America Reassess your Perception of Islam


Sharia & Liberty

John R. Houk

© January 19, 2011

 

I know it is not politically correct to say so nonetheless it is time to change the way Americans view Islam. Unlike Christianity, Islam is just as political as it is theological. Granted the majority of Muslims in the West are more theologically minded than political; however the essence of Mohammed’s message was to spread Islam in a political-military fashion. Mohammed realized after his Mecca experience in receiving the boot for peacefully trying to convince polytheists to worship a monotheistic all-knowing deity.

 

Mohammed eventually began to realize that the power of the sword is what got the attention of Medina polytheists, Jewish Arabs and the small amount of individual Christians. The matter of the sword combined with filial loyalty of tribal thinking eventually led to the conquest of Medina and the expulsion of Jewish monotheists that rejected Mohammed’s view of monotheism. Mohammed’s growing military power eventually led to the conquest of the city Mecca that had given him the boot. From their Mohammed and his following successors conquered the Arabian Peninsula, Middle Eastern Arabs, Persians (Iranians), India, North Africa and parts of Europe. None of the Muslim armies were invited because of a voluntary desire to convert to Islam; however once the Muslim armies conquered lands people began to convert in order to live a life free of oppression. Then Islamic intolerance was drilled into the conquered that following generations became committed to the theopolitical nature of Islam.

 

I have no doubt that those called moderate Muslims do not condemn those known as radical Muslims because their very holy texts confirm the desires that radical Muslims are attempting to accomplish. Muslims in America may be primarily devoted to theology; however the money of radical Islam is slowly gaining influence in American Mosques radicalizing younger Muslims to Mohammed’s early theopolitical in instilling Islam globally.

 

This is what Americans need to think about when viewing Muslims. It is religious profiling. Know this: theological minded American-Muslims are a holy text heartbeat away from seeing the radical Muslim view of life.

 

Raymond Ibrahim is an anti-Islamist writer that attempts to awaken Americans to the potential of an early Muslim-like revival. ACT for America as part of an email promotion of their new television program also sent an Ibrahim article “Radical Muslims in America”.

 

JRH 1/19/11

Alexander: Mr. Boehner, et al., Honor Your Oath!


We the People

I posted Charles Krauthammer’s article at SlantRight.com entitled, “Constitutionalism.” In my opinion Krauthammer is what might be described as a Neoconservative Establishment Republican Intellectual. I don’t always agree with Krauthammer nonetheless I am appreciative of his Neocon leanings since my current leanings tend to be Neocon oriented. My greatest divergence from Neocon ideals is that I am a Christian Right Social Conservative.

 

I reference Krauthammer’s article because I just read an excellent post from Mark Alexander of The Patriot Post. Alexander is oriented toward a Tea Party Conservative of less government, less taxation and Original Intent Constitutionalism.

 

Alexander has some praise for the new Speaker of the House John Boehner’s decision to open the 112th House of Representatives with readings of the U.S. Constitution. The part of the article that really caught my attention is the proposal of a House rule that Bills coming through the House must cite the jurisdiction of the Constitution to insure Constitutional principles in the rule of law. It is a good READ!

 

JRH 1/8/11

Constitutionalism


We The People - Constitution

The 112th House of Representatives with a Republican Party majority opened Congress with readings from the U.S. Constitution. It is no surprise that some Democrats openly complained about this since many Dems have little regard for the original intent of America’s founding document of governance.

 

Charles Krauthammer has some awesome observations about this session of the Representatives reading the Constitution.

 

JRH 1/7/11

States’ Rights and Nullification


10th Amendment

John R. Houk

© December 31, 2010

 

Have you heard of State Nullification? The concept of State Nullification is actually nothing new in America. The concept of State Nullification is a Tenth Amendment issue as usually expressed by Conservatives; however there are undoubtedly some issues that Leftists might attach the concept of State Nullification as well.

 

State Nullification is roughly the ability of one of America’s sovereign States can ignore a Federal Law passed by Congress or instituted as a regulation by some bureaucratic Federal Agency. By “ignore” I mean a State can nullify the Federal Law if it is felt to Unconstitutional. Nullification is not ignoring a Constitutional Federal Law. That would be insurrection. The concept of a sovereign American State leaving the Union merely because a State did not like a Constitutional Law was settled at the end of the Civil War. States’ Rights do not include seceding from the Union of the United States of America. Again State Nullification is the ability of a sovereign State to nullify or render void a Federal Law arguably is Unconstitutional.

 

State Nullification is the States’ Rights alternative to the old Confederacy’s decision to secede from the USA. Alan Caruba looks at some Federal government intrusions that might be considered Unconstitutional by America’s sovereign States that might bring up the issue of State Nullification in 2011.

 

JRH 12/31/10 (Hat Tip: Tony Newbill)

The Culture of America is Christian


Jesus - Love Your Enemies lg

Do Not War against Christianity in America

John R. Houk

© December 20, 2010

 

Leftists, atheists and non-Christians have wittingly or unwittingly made war on Christianity in America. This odd union of complainers has gone to great lengths to make sure Christian themes and the Christian symbols of Christmas are eradicated from the public and private arena of American culture. The crazy notions given for this attack on Christianity are a faulty interpretation of the disestablishment clause of the First Amendment (in which judicial fiat has tragically upheld) and the notion that what is offensive to non-Christians is an act of discrimination ergo Christian/Christmas symbolism must be sanitized.

 

The First Amendment states:

 

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. (Obviously the bold print is added)

 

The First Amendment has become the cornerstone of Liberty and Civil Rights in America. In the early days of the American Republic the First Amendment was a measuring tool in which State Sovereignty would interpret and apply the Amendment’s meaning. When Constitutional government was ratified and established in 1789 there was a call for a clearer definition of the rights of citizens. Thus the first ten Amendments of the Constitution were formulated which are commonly called the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights (10 of 12 proposed Amendments) ratified on December 15, 1791.

