Oklahoma Prepared for SQ755 Unconstitutional Judicial Ruling

Flag Waving - ALAC

John R. Houk

© August 22, 2013


Federal Court Judge suspended Oklahoma’s SQ755 which was approved overwhelmingly to prevent Sharia Law from being recognized as any kind of law of the land in the State. U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange officially ruled SQ755 unconstitutional (This source link is a tongue-in-cheek article about separation of Mosque and State) on August 15, 2013.




Because organization like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have pretended (You can read about CAIR skullduggery at the watchdog website Anti-CAIR) to be a moderate Muslim organization and vehemently have protested that Islam’s First Amendment Rights of Religious Liberty was being singled out by a government legislature. Indeed an understanding as presented by a CAIR-like organization would be correct since the First Amendment specifies that Congress shall make no law establishing or curbing the actions of a religion.


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. (Bold Emphasis Mine1st Amendment)


Unfortunately for CAIR-like organizations the Oklahoma Congress thought ahead of the Judge’s ruling and joined a growing number States using the template of American Laws for American Courts (ALAC). ALAC goes around the religious standard that Radical Muslim groups in the USA have been decrying by focusing on one principle; i.e. the State Congresses or legislatures have centered their law that foreign laws may not be used as a precedent in American Courts. Guess what Sharia Law is? Sharia and the U.S. Constitution are not compatible in execution hence the foreign nature of Sharia as used in Muslim nations CANNOT be used as a legal precedent in State Courts. And keep in mind some State Courts have ruled according to the stipulations of Islamic Sharia when it comes to civil matters and marriage. That will not happen in Oklahoma where I reside. 


Oklahoma has passed their version of an ALAC that a huge majority in both Houses of the State legislature approved of and then promptly signed by Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin.


The bill signed into law by Governor Fallin passed the House of Representatives by an 85-7 margin and in the Senate by a 40-3 margin. (American Law for American Courts Enacted in Oklahoma Moves Ahead in Florida; By Jerry Gordon; WatchDogWire.com; 4/20/13 – Read the Whole Article)


From an article by Rebekah Maxwell (link above) Sharia is messed up when compared to American Law:


In her book, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, former Muslim Nonie Darwish outlines the incongruities of Sharia law and American law, including:


1.     Death penalties for anyone leaving Islam


2.    Death penalties for adultery


3.    Death penalties for homosexuality


4.    Special taxes imposed on non-Muslims


5.    Institutionalized inequality; Muslims are respected over non-Muslims, as are men over women, the wealthy over the working class.


6.    Allowance for slavery


7.    Allowance for polygamy


8.    No minimum age for marriage


9.    Harsh penalties, like flogging, dismemberment, and beheading, for speaking against Islam and specifically Mohammed.


And just for the ladies,


1.     Your testimony is only worth half that of a man’s


2.    It’s not rape without four male witnesses. Otherwise it’s adultery. See #2 above.


3.    High burdens of proof for divorce (while husbands merely have to speak a phrase)


4.    Forced marriages


5.    No protection against domestic violence


6.    Losing custody of your children if you remarry


7.    Strict clothing/modesty laws…you can be imprisoned for forgoing a veil or showing your ankles



According to the email from American Public Policy Alliance Governor Fallin signed the bill into law on April 22, 2013. So take that Muslim Brotherhood loving and Radical Muslim CAIR and U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange. OK-LA-H-O-M-A is not bowing to foreign laws including Sharia if they contradict the State and Federal Constitution.


JRH 8/22/13

Please Support NCCR


Oklahoma: American Laws for American Courts protects constitutional rights against foreign laws


By Stephen Gele

Sent: August 19, 2013 2:28 PM

Sent From: American Public Policy Alliance



For more information contact:

Stephen M. Gelé, American Public Policy Alliance




Oklahoma: American Laws for American Courts protects constitutional rights against foreign laws


On Thursday, 15 August, US District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange struck down an Oklahoma state constitutional amendment (known as SQ755) that forbade Oklahoma’s courts from considering Islamic law (Shariah) in judicial decisions.


SQ755 had overwhelmingly passed a vote of the people in Oklahoma in November 2010.


This decision was not a surprise and echoed an earlier ruling by the Tenth US Circuit Court of Appeals back in 2010. As detailed in this article, SQ755 contained several flaws which rendered it counterproductive:




Fortunately, there is an effective and constitutional alternative to measures such as SQ755 and Oklahoma joined a host of other states this spring in passing it into law. That law is called American Laws for American Courts (ALAC).


Authored by Representative Sally Kern and Senator Gary Stanislawski of Oklahoma, ALAC passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives 85-7 and the Oklahoma Senate 40-3. The bill was signed into law by Governor Mary Fallin on 22 April, 2013.


