Leftist self-loathing and concerns from many of our Slanted Left friends of Europe, America is great.

Has America made mistakes and moral lapses? Undoubtedly.

Has America become a domineering empire squashing war-losing nations into abject submission? The answer is not even close to the nature of historical world empires utilizing military victories to secure power and domination. Quite the contrary: The U. S. A. has been unnaturally benevolent in the first two global wars. President Wilson attempted to establish a League of Nations after entering WWI to shift the balance to victory for the more democratic nations. The irony being the U. S. Senate did not ratify membership of America in the League. By the end of WWII America had become the supreme military power providing aid to rebuild the destruction of winners and losers alike. Yes America is great.

The transformation which President BHO imagines must mean the jettisoning of America’s Christian foundations and the Christian morality that our Founding Fathers initiated from the influence of the earliest colonialists through the Declaration of Independence and framed for our future in the U. S. Constitution. Forget the Leftist argument that many of our Founding Fathers were Deists. Even the Deists believed in a rule of law that was encapsulated from Christian Morality and Christian Godliness.

Chuck Norris shouts in writing that we must raise a voice to support a Conservative Federal Judiciary. We all know Leftist Judges and Justices are activist in the thought of an evolving “Living Constitution.” Meaning laws are not interpreted based on their intent but on how laws should affect America’s future. Leftists and Secular Humanists view traditional Christianity as an archaic anomaly unworthy of respect because they are the nice words of history largely based on human myth. It is no wonder that as a Leftist transformation progresses, America becomes a less safe place to live.

Americans lock their doors. Americans worry about a troubled child or teenager becoming deranged and walking into a school and going Columbine on their sons and daughters. Americans are continually pumped with propaganda that homosexual rights are an innate portion of humanity when the Creator in His Word stipulates otherwise. Pornography has become so normal in America that parents concerned about raising decent children insist that personal computers and laptops be used in very open family areas. A Conservative and a Christian could go on and on how a Leftist transformation has diluted a great America.

In effect Chuck Norris is calling for Judges and Justices to become Conservative activists to counter the Leftist activist judiciary. Many a Conservative have a problem with the word “activist” used next to the word “judiciary.” The Conservative thought being why can’t a Judge or Justice weigh a law according to Constitutional intent with fairness. Unfortunately in the 21st century the old fashioned constructionist Judge or Justice is considered a Conservative by the Left. Hence, a call for an activist Conservative Judiciary is merely a call for constructionist interpretation of the U. S. Constitution.

So I say go Chuck Norris in calling for Americans to battle the appointments of Leftist “Living Constitution” Judges and Justices. After all the Left battled President Reagan and President Bush’s appointments of constructionist judges out of fear of reversing a Leftist American transformation that began in the 1960’s and is receiving a huge accelerated push from President Barack Hussein Obama.

JRH 2/4/10