 

Leftists and atheists in the 20th and now 21st century have the concept of a Jeffersonian letter written to Danbury Baptist Church in Connecticut in which the famous phrase has become a part of American political nomenclature:

 

“… a wall of separation between church and state

 

Even if Jefferson intended the meaning to be that the government should totally stay out of the realm of religion (meaning incidentally Christianity) and that religion stay totally out of government, it was not a shared idea of the other Founding Fathers. Indeed both President Washington and John Adams believed that Christian morality should be the ethical backbone of the American government.

 

The country’s first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams, were firm believers in the importance of religion for republican government. As citizens of Virginia and Massachusetts, both were sympathetic to general religious taxes being paid by the citizens of their respective states to the churches of their choice. However both statesmen would have discouraged such a measure at the national level because of its divisiveness. They confined themselves to promoting religion rhetorically, offering frequent testimonials to its importance in building the moral character of American citizens, that, they believed, undergirded public order and successful popular government. (Religion and the Founding of the American Republic; VI Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1; THE RHETORICAL SUPPORT OF RELIGION: WASHINGTON AND ADAMS)

 

Frankly it is not clear that Jefferson meant that government and religion should have been separate in an absolute sense (SEE: Original Intent and the Free Exercise of Religion #3). After writing his letter to the Danbury Baptist Church, President Jefferson was a regular attendee of Christian worship that was presented every Sunday at the House of Representatives. This is an indication Jefferson was not interested in separating the mechanics of government from the influence of Christianity.

 

The pro-Religion Founders and the more secular minded Founders had one thing in common; viz., that the Federal government not Establish any particular Christian Denomination or beliefs as the Federal mandated Church that receives government support via mandatory taxation specifically for an Established Church. The Founding Fathers did not want Religion to be mandated or financially supported on a National level; however the State level was a different matter. Even if Federal money was not to go to a specific denomination in support of the Christian religion, the Founding Fathers very much intended to inculcate Christian principles and ethics into America’s rule of law and the new American culture.

 

Even after the U.S. Constitution became the rule of law for America many States still had established Churches. The Federal government did not turn the screws with threats of military action to comply a withdrawal from a State support of a Church. Rather over time State’s came to the conclusion that State established Churches infringes on religious freedom of other denominations. Not in sense of discrimination of forbidding religious practices, but in the sense one Church receives taxpayer support while other Churches are excluded financially. States that supported Christianity with State taxes came to an end after the Civil War and 14th Amendment required the States to uniformly treat American citizens in an equal manner. The intent was to even the political playing field for Afro-Americans recently liberated from the bondage of Southern State slavery. However the 14th Amendment was used as the final straw for individual State direct support of Christian Churches on a local level.

 

Now another situation Leftists, atheists and Secularists have accomplished in recent years is reinterpreting the word “religion” in the First Amendment. Let us revisit the religious clauses of the First Amendment:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … 

 

The 20th and 21st century definition of “religion” might run something like this:

 

1. a. the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of religion)

 

b. (1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

 

2. a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

 

3. archaic: scrupulous conformity: conscientiousness

 

4. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (Merriam-Webster Online)

 

Take note the word “religion” today has a general connotation. That generality is fully embraced by the Left and Secularists. Religion can be referenced as the practices multiple religions as in plural. What do you think the Founding Fathers connoted for the meaning of the word “religion” when it appeared in the First Amendment? Here is a hint: “Give me that old time religion…”

 

To anyone not blinded by anti-Christian thinking, the word “religion” is the practice of Christianity. Many Leftists, atheists and Secularists love to point that a significant amount of the Founding Fathers were Deists and not Christians. The reality is the Deists of America differed greatly than the Deists of Europe. A better appellation for American Deists would be “Christian Deists”. The Christian Deists of America believed in Natural Law and Nature’s God/Creator. That God was the Christian monotheistic God of the Holy Bible. The Christian Deists of America placed reason above faith.

 

Christian Deists believed in God but did not believe the Creator was active in influencing the affairs of mankind. Thus Christian Deists denied the existence of Biblical miracles and relegated them to fables or to moral object lessons. Christian Deists were as huge on Christian Biblical Morality as any other orthodox practicing Christian (i.e. the beliefs of standard Christian sects or Denominations). Christians and Christian Deists believed that the absence of Biblical religion would destroy the social fabric of society leading to chaos and debauchery.

 

The point is the “religion” of the First Amendment is the Christian Religion. I am very pleased that the religious freedom clause has come down today to make the practices of every religion within the frame work of the very Constitution that institutes religious freedom to enable the equal right of all religions to practice.

 

I pray you noticed the context of religious freedom “within the frame work of the very Constitution that institutes religious freedom”. The caveat is if a religion’s theological tenets run counter to the Liberty and Civil Rights embodied in the U.S. Constitution, those tenets need to be restricted rather than accommodated. Constitutional religious freedom does not nullify the U.S. Constitution. If you read my posts you can guess where I am going with this line of thinking.

 

I have a specific religion in mind in which its codified tenets establish acts of violence, murder and genocide against those who refuse to follow that specific religion. That religion is Islam which should be described after the name of its founder and be called Mohammedanism. I do realize the term Mohammedanism has been abandoned by academics circa early 20th century notably because the term offends its adherents. Since political correctness is in common usage today, academics conform to adherents and use Islam as an appellation rather than Mohammedanism.

 

Islam’s founder Mohammed is the heart and soul of the religion he founded. Muslims consider Mohammed the perfect man much as Christians consider Jesus Christ the Son of God as both human and divine as well the only man born without sin since God’s first human creation Adam.

 

The Muslim’s perfect Mohammed started out fantastically in Mecca; however after winning only around a hundred or so believers in his message, Mohammed began to transform his tenor of tolerance. In essence the Meccan polytheists gave Mohammed the boot. Some of Mohammed’s followers found refuge in Egypt and a significant amount including Mohammed himself found refuge in the close by desert city of Medina (called Yathrib at the time). Mohammed was welcomed with open arms initially probably because thoughts on monotheism had already made its way to Medina via Jews and a few Christians. Mohammed’s earlier knowledge Judaism and Christianity can be seen in his biblical revisionist writings accepted as eternally valid by Muslims. Mohammed thought the Jewish-Arab tribes would embrace him as the newest (and last) of the line of prophets stretching back through the Jewish Patriarchs. Jews and most Christians (the already few in number saw enough closeness in Mohammed’s theology to accept his Prophethood and receive kind of tribal protection at the same time) rejected Mohammed’s claim to Prophethood.

