Think Shariah Law is not Already Here?

I wonder just what percentage of the American citizenry has not even heard of Islamic shariah law, let alone is aware that it has  already infiltrated our system of justice.

About a year ago, I responded to an online poll concerning the latter.  Ignorantly, I joined about 65% of respondents who believed that shariah law was not present in American society.  Today, I know differently.  So if you are thinking something like ‘Preposterous!  Impossible!’ – think again.

Last October (2011),  a Halloween parade participant, dressed as a ‘zombie Muhammed’ and wearing a sign declaring, “Only Muhammed can rape America!”, was assaulted by an offended Muslim man.  It is reported that the Muslim attacker grabbed the costumed man, pulled his beard, choked him from behind & spun him around in an attempt to pull off the sign.  Now, in the U.S. legal system,  the assaulted parade-goer would be considered a victim.  The attacker, as defendant, would normally be the party jailed, fined, etc… or at least reprimanded!    Somehow, in this case, we find a complete reversal.

I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this case should have been judged purely as an assault incident.  An American citizen, exercising his free speech rights, was roughly man-handled because of that.  The attacker should have been judged to be the one in the wrong.

But the judge was a Muslim.

He dismissed the charges( filed by the police officers on the scene) against the Muslim attacker.

Judge Mark Martin informed the parade-goer that he was “way outside {his} boundaries of First Amendment rights.” Really?  Really?  That doesn’t even make sense.  Free speech is free speech.  Who sets up boundaries?  Decency, kindness or tolerance may indicate the use of tact or discretion, but such a choice is voluntary.  Sure, often it may be the wise choice, but even if so, again – voluntary, not a legal mandate.  Judge Martin accused the man of using his First Amendment rights to enrage Muslims, suggested he learn more about Islam before mocking it, slammed a Quran down & allowed the attacker defendant’s lawyer to tell him to read it.  Martin announced that he himself was a Muslim and was offended by the actions of the Halloween parade-goer.  Martin also introduced into the proceedings the fact that such actions, in many Arabic-speaking countries, are against the law and punishable by death.

So?  This is America, not an Arabic-speaking country.  Why would the judge even mention that?  Such a practice does not factor into Constitutional law.

So are you seeing that this case was made to be primarily about Islam?  Not Constitutional law, but Islamic practice and shariah law.  Which have no place in an American court room.


The Judicial Conduct Board issued a ‘ letter of caution’ to this judge, as a private rebuke, and closed the case.


Since then, the victim of the attack has been bombarded with threats of all kinds, from being shot, run down or hanged to…well, enough said.  Of these threats, 471 are reported as being verifiable.



This is happening in America. This particular case occurred in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, but similar events have occurred throughout the nation.  I recently read that 53 court cases in 28 states have been tried according to shariah law.  American rights are trampled right here on our own soil, and some in our legal system allow it.  Don’t you see how insidious such patterns are?  And to what they are leading?  Nothing, at first, seems like it will really happen…then, one day, it has taken over.

Several days ago, Rep. Trent Franks (R) of Arizona, chairman of the House Constitution subcommittee, repeatedly questioned Tom Perez, the progressive who runs the Justice Department’s civil rights office, regarding their support of free speech – specifically, religious free speech.  Rep. Franks asked Mr. Perez four times if he could promise that this administration will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?”  Mr. Perez would not give a clear and simple answer.  He would not commit to protecting religious free speech.  Wonder why…..

Late last year, Perez had attended a meeting which included the leader of the Islamic Society of North America.  During that meeting, this leader called for “legal punishment of people who criticize Islamic texts that call for violence against non-Muslims and for the subordination of women to men.” Are you getting this?  Another Islamist at this meeting called for the Justice Department to “redefine religious free speech as illegal discrimination.”  It is reported that Mr. Perez said nothing in response, yet he complimented these Islamists on protesting airline security measures.  And he actually embraced the Islamic Society’s leader – that’s right, the man who wants to punish you and I for speaking out against Quranic instructions to harm us.

What’s wrong with this picture?


I usually try to look at a situation from the other’s perspective.  It helps to understand through empathy.  So, in a way, I don’t fault the upset & offended Muslim who assaulted the Muhammed-costumed man.  His core beliefs catapulted him into the fray, so to speak.  Perhaps he didn’t know we in America have no such beliefs.  It is not in our law, that we should kill the infidel! I’m not saying this Muslim should be allowed to continue such behavior, just that I can see how he would behave such a way in the first place.