Versions of ALAC have now been signed into law in Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona, Kansas, and Oklahoma. A version of ALAC passed the Alabama legislature overwhelmingly as a constitutional amendment and goes to a vote of the people on the ballot in the next statewide election. A version of ALAC also passed both houses of the Missouri legislature but was vetoed by the governor; an override session is scheduled for September. Most recently, a version of ALAC passed the North Carolina Senate and House by a wide, bi-partisan margin and is awaiting the governor’s signature there.


ALAC remedies the flaws in Oklahoma’s SQ 755, and in many ways takes a diametrically opposite approach to SQ 755:


• ALAC is facially neutral.  In an honest debate, it cannot be accused of discriminating against any religion or protected class.


• ALAC is based on a completely different legal premise from SQ 755’s. Rather than seeking a ban on foreign or international law, ALAC seeks to preserve the constitutional rights and state public policy protections of American citizens and legal residents, in cases involving foreign laws in the particular dispute being adjudicated.  If a case arises in which a foreign law or foreign legal doctrine is involved in a dispute in a state court, ALAC prevents the use of that foreign law or foreign legal doctrine if any of the parties’ fundamental constitutional rights or state public policy would be violated in the process.  This is very different from a blanket ban on foreign laws.


• ALAC is not vague.  It provides specific guidance for judges on complex legal issues involving comity, choice of law, choice of forum, conflict of laws and forum non conveniens, protecting fundamental constitutional rights.


Because of the careful planning and thought behind ALAC’s wording, in contrast to SQ 755, from a practical standpoint, it is effective in preventing the enforcement of any foreign law — including in many cases, shariah law — that would violate U.S. and state constitutional liberties or state public policy.


And the need for an effective law preserving constitutional rights against the enforcement of unconstitutional foreign law is both real and urgent: an independent study conducted by the Center for Security Policy found fifty cases in 23 states where shariah law had been introduced into state court cases, including many appellate and trial court cases where the judges ruled for shariah law over U.S. law.  Most victims of foreign laws in these cases had come to America for freedom and individual liberty – including American Muslims seeking to escape shariah laws.


Oklahoma Prepared for SQ755 Unconstitutional Judicial Ruling

John R. Houk

© August 22, 2013


Oklahoma: American Laws for American Courts protects constitutional rights against foreign laws


The American Public Policy Alliance (APPA), a non-partisan advocacy organization dedicated to government transparency, government accountability and the constitutionality of U.S. and state laws and policies, is working with legislators nationwide on policies and initiatives. Along with allied organizations, APPA is working to defend free speech, preserve and promote human rights, maintain the strength of our U.S. and state constitutions, and aid and promote public safety.


One of the greatest threats to American values and liberties today comes from foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines which have been influencing our legal system at the municipal, state and federal levels. This phenomenon is known as “transnationalism” and includes the increasingly frequent appearance of Islamic Shariah law. APPA focuses largely on combating this process across a broad variety of issues.

For more information visit


Did CAIR Help Our Cause?

Vicki Miles-LaGrange Fed Judge

It is not really getting the press time it deserves yet it should. What is the “it”? CAIR OK filed suit to a Federal Judge to prevent Oklahoma’s State Question 755 approved by over 70% of Oklahoma’s wise voters from becoming an applicable law as an Amendment to the Oklahoma State Constitution. SQ 755 has been called an anti-Sharia law; however it would apply to prevent any foreign judicial decision from being used as a precedent in Oklahoma State Courts which includes the theopolitical religion of Islam’s Shariah Law.


ACT for America believes the CAIR OK law suit may be a blessing in disguise. The reason being CAIR OK found a Federal Judge to place a stay on instituting SQ 755 into the fabric of the rule of law in Oklahoma. The perceived blessing is the prediction that the Federal Judge’s stay of SQ 755 will take the matter of Sharia Law all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. That process will make a national examination of the merits and short comings of Sharia Law compared to the U.S. Constitution. This means regardless of how SCOTUS rules, a Congressional Amendment to the Federal Amendment quite possibly get off the ground with the same kind of support that 70% of Oklahoma’s voters demonstrated on November 2, 2010.


JRH 11/13/10


Did CAIR Help Our Cause?

Lawsuit against Oklahoma shariah ban will expose America to CAIR’s real agenda and the oppressive nature of shariah law


Sent by: ACT for America

Sent: 11/12/2010 8:58 AM


Last week, after the Oklahoma affiliate of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) sued to block the Oklahoma amendment that passed with 70% support, we sent out a national email asserting that this lawsuit reveals CAIR’s real agenda—the advance of shariah law.

Investigative journalist and author Paul Sperry, co-author of the expose’ on CAIR entitled Muslim Mafia, recently posted an Investors Business Daily commentary (below, highlights added) that sheds more light on this.