 

After the Mecca expulsion and the refusal of belief among Jewish-Arabs Mohammed began to show signs of very un-divine jealousy and hatred. In my opinion a good man began to go insane. The danger of Mohammed’s insanity was multiplied by his continual charisma and emerging political-military genius to vanquish foes in subtle growing stages. Eventually Mohammed became the big dog in military might in Medina and the eventual confrontation between Mohammed’s Muslims and Jewish-Arabs came along. Unfortunately for the Jewish-Arabs they lost. The result of Mohammed’s victory was a small genocide of Jewish-Arabs, the sex-slavery of the good looking Jewish-Arab women followed with the eventual expulsion of all Jews from the Arabian Peninsula which included the few residing Christian-Arabs. In essence Mohammed was a bad dude to non-Muslims and was willing to use his Office as Prophet to gain exceptions to the rules he set for his fellow Muslims. An example is the acquiring of other Muslims’ wives to become his wife if they were Arab babes. Allah revealed it to Mohammed. Mohammed shared the revelation. And even if the revelation contradicted previous revelations it must be so since Allah ratified it for Mohammed. I guess this makes Mohammed the Hugh Hefner above the law of the 7th century.

 

Jesus Christ on the other hand preached “love your enemies.” The Lord was an example of peace in His earthly walk. The most violent thing he did was chase merchants with an improvised whip and tipping over merchandise in the Outer Courts of the Temple because the Temple was for prayer and not for self-aggrandizement with selling for personal gain. Instead of establishing an earthly Kingdom as Mohammed’s aim was, Jesus volunteered to be the spotless sacrifice to Redeem humankind from the darkness of Satan’s realm and Satan’s lease acquired from Adam. As part of that sacrifice Jesus was betrayed by His closest friends, turned over by the Temple authority to the Romans for a death penalty, Roman authority whipped Jesus with spiked cat-o-nine tails ripping the flesh to the Savior’s very bones, then Jesus was forced to carry the instrument of His own execution to Golgotha/Calvary with the last legs of the route the Cross of Christ being aided by Simon the Cyrenian, then the Lord experienced more torture having his hands and feet nailed to the Cross and plopped into the ground to die an agonizing death.

 

For Christians the Good News is that Jesus the Christ the Son of God and the son of Mary arose bodily after three days of entombment to a glorified body give the God-kind of Life to all that believe in the Redemptive Resurrection act of Christ Jesus. 

 

Islam is absolutely incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. Sharia Law calls on Muslims to be intolerant and justifies punishment that is cruel and usual according to the U.S. Constitution. Many Muslim apologists will point out that the punishments prescribed for criminal violations are no longer followed by most Muslim nations. Incidentally the word “most” means there are some Muslim nations that still utilize punishment which under America’s Constitution would be cruel and unusual.

 

The 8th Amendment specifically lays it out that “cruel and unusual punishment” should not be used within the legal code to punish convicted individuals for their crimes.

 

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. (8th Amendment of U.S. Constitution)

 

Here are some excerpts from FindLaw.com annotating the “cruel and unusual punishment” phrase of the 8th Amendment:

 

“Difficulty would attend the effort to define with exactness the extent of the constitutional provision which provides that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted; but it is safe to affirm that punishments of torture [such as drawing and quartering, embowelling alive, beheading, public dissecting, and burning alive], and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by that amendment to the Constitution.” (FindLaw.com)

 

the Court explained that the cruel and unusual punishments clause “circumscribes the criminal process in three ways: First, it limits the kinds of punishment that can be imposed on those convicted of crimes; second, it proscribes punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime; and third, it imposes substantive limits on what can be made criminal and punished as such.” 182 These limitations, the Court thought, should not be extended outside the criminal process. (FindLaw.com)

 

Sharia Law is quite different and is encoded as Muslim holy law even if a majority of Muslim nations do not officially follow Sharia punishments.

 

… Sharia is a Muslim code of behavior – for the individual and for society.  In many Muslim countries, its provisions on family issues – like divorce and inheritance – are incorporated into secular law. But its application in criminal law is less common…

 

In reality, most Muslim countries do not use traditional classical Islamic punishments. But they do not [openly announce that] because it’s a politically sensitive [topic]; they just avoid situations where the maximum punishment for stealing is chopping off the hand or the maximum punishment for adultery is capital punishment. …

 

But there are exceptions – such as Sudan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia.  These countries use the criminal provisions of Sharia that may lead to amputation for stealing or flogging for adultery. (Excerpts GlobalSecurity.com – Read the whole article)

 

I am not even going to take the time to write about the deficiency in Liberty and Civil Rights for non-Muslims, Muslim females and Muslim apostates. In my opinion you get the idea with the encoded Sharia punishments.

 

Certainly you get the point that Islam as a religion when followed to the fullest extent of what all Muslims consider to be absolute divine perfection is not compatible with the American Founding Father documents leading to the Constitution and definitely Islam is incompatible with Constitutional law. And yet, Muslim activists in America utilize the U.S. Constitution to practice their religion with impunity even if the practice is unconstitutional.

 

ACT for America has pointed out an incidence in which a Muslim gal is demanding the right to perform the Muslim Hajj to Mecca. No problem right? Actually the Muslim gal is a Public School teacher and the time she has chosen for the Muslim Hajj is in the middle of the school year. The school denied her request for obvious reasons. It is irresponsible for a Public School Teacher to take time off other than the holidays already set up by the School District.

 

Here is the thing: the Muslim gal is screaming that her religious freedom was infringed upon according to the First Amendment. And check this out! It is not the ACLU or (the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas oriented) Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that are filing on behalf of the Muslim gal. Eric Holder and the Justice Department are filing a complaint that the School District infringed upon Safoorah Khan’s religious freedom.