And though we surely and absolutely have the right to free speech in America, I’m not so sure that I don’t agree with some of Judge Martin’s statements.  The judge issued a challenge to find anywhere in the Quran where it states that Muhammed rose from the dead, meaning, it doesn’t & he didn’t.  So ‘zombie Muhammed’ means what?  I don’t get it, myself.  And crudely ridiculing one’s beliefs, especially religious ones, helps how?  Though I am concerned about the death threats directed towards this man, I can see why Judge Martin called him a ‘doofus’ during the trial proceedings.

I could list other points of more-or-less agreement on my part, but bottom line, this issue is Constitutional.  It is a case of shariah law operating in a United States courtroom, if not overtly, then influentially.  It happened.

I repeat, it happened.

Wake up, people.



Constitutional Sovereignty…Yay or Nay?

 “The American response should be that we recognize no higher earthly authority than the Constitution, which no valid treaty can supersede or diminish.”  

 (John R. Bolton, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, concerning ‘international law’ versus Constitutional authority)



In the Hillsdale College lecture series “Introduction to the Constitution”,  Part 4,  Dr. Larry Arnn, president of the College, distinguishes between Constitutional rule and bureaucratic, centralized government rule.  Both, he points out, are at work in our nation today.  He believes the time is coming when Americans will have to make a choice.  He uses the analogy of a house divided, stating that it cannot remain so indefinitely.  I wish he were wrong, but I fear he is not.  I wonder if the majority of Americans realize that such a crisis situation is and has been developing in our country, and that a day of reckoning may be appearing on our national horizon in our lifetimes.  If many American citizens are not even aware that liberty-threatening danger exists, how will they know what path & course to choose to avert that danger, when they are asked to do so?  Or when they must do so?

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of upholding the Constitution of the United States of America.  As I am not  a student of Constitutional law, I can only assume that interpreting it must often prove to be complicated, depending on circumstances – not so black and white.  Yet, in seeking this ultimate goal of upholding the Constitution, there are no shades of gray.  To the very best of our ability, abiding by this powerful founding document is the only wise choice for those who love liberty.

Our Constitution was not something created to be pushed aside or dismissed.  According to Dr. Arnn, the very word ‘constitution’ embodies the idea of something very big being set firmly in place.  In comparison to its predecessor, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution waxed triumphant. Whereas the Articles allowed for no executive, judicial, taxing or enforcement powers to be given the central government of the new young nation, the Constitution authorized, arranged, and yet restrained these things for the common good.  Whereas the Articles rendered the government of those days so impotent that George Washington attributed the near-disaster at Valley Forge to it, and Thomas Jefferson, in a still Revolutionary 1781, lamented the future of the United States to be “going down hill” because of this weakness, the Constitution granted the government, through Congress, the right & duty to remedy such potential catastrophes. Congress was given the right to prepare for & declare war. (Article I, Sections 8.11 – 8.16)  The Articles of Confederation merely bonded the states in a “firm league of friendship with each other.”  Without some centralized authority, States could and often did disregard requests from a government that had no power.  Bickering & animosities, boundary quarrels, commerce and money issues developed between states.  Civil officials and American representatives overseas went unpaid, as well as our soldiers, who then mutinied.  State sovereignty was operating on overkill, resulting in riots, mobs, revolts, exorbitant taxation & business closures. Talk of monarchy was beginning to be heard, even among its opponents.  George Washington saw conditions “…fast verging to anarchy and confusion.”  He wrote, “I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation without having lodged somewhere a power, which will pervade the whole Union…”   (Robert G. Athearn, The American Heritage Illustrated History of the United States, Vol. 4,  p.282,283 )   Radical government restructuring was critical to the survival of the United States of America. A convention called for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation produced instead the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States of America.

And that has made all the difference.

Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States, by Howard Chandler Christy


With the exception of the Internet and technological advancement in every area, I would submit that any kind of situation or crisis that may develop today existed back in the days of America’s founding.  Essentially, people are the same. We still want and need the same things today as our forefathers and their families did back then.  Sure, travel & communications time is greatly reduced and weapons have much greater destructive capabilities, but the people who produced these commodities & inventions…still people like those who sat in the Constitutional Convention, like those who signed the Declaration of Independence.  Saints & sinners alike.  Perhaps impatient, wanting freedom and/or power, needing to eat, wanting to socialize & marry…with the potential for both good & evil…able to think and speak and act.

We, and they, can go or could’ve gone either way, towards liberty, towards love…or over to the dark side.  (Sometimes within the same hour!)  So my question is, if this Constitution of the United States of America pulled a struggling, near desperate nation out of the jaws of the lion back then, and lifted her to heights only dreamed of  & debated about by other societies in other times, why would abiding by its principles not prove just as effective and beneficial today?