Just as the Ground Zero Mosque controversy became a vehicle for a national discussion about Imam Rauf’s advocacy of shariah law, so will CAIR’s lawsuit. What’s more, the American people will get to see that current and former leaders of CAIR want Islamic law (shariah) to rule America.


We are not going to try to predict what judges will decide on this lawsuit as it works its way through the courts. But we do agree with Sperry’s comment below, regarding a national debate about shariah law: “This is not a debate CAIR wants to have.”


But we do.


Thank you, CAIR.




Shining A Light On Shariah Creep

Posted 07:14 PM ET November 10, 2010

Islamofascism: The Council on American-Islamic Relations may wish it never sued to overturn an Oklahoma ban on Shariah law. Now the entire nation will get to see it and other Islamists’ true anti-American colors.


CAIR is thumping its chest over persuading a Clinton-appointed federal judge to temporarily block Oklahoma from enacting a state constitutional amendment that prohibits state courts from considering Islamic law when deciding cases. Fully 70% of Oklahoma voters passed the landmark measure.


But CAIR has ignited a legal firestorm that will likely rage all the way to the Supreme Court. Thanks to CAIR’s latest bit of lawfare, Americans will get to hear a long overdue debate not just about the constitutionality of such bans on Shariah law but about the constitutionality of Shariah law itself.


This is not a debate CAIR wants to have, since it ultimately will have to defend the indefensible. It claims in a press release that Shariah law is “a dynamic legal framework” derived from Islamic scripture “and analytical reasoning.” In fact, there’s nothing reasoned about it. It’s a medieval legal code that administers cruel and unusual punishments such as stonings, amputations and honor killings. Think the Taliban.

Shariah can be seen in action this week with Pakistan’s death sentence on a Christian woman for blasphemy. Between 1986 and 2009, at least 974 people have been charged for defiling the Quran or insulting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.


CAIR, which thinks free speech is a one-way street, is working with the Organization of the Islamic Conference on an international blasphemy law that would criminalize “Islamophobia,” according to the book, “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”


Shariah also permits wife-beating, something CAIR also knows about. Its sister organization, the Islamic Society of North America, condones it in its fatwas (or religious rulings) for Muslim Americans. More, CAIR distributes a book, “The Meaning of the Holy Quran,” which authorizes men to hit their wives.


CAIR says it’s just a “civil rights advocacy group.” But the Justice Department says it’s a front group for Hamas and its parent, the radical Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement that has a secret plan to impose Shariah law on the U.S.


“From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg in a recent court filing.


U.S. prosecutors in 2007 named CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal scheme led by the Holy Land Foundation to funnel millions to Hamas suicide bombers and their families.


“CAIR has been identified by the government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization, a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Jacks, who recently won an award from Attorney General Eric Holder for convicting the Holy Land terrorists.


Federal courts found “ample evidence” linking CAIR to the conspiracy and are expected to unseal the dossier in coming weeks.


The Holy Land revelations prompted the FBI to sever ties with CAIR until it can demonstrate it’s not a terror front. “Until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and Hamas, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner,” advised Assistant FBI Director Richard Powers in a 2009 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.


CAIR’s leaders don’t want a ban on Shariah law, because they have a secret agenda to institutionalize Shariah law in America.


“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,” CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper let it slip out to a Minneapolis Star-Tribune reporter in 1993, before CAIR was formed.


CAIR’s founding chairman, Omar Ahmad, wants Shariah law to replace the Constitution. “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,” he told a Muslim audience in Fremont, Calif., in 1998. “The Quran should be the highest authority in America.”


CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad is an Islamic supremacist who thinks Muslims should run Washington: “Who better can lead America than Muslims?”


Islamizing America also happens to be the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood the radical, Cairo-based outlaw group the government says CAIR is fronting for. The founding archives of its U.S. branch, seized in an FBI raid and introduced as evidence in the Holy Land trial, reveal a “strategic goal” of “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house … so that Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” The Brotherhood calls its plan a “grand jihad.” CAIR argues in its suit that “the Shariah ban’s purpose is to stigmatize, denigrate and segregate plaintiff’s faith in the public’s mind as something foreign and to be feared.”


No, the goal is to make sure no Oklahoma judge considers Shariah law in rulings on domestic violence, family law, probate, free speech, contracts and other matters, as judges have in other states, to a wider degree in Canada and now on a routine basis in Britain. The ban is to prevent courts from legitimizing a religious legal system antithetical to the U.S. Constitution in the areas of freedom of speech, equality and humane punishment, among other bedrock Western principles.


Thanks to CAIR’s lawsuit, all this can now be aired out for the public.


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.