 

What is a Hajj you may ask. It is one of the Five Pillars of Islam to visit Mecca at least once in a lifetime. The ritual of the Hajj predates Islam; however Islamic tradition bastardizes the Biblical account of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar and Ishmael.  The Quranic account Arabizes names; thus in the same order only in Arabic the names are Ibrahim, Sarah, Hajira and Is’mail (or Ismail).

 

The Biblical account is Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to produce a son. The reason being Sarah had been barren but Abraham was promised a son to be his heir by God Almighty (not Allah). The outcome was that Ishmael was born to the Egyptian slave Hagar who was a servant of Sarah. Hagar took advantage of being the mother of Ishmael who at the time was the only son of Abraham. Hagar began to scorn her mistress Sarah. God Almighty had to get Abraham’s attention and tell him the promise of a son was between Abraham and his wife Sarah. Sarah eventually bore the child of promise Isaac. Then Hagar began to be puffed up as the mother of Abraham’s oldest son Ishmael. Ishmael the son of a slave began to be abusive to Isaac the child of promise. Sarah complains to Abraham and says this slave and her son cannot remain. Thus Sarah by Abraham’s permission gives Hagar and Ishmael the boot. God Almighty promises Abraham that Ishmael will be protected and become the father of 12 strong princes. Biblically this is the origin of the Arabs.

 

The Bastardized Quranic account (or tradition) is that Abraham and Hagar (Hajira) hook-up to bear the Abraham’s oldest son Ishmael (Ismail). In fact the test of faith between Abraham and Isaac is bastardized in the Quran to be Abraham and Ishmael. The Angel of God saves Ishmael rather than Isaac in confirming Abraham’s faith and obedience to God Almighty. The Quranic story further bastardizes the Abraham, Sarah, Hagar and Ishmael account by Abraham delivering Hagar from Sarah’s wrath by personally taking Hagar to the desert (Arabia). Then Hagar and Ishmael discover underground water which is turned into a well. Hagar and Ishmael prosper by selling water to merchants on a caravan route. Abraham returns to Hagar and is pleased that things are going well for her.

 

The Prophet Ibrahim was told by Allah to build a shrine dedicated to him. Ibrahim and Is’mail constructed a small stone structure – the Kaaba or Cube – which was to be the gathering place for all who wished to strengthen their faith in Allah.

 

As the years passed Is’mail was blessed with Prophethood and he gave the nomads of the desert the message of surrender to Allah.

 

After many centuries, Mecca became a thriving city thanks to its reliable water source, the well of Zam Zam.

 

Gradually, the people began to adopt polytheistic ideas, and worship spirits and many different gods. The shrine of the Prophet Ibrahim was used to store idols. (Info and quote from: BBC – Hajj: pilgrimage to Mecca)

 

The Hajj the fifth Pillar of Islam is the reason a Christianity vs. Islam legal jihad is brewing in Chicago.

 

Attorney General Eric Holder is stepping into a Chicago School District’s decision to not accommodate Muslim Safoorah Khan to defect from her school teacher job to perform the Islamic Hajj and expect to have a job when she returns. Khan complained to U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that she was being discriminated because of her religious beliefs. The EEOC probably saw a brouhaha in the making and sent the complaint to the Justice Department that then was filed with the Federal Court on behalf of Khan.

 

Can you see where this is going?

 

Public Schools have a break or vacation in December which falls within the Christian Holy Day of Christmas. Christmas has been diminished due to Leftists, atheists and Secularists. This triumvirate of hatred toward Christmas and Christianity has nearly succeeded in removing the thought of Christmas vacation and replacing it with the thought of Winter Break or Winter Vacation. Even after this dilution by the war on Christianity triumvirate it is evident that Safoorah Khan intends to demand equal time for a very slim minority of Muslims in America over the Christian cultural heritage that has been in America from its early Colonial beginnings. To drive this point home Islam ONLY makes up .06% of Americans. The number is extremely miniscule. Thank God for that miniscule amount because Islam tenets are anti-American and anti-Constitutional.

 

For the sake of the Muslim Apologists who legitimately believe they are moderate Muslims I have to say this. Currently the majority of Muslims in America are moderate which means they practice a form of Islam that betters the inner being of a person rather than follow the tenets of Islam to force conversions, delegitimize a person’s humanity or death. And before the defenders of Islam jump down my throat about the Quranic dictum that there is no compulsion in religion; I state that this a misleading tenet. If there are three choices of convert, dhimmitude or death then a person chooses rather than is compelled. In the Western mind this indeed is compulsion; however in the dualistic theology of Islam in which contradictory dictums can both be valid and Islam is offering the choice, then the person is not compelled.

 

In America there definitely is a war against Christianity. The war becomes very apparent during the Christmas season. The Obama Administration is a Left Wing Administration. Part of Obama’s Leftism is to be critical of Biblical Christians as a 2008 Presidential campaign phrase indicates about the implied ignorance of those who cling to their guns and bibles. And now the Obama Administration through Attorney General Eric Holder will further disembowel Christianity by making it an issue for Safoorah Khan to be the victim of religious rights infringement when in reality there was simple common sense used that was to benefit Chicago kids in school.

 

JRH 12/20/10 (Hat Tip: ACT for America) Originally posted SlantRight.com 12/19/10.

Nancy Pelosi dismisses authority of US Constitution


Obamacare Chart

On December 13, 2010 U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson struck down the part of Obamacare that required Americans to buy Health Insurance or face a fine. The suit was filed by the State of Virginia. According to what I have read the Judge state it was ludicrous that Congress felt it had the Constitutional authority to force every American to buy insurance or else.

 

JRH 12/16/10 (Hat Tip: Vickie)

Stick With the Founding Fathers Original Design


Founding Fathers sm

John R. Houk

© November 27, 2010

 

Here is an interesting American Thinker article with ideas to balance the economic ship USS Economy. In politics I am on board with the principles of balanced budgets, Free Market economics, Less Government, Less Taxes and so on. I am on board with these principles on faith more than knowledge. Frankly I am a Conservative more because of Social Conservatism, Pro-Family Values, Pro-Biblical Christian faith, a Conservative slant on First Amendment Rights, I am very Second Amendment (i.e. that of individuals to bear arms), the reinstitution of State Sovereignty according to the Tenth Amendment and so on.

