Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Islamic Ambulance Chasers

I sent the following as an open letter of protest to U.S. District Court, Chief Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange, Oklahoma City, in response to the news that she had blocked an amendment to Oklahoma’s constitution that would prohibit state and local judges from factoring Sharia and international law into their decisions.

The Associated Press reported:

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Monday to block a new amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that would prohibit state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases.

Why? Is not the judge sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, as well as that of the state of Oklahoma? Well, she doesn’t think so, and neither does Muneer Awad. Who?
"My constitutional rights are being violated through the condemnation of my faith," said Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. “Islam was the target of this amendment. This amendment does not have a secular purpose."

Wrong. It does have a secular purpose: to stop Islamic religious Sharia law from insinuating itself into American secular law. And wouldn’t you know it? A bill for amendment was introduced into the Oklahoma state legislature, passed, and approved by the voting electorate by 70%. Whether you call that “democracy at work,” or the proper procedure of a rights-protecting republic, the shills for Sharia object very much to self-governance. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) jumped on it immediately, waving the unsheathed sword of lawsuits.

During a radio interview on WABC on November 7th, Awad, who graduated from law school, claimed that

… Shariah is compliant with both American values and its Constitution, since the Islamic law is "dynamic" in that it changes based on circumstances, including governing law of lands where implemented.

There’s a serving of Taqiyya Supreme for you. Sharia is not “compliant” with American values and the Constitution. The Constitution was designed to protect individual rights; Sharia does not recognize individual rights, neither its religious nor its political side. In any event, the Koran regards all other man-made governments as “abominations” to be eliminated.

And I wonder how Mr. Awad can reconcile his statement with that of Omar M. Ahmad, chairman of the board of CAIR, who said to Muslims in 1998:
"If you choose to live here (in America) . . . you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam," he said. “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,” he said. “The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

Awad, among other claims, asserts that the law “stigmatizes” Muslims. Wrong. The fact that the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks in this country and around the world, are committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, stigmatizes them. And the primitive, brutal, Dark Age legal and moral code that comprises Sharia law stigmatizes Sharia, as well.

Why was this amendment passed by the state legislature and put up for referendum?

The measure's author, Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs, attended the brief court hearing and said afterward he was surprised by Miles-Lagrange's decision.

"It thwarts the will of the people," said Duncan, an attorney who was elected district attorney in the northern Oklahoma counties of Osage and Pawnee in the general election.

Duncan has said the constitutional amendment was not intended as an attack on Muslims but an effort to prevent activist judges from relying on international law or Islamic law when ruling on legal cases.

That is an eminently clear reason for approving the amendment. But, “activist” judges? Is Judge LaGrange an “activist” judge? Has Duncan any grounds for making that stigmatizing allegation?

It turns out that Vicki Miles-LaGrange, a former state senator, was appointed in 1994 to the federal bench in Oklahoma, Western District, by President Bill Clinton, and has sat as chief judge there since 2008. It is interesting, also, that among the 367 judges nominated by him and still active in the federal system during his administration, he also elevated Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2008. She was subsequently nominated and elevated to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama. Another “activist,” former Harvard Law School dean and Solicitor General Elena Kagan, since elevated to the high scourt, is Obama’s own creature. Would liberal/left/collectivist presidents nominate any judge to a high court whose political affinities and agendas did not mesh with their own?

My letter follows:

9 November 2010

Vicki Miles-LaGrange, Chief Judge
U.S. Courthouse
200 N.W. Fourth St.
Room 3301 (Third Floor)
Oklahoma City, OK 73102

Courtroom 301 (Third Floor)
Chambers Telephone: 405-609-5400
Chambers Fax: 405-609-5413

Dear Judge LaGrange:

Re your very recent decision to suspend voter certification of the referendum to bar the introduction of Sharia law into American jurisprudence.

Here are some perorations for you, from a major Horse's Mouth, about Sharia law:

"Those who know nothing about Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those people are witless. Islam says: 'Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!' Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by the infidel? Islam says: 'Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter them.'

"Islam says: 'Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword.' The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."

The Horse? Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. But, don't take his word for it. Consult the Koran.

Sharia law would forbid you, a female, from being a judge, or having any kind of education or career goal beyond knitting, cooking, and child-bearing. Sharia would insist that you wear a burqa or niqab, or some other garb in public that would hide and denigrate your sex. Sharia would permit your husband to beat you and otherwise abuse you in all sorts of inhuman ways, and you would have no recourse to objective, rights-protecting law, because his actions would be motivated by the beast’s “religious beliefs.” Sharia would, if your eye ever roamed and fixed upon another man, permit the "community" to stone you to death. The advocates of Sharia wish to first, insinuate Sharia law into American jurisprudence, as they have in British law, then pursue the main goal of supplanting it with Sharia. Founders and current executives of CAIR, Mr. Awad’s mother organization, have said so repeatedly in public.

Your “honor”? Forgive me for neglecting to mention the “honor” killings of women and girls for straying from Islamic ways. “Your honor” would take on a completely different meaning, no? All this and much more would be permitted in your own country.

This is what you're sanctioning by blocking the Oklahoma law. Or are you a bean-counting judge, able to see concrete things, but not the total picture? Are you an anti-conceptual mentality, unable to project consequences from causes? Either way, you have demonstrated by this act that you are as much a danger to America as any suicide bomber, and ought to be disqualified or cited by the American Bar Association, if there is any reason left in that organization.

This advisory has been sent as an open letter to leading Oklahoma newspapers.

Regards,

Edward Cline
(Address withheld for security reasons)

1 comment:

Damien said...

Edward Cline,

You could also send this to the guys at Americans United For the Separation of Church and State, and the ACLU.

Americans United For the Separation of Church and State, (A group I usually support) seems to think this is all about religious bigotry, on behalf of its supporters.

Sharia Charade: Oklahoma Ballot Measure Reflects Religious Intolerance

While I'm not sure exactly why the ACLU opposes it, its probably for a similar reason. Someone should tell those people not to listen to groups like CAIR. They are not what they claim to be. Americans United For the Separation of Church in particular, should be anti CAIR. Imagine if people who were part of the most extreme elements of the religions right were somehow able to masquerade as a civil rights group for Christians and get everything they wanted that way.