 

When it comes to Conservative Economics or Tea Party Economics I am in a position of choosing who to trust in what is good for America. As a student of history I can read what the effect Liberal or Leftist Economics has accomplished to benefit people. That benefit is nonexistent.

 

Leftist Economics have the modern world’s greatest genocides into existence. The worst thing Right Wing Economics have done is exploitation of working class people by Big Business. By Big Business I mean organized markets that benefit companies and corporations more than or perhaps rather than the well-to-do that might employ them. This means in the early days of Big Business when the ruling elite of nations were most often European Noblemen or close offspring thereof, the common man was way more exploited economically and in Human Rights than what should have been morally unacceptable as members of Christian nations.

 

I suspect a few national revolutions changed this unequal existence between the upper class and the common man. Here are a few of those revolutions which are not exhaustive, but are from skimming the top of my humble mind:

 

The Magna Carter of 1215 and later revisions

 

Magna Carta (Latin for “Great Charter”, literally “Great Paper”) was drawn up in 1215 to limit the power of English Monarchs, especially King John, from absolute rule.

 

Magna Carta was the result of disagreements between the Pope and King John and his barons over the rights of the king: Magna Carta required the king to renounce certain rights and respect certain legal procedures, and to accept that the will of the king could be bound by law.

 

Magna Carta is widely considered to be the first step in a long historical process leading to the rule of constitutional law, much of English Common Law can be traced back to Magna Carta.

 

The gist of the gripe the Barons had with King John was that he had too much power and they too little.

 

The Barons had the populace behind them, in as much as anyone took any notice of the populace.

 

The Glorious Revolution (1688-89)

 

The deal struck between Parliament and the royal couple in 1688-89 was that Parliament would support the war against France, while William and Mary would accept new constraints on their authority. The new constitution reflected the relative weakness of William’s bargaining position more than any strength in Parliament’s position. Parliament feared the return of James, but William very much needed England’s willing support in the war against France because the costs would be extraordinary and William would be focused on military command instead of political wrangling.

 

The initial constitutional settlement was worked out in 1689 in the English Bill of Rights, the Toleration Act, and the Mutiny Act that collectively committed the monarchs to respect Parliament and Parliament’s laws. Fiscal power was settled over the 1690s as Parliament stopped granting the monarchs the authority to collect taxes for life. Instead, Parliament began regular re-authorization of all taxes, Parliament began to specify how new revenue authorizations could be spent, Parliament began to audit how revenue was spent, and Parliament diverted some funds entirely from the king’s control (Dickson 1967: 48-73). By the end of the war in 1697, the new fiscal powers of Parliament were largely in place.

 

American Revolutionary War (1775 – 83) and Formation of the USA

 

·       Many, many things caused the revolution. From the economic problems, to the discontent with autocratic rule.

 

·       Also, the colonies were not allowed their own economy to flourish, not letting the colonials print legal tender money which also in turn, since any monies printed was not considered by the King, it made it much harder to pay royal taxes. After the Boston Tea Party, came the Coercive Acts, or the Intolerable Acts on Boston, which really upset them and made them want to take even more action, rather than just using effigies (dolls made to look like the redcoats and used to scare the redcoat’s and boycotting.

 

·       Reasons for American Revolution: Taxation without representation in parliament. Colonials thought the English could not control colonies from so far away. (across the pond) Money, people like John Hancock did not want to pay taxes on his goods being brought into the docks or sent to England, import and export. (Some Wiki answers listed on Answers.com)

 

The objective of the constitution was to create a strong elected government that would be responsive to people’s will. Although many founding fathers believed that the new government had to be insulated from the will of the people. The constitutional features were included like the Electoral College and the election of the senate by state legislatures. (From: U.S. Constitution: A Short History)

 

… As adopted, the Constitution included only a few specific rights guarantees: protection against states impairing the obligation of contracts (Art. I, Section 10), provisions that prohibit both the federal and state governments from enforcing ex post facto laws (laws that allow punishment for an action that was not criminal at the time it was undertaken) and provisions barring bills of attainder (legislative determinations of guilt and punishment) (Art. I, Sections 9 and 10).  The framers, and notably James Madison, its principal architect, believed that the Constitution protected liberty primarily through its division of powers that made it difficult for an oppressive majorities to form and capture power to be used against minorities.

 

… In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that.  With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of  a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress  comes into session.  The concession was  undoubtedly  necessary to secure the Constitution’s hard-fought ratification.

 

James Madison was skeptical of the value of a listing of rights, calling it a “parchment barrier.”  … Despite his skepticism, by the fall of 1788, Madison believed that a declaration of rights should be added to the Constitution. Its value, in Madison’s view, was in part educational, in part as a vehicle that might be used to rally people against a future oppressive government, and finally–in an argument borrowed from Thomas Jefferson–Madison argued that a declaration of rights would help install the judiciary as “guardians” of  individual rights against the other branches. …

 

Some members of Congress argued that a listing of rights of the people was a silly exercise, in that all the listed rights inherently belonged to citizens, and nothing in the Constitution gave the Congress the power to take them away.  It was even suggested that the Bill of Rights might reduce  liberty by giving force to the argument that all rights not specifically listed could be infringed upon.  In part to counter this concern, the Ninth Amendment was included providing that “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.” …

 

 

In the end, we owe opponents of the Constitution a debt of gratitude, for without their complaints, there would be no Bill of Rights.  Thomas Jefferson wrote, “There has just been opposition enough” to force adoption of a Bill of Rights, but not to drain the federal government of its essential “energy.”  George Washington agreed: “They have given the rights of man a full and fair discussion, and explained them in so clear and forcible manner as cannot fail to make a lasting impression.” (Excerpted from: The Bill of Rights: Its History and Significance)

 

The French Revolution took a different path of bringing balance between the common man and the upper class. That path was bloody and little to do with offering Liberty and more to do eliminating the French Nobility Class including the French Monarchy with death sentences to transform French society from a nation of an entitled ruling class to an egalitarian Republic. The difference between the Republic of the United States of America and the French Republic are that the rights of man applied to all classes (at least in theoretical law) in America while the rights of man in France were based on fear of the French Republic government rooting out French Nobles (i.e. outright despotism).

 

The American Thinker article mentioned at the beginning of this post has to do with utilizing the tools the Founding Fathers left as a heritage and legacy of regrouping in potential perilous times. There are three authors to this essay: Raymond Richman, Howard Richman, and Jesse Richman. They postulate utilizing tariffs as a means of America equalizing trade with nations that undercut American production with cheap labor producing less expensive products. Then they postulate eliminating corporate income taxes in favor of sales taxes or Valued Added Taxes to encourage Corporations to keep their financial homes in America as well as foreign Corporations establishing American divisions in America. I’ll leave the details of these three author’s thoughts for you to read. The goal is to bring up employment in America which means an infusion of money into the economy which means economic growth.  

 

JRH 11/27/10

Crazy Sharia Exacted on Bibi Aisha


Bibi Aisha

John R. Houk

© November 21, 2010

 

Below is a Tony Newbill email that diverges from his usual “End the Fed” Conspiracy Theory emails. It differs because the theme of the email is about something I have become somewhat a crusader about; i.e. Exposing the violent nature of Islam and that theopolitical ideology’s total incompatibility with the U.S. Constitution guaranteed rights for individuals. A good reference to previous posts that might offer some background understanding could be these two titles as examples:

 

·       Oklahoma Sued for Anti-Sharia Law

 

·       Pakistan Christians Persecuted by Islam

 

Tony’s email is from a National Geographic photo shoot of Afghan women involved in the Islamic culture of Afghanistan. Newbill provides the link at the end of his very righteous indignation. To get to the picture of the subject of Newbill’s ire you have to go through about four or five clicks of the National Geographic photo display.

 

Then after the Newbill email I have a piece from AllVoices.com talking about this same subject. Now honestly the AllVoices.com post was obviously written by someone translating into English or a foreign person with broken knowledge of English grammar. For example the writer uses male pronouns like “he” and “his” when the meaning is obviously “she” and “her”. I will place the link to the AllVoices.com post if you wish to read the original; however I am going to utilize some literary liberal (not Leftist) editorial license to allow better readability.

 

JRH 11/21/10

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

NEVER EVER Allow the Circumvention of the US Constitution

Tony Newbill

Nov 19, 2010 at 12:15 PM

 

THIS Is why American People MUST NEVER EVER Allow the Circumvention of the US Constitution’s 1st Amendment to Speak Freely about the Need for a FREE COUNTRY LIKE THE USA to BE a Safe Haven against these Crimes Against Humanity!!!!!!!!!

 

Scarred for Life: Hey America do You Want Sharia Law in your COURTS?????????????? Here’s what you will get to see and have happen to your family members!!!!!

 

Bibi Aisha was 19 when I met her in Kabul’s Women for Afghan Women shelter in November 2009. Her husband beat her from the day she was married, at age 12. When he beat her so badly she thought she might die. She escaped to seek a neighbor’s help. To punish her for leaving without permission, her husband, who is a Taliban fighter, took her to a remote spot in the mountains. Several men held her while he cut off her nose, ears and hair. She screamed—to no avail. “If I had the power, I would kill them all,” she told me. I wanted to be strong for Aisha to give her hope she would be fine again. But when she described that moment, I began to cry. Aisha arrived in the U.S. in August for extensive reconstructive surgery.

 

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/12/afghan-women/addario-photography  

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The young Afghan Aisha Bibi regains profile

 

By karasiwo

Oct 14, 2010

AllVoices.com

 

Last August she turned his face to the world by the hand of Time magazine. Aisha Bibi is a 19 year old girl whose husband cut off her nose and ears for having run away from home, where she was a slave. Now, Bibi is presented to the public in Los Angeles wearing a very natural appearance, as she received a prosthetics and a prior reconstructive treatment step by the Grossman Burn Foundation paid in California.

 

Aisha Bibi’s story is relatively common in Afghanistan. Her father gave her and her baby sister to pay a blood debt because the uncle of the (two) girls had killed a man. Bibi was delivered in Uruzgan to the family of her new husband who was a Taliban fighter. In the house of the Taliban husband’s in-laws were the two girls. (The two) girls were the slaves of the in-laws receiving blow and insults. The girls were made to sleep in the barn. Desperate to what was happening, Bibi decided to flee south to Kandahar with the help of two neighbors who really wanted to sell (her). A police patrol discovered them and eventually spent five months in jail until her husband got her. In Afghanistan Taliban courts she was sentenced to punishment from her husband. The husband cut off her nose and ears in the desert where he left to her fate. No one knows exactly how Bibi got out of this bind. Some say she crawled to the house of her grandfather [or perhaps] others found her almost by accident that were American volunteers from an NGO. The truth is that she was sent to the shelter for Afghan Woman Woman (WAW) [SlantRight Editor: I am guessing the organization is listed incorrectly] where she spent ten months. Slowly and with the help of a psychologist Aisha spoke again and sometimes even smiling. She received news of being sent and to be operated [on] in Los Angeles by a foundation to cover expenses. Now I have to wait for definitive surgery and especially get free my sister who has been ten years at the home of the husband’s family. Aisha’s sister is probably still paying for what her uncle has done.

 

SlantRight.com Editor: I discovered there are related posts at the bottom of this article by Karasiwo. I don’t know how long this article will be up so below is the first of the related posts articles.

 

Afghan girl gets a prosthetic nose

 Bibi Aisha Before-After surgery

By FauziaSultana

Oct. 16, 2010

AllVoices.com

 

Bibi Aisha, the disfigured Afghan woman who had her nose and ears cut off and was featured on the cover of Time magazine, has received temporary prosthetics.

 

Aisha was treated at Los Angeles’ Grossman Burn Foundation, where the 19 year-old was fitted with a prosthetic nose, something she can use in public until her multiple reconstructive surgeries are completed.

 

Aisha’s husband, a Taliban member, and his family, cut off her nose and ears when she tried to escape being abused in her home. She was then left for dead, barely surviving the ordeal.

 

Aisha made her way to a medical center run by the U.S. military, who eventually transferred her to a privately-run women’s shelter. She was then sent to the Grossman Burn Center for a series of surgeries that were offered on a pro bono basis.

 

Aisha was recently presented with an award by the First Lady of California, Maria Shriver and met with Former First Lady of the United States Laura Bush, who is an active member of the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council.

 

Reuters

______________________________

Crazy Sharia Exacted Bibi Aisha

John R. Houk

© November 21, 2010

_____________________________

NEVER EVER Allow the Circumvention of the US Constitution

Tony Newbill

_______________________________

The young Afghan Aisha Bibi regains profile

Afghan girl gets a prosthetic nose

© Allvoices, Inc 2008-2010. All rights reserved.

End the Fed Meme Continued


ETF

Here is an “End the Fed” meme from Tony Newbill stretching from October 23 through November 5, 2010.

 

You can read the “End the Fed Meme” at SlantRight.com. It is interesting stuff for Conspiracy Theorists who like to connect the dots.

 

JRH 11/10/10

Oklahoma Sued for Anti-Sharia Law


Sharia & Liberty 2

John R. Houk

© November 7, 2010

 

On November 2, 2010 the State of Oklahoma passed anti-Sharia Law State Question 755 with an overwhelming 70% approval rating. SQ 755 prohibits State Courts to utilize Islamic Sharia Law as a precedent for any legal decisions in Oklahoma. This may seem frivolous as in the myth of Separation of Church and State; however the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has decided make this an infringement of Religious Freedom issue.

 

Frankly there are aspects of Islam which need to be infringed upon. Really the religious aspect of Islam is absolutely a religion that should be protected by Constitutional Law; however there is a Political Islamic part of the religion that must be prohibited at all costs not only in Oklahoma but in ALL of America. You see, unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam’s religious theology and political ideology are interwoven in that religion. Religion and politics are so interwoven in Islam that the legal affairs of a Muslims life are as intrinsic to worship as are the religious practice of worship. In Muslim dominated nations Sharia Law is more than the basis for the rule of law it is encoded into the frame work defining rights and punishment theo-politically in political society and the affairs of government. If I should hazard a guess, the intrinsic nature of both theology and politics in Islam is a major reason that medieval restrictions on civil rights and in adjudicating criminal punish for crimes is harsh beyond the comprehension of possibility of Westerners.

 

A classic example of theo-politics in Islam is marriage. Islam validates the right of a husband to punish his wife (or wives) for disobedience in affairs of the household and in the marriage bed. In the latter that means a horny husband may force (i.e. rape) his wife to have sex with him. In Christianity the husband is the head of the household much to the chagrin of Secular Humanists and feminists. Although history has shown that Christian males have abused this Biblical headship to excuse wife beating and probable the rape of their wife, both are DEFINITLEY contrary to Biblical Scripture:

 

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body,[
a] of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”[b] (Emphasis added. Ephesians 5: 22-31 NKJV)

 

Check out the official ruling of Muslim Clerics (in Christianity this would be Ministers, Priests and theologians with Doctor of Theology credentials) on husbands raping their wife.

 

Samir Abu Hamza, who runs an Islamic centre in Melbourne, ridiculed Australian laws banning forced sex within marriage.

 

Hamza told a male audience in Sydney: ‘Amazing, how can a person rape his wife?’

 

He added that wives must immediately respond to their husbands’ sexual demands.

 

The firebrand preacher also said a man was entitled to use ‘limited force’ as a last resort to punish a disobedient wife. (Daily Mail 1/22/09)

And here:

 

“In Islamic Sharia, rape is adultery by force. So long as the woman is his wife, it cannot be termed as rape,” The Independent quoted cleric Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed as saying.

Men accused of raping their wives should not be prosecuted as “sex is part of marriage”, said Sayeed, president of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain. He made the comments to the blog The Samosa — and reiterated them to the The Independent.

 

Sayeed told the website: “Clearly there cannot be any rape within the marriage. Maybe aggression, maybe indecent activity… Because when they got married, the understanding was that sexual intercourse was part of the marriage, so there cannot be anything against sex in marriage.

 

“Of course, if it happened without her desire, that is no good, that is not desirable.”


British law makes rape within marriage illegal.

 

Sayeed also suggested that women who claim to have been raped by their husbands should not immediately go to the police.

“Not in the beginning, unless we establish that it really happened. Because in most of the cases, wives… have been advised by their solicitors that one of the four reasons for which a wife can get a divorce is rape, so they are encouraged to say things like this.”


Asked how men found to have raped their wives were to be punished, he said: “He may be disciplined, and he may be made to ask forgiveness. That should be enough.”
(Deccan Herald 10/14/10)

 

North American and European Clerics have decided that marital rape is not rape because there is no such thing as rape in a marriage. My fellow Oklahomans and Americans these Islamic Clerics are representative of what Muslim apologists would deem the leaders of Moderate Islam in the West:

 

Islamic Cleric residing in the UK – Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed – representing Britain’s Islamic Sharia Council:

 

Clearly there cannot be any “rape” within the marriage. Maybe “aggression”, maybe “indecent activity.”


In Islamic sharia, rape is adultery by force. So long as the woman is his wife, it cannot be termed as rape.

 

Sayeed asserts the Islamic Sharia Council bona fides:

 

No other sharia council can claim they are so diverse as ours because other sharia councils, they are following one school of fiqh [Islamic jurisprudence]. Ours is diverse –we are hanafi, shafi’i, hanbali.we have Bangladeshi…we have Pakistani, we have Indian, we have Palestinian, we have Somali scholars on our board.

 

The point being made by Sayeed is that the Islamic Sharia Council ruling does not represent Radical Islam (aka Salafi, Wahhabi and/or Deobandi). Rather the Islamic Schools of thought are diverse and therefore is representative of mainstream (Moderate) Islam.

 

The representative of Moderate Islam in North America made sure that their moderate brethren in Europe were superior to North American Moderate Muslims. The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America also assert that there is no such thing as marital rape by the mere virtue of Allah establishing the superiority males over females; hence husbands over wives. It is the duty of a wife to provide sex at any time the male requires it; thus there is no rape in Islam:

 

In the name of Allah, all praise is for Allah, and may peace and blessing be upon the Messenger of Allah and his family. To proceed:

For a wife to abandon the bed of her husband without excuse is haram [forbidden]. It is one of the major sins and the angels curse her until the morning as we have been informed by the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). She is considered nashiz (rebellious) under these circumstances. As for the issue of forcing a wife to have sex, if she refuses, this would not be called rape, even though it goes against natural instincts and destroys love and mercy, and there is a great sin upon the wife who refuses; and Allah Almighty is more exalted and more knowledgeable. (Emphasis is mine, ibid.)

 

Marital rape is just one of a multitude of Islamic permitted violence encoded in theo-political Islam. You would think in America that jurisprudence would be wise enough to recognize that the political intrinsic nature of Islam is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and the evolving validity of human civil rights which are distributed equally to both male and female genders in the United States. Oklahoma’s SQ 755 passed by over 70% of Oklahoma voters who recognized that Sharia Law CANNOT allow its tentacles of repression to begin wrapping itself within the American rule of law as many European nations have allowed to happen.

 

If you think that a Judge in America would not fall for Sharia Law being utilized as a precedent in American criminal or civil law need to examine a recent ruling by a New Jersey Judge:

 

Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex

 

Muhammad said: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari 4.54.460).

 

He also said: “By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle” (Ibn Majah 1854).

 

And now a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife — not because he didn’t do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: “This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he 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 and it was something that was not prohibited.”

 

Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court has not been allowed to stand. This time. (Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch 7/24/10)

 

Since the political aspects of Islam as encoded in Sharia Law are as intrinsic as Islam’s theological worship, it is not surprising that Oklahoma’s chapter of CAIR has filed a law suit against the State of Oklahoma. SQ 755 thus is indeed a restriction of the religious practice of Islam because Oklahoma Law now has made it the rule of law that the medieval barbarism of Sharia cannot be accepted as legal precedence in Oklahoma State Courts. BUT I say if any religion’s intrinsic faith is to overturn the Rights of U.S. Constitution, that religion’s political aspects should be made illegal to uphold the Constitution. The irony is CAIR Oklahoma will attempt to shoot down SQ 755 by using the very Constitution that Sharia Law abrogates.

 

Check out this email sent by ACT for America bringing public notification of CAIR’s intentions against the U.S. Constitution.

 

JRH 11/7/10

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

CAIR sues Oklahoma sharia ban

 

Sent by: ACT for America

Sent: 11/5/2010 1:21 PM

 

CAIR’s real agenda revealed:

 

Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an should be the highest authority in America.”

Omar Ahmad, CAIR co-founder, quoted in the San Ramon Valley Herald,
July 4, 1998

 

As the National Journal story reports below, the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) has filed suit to block implementation of State Question 755, known as the “Save Our State” amendment.

 

SQ 755 prohibits Oklahoma courts from using sharia law when judging cases. The amendment was overwhelmingly approved by Oklahoma voters, garnering over 70% support.

 

ACT! for America played a key role in educating the voters about SQ 755, including two weeks of statewide radio advertising, 600,000 automated phone calls with a message recorded by former CIA director James Woolsey, editorials and letters to the editor, and radio interviews.

Prior to the vote CAIR’s Oklahoma director had argued SQ 755 was unnecessary because there was no chance sharia was coming to Oklahoma.

 

The CAIR lawsuit now confirms what CAIR leaders have said in the past—CAIR’s real agenda is the importation of sharia law to America.

Consider Omar Ahmad’s quote above. What is he actually saying? That sharia law should govern America.

Consider this 1993 quote from Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s current communications director, who told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

 

What is Hooper saying? That sharia law should govern America.

 

Not surprisingly, in recent years CAIR has been quiet about this agenda, but now that agenda has been smoked out by SQ 755, a measure which is not discriminatory nor inhibits the practice of religious Islam, but protects non-Muslims and Muslims alike from the tyranny of sharia law.

++++++++++++++++++++

Muslim Group Sues Oklahoma Over Sharia Amendment

 

By Althea Fung

November 5, 2010 | 8:06 a.m.

 

A Muslim advocacy group is suing to stop a measure approved by Oklahoma voters on Tuesday that would ban judges in the state from considering Islamic law in court proceedings.

 

About 70 percent of voters approved State Question 755, which says “the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law.”

 

Muneer Awad, director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’s Oklahoma chapter, filed the suit in U.S. District Court to block officials from certifying the measure. Awad told the Wall Street Journal the measure violates the First Amendment right to practice religion without government intervention.

 

CAIR legal adviser Gadeir Abbas said SQ755 was “designed to stigmatize Muslims, to turn the Constitution of Oklahoma into a vehicle for oppressing a minority that is currently unpopular.”

 

The “Save Our State Amendment” was proposed by Republican state Sen. Anthony Sykes, who said the amendment isn’t about persecuting Muslims but keeping the Oklahoma judiciary system from “sliding down a slippery slope.”

Former CIA Director Jim Woolsey, who worked to get the amendment passed, said on Fox and Friends this morning that it’s about not allowing criminals to use religious code to circumvent the system when they’re “prosecuted for beating or assaulting their wives or daughters.”

 

“What we really need to do is make sure people can’t void the impact of criminal law by citing their religious beliefs,” he said.

 

In New Jersey, a judge declined to place a restraining order on a Moroccan man who forced his wife to have sex. The ruling was later overturned.

 

A hearing is set for Monday.
_____________________________

Oklahoma Sued for Anti-Sharia Law

John R. Houk

© November 7, 2010

_____________________________

CAIR sues Oklahoma sharia ban

 

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.