CAIR Targets Constitutional Rights in North Carolina

download (26)By Christopher Holton:

Recently the North Carolina legislature passed American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation with broad bipartisan support.

The purpose of ALAC is to protect individual, fundamental constitutional rights in cases involving foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines. Among those fundamental constitutional rights are freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, due process and equal protection under the law.

One of the primary opponents of ALAC legislation is the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which seeks to supplant US constitutional rights and norms by accommodating foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, such as Shariah.

CAIR has targeted North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory with a nationwide e-mail and telephone blitz in an attempt to intimidate him into vetoing the ALAC legislation that both the North Carolina House and Senate approved with overwhelming, bipartisan majorities:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/07/28/cair-hits-nc-governor-with-email-blitz-to-veto-anti-sharia-bill-80548

As the article linked above explains, promoting Shariah in the US is one of CAIR’s top agenda items. In March 2012, the organization published a tool-kit for promoting Shariah for community organizers across America.

CAIR has attempted to create many misconceptions about ALAC legislation which require correction and clarification.

For instance, CAIR suggests that the purpose of ALAC legislation is to target religious practices. This accusation is baseless.

Anyone who actually takes the time to read the legislation can readily see this. The purpose of ALAC is explicitly spelled out: American Laws for American Courts is designed to protect individual, fundamental constitutional rights against the application of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, when the application of a foreign law or foreign legal doctrine would violate any of the parties’ fundamental constitutional rights—including freedom of religion.

In fact, the model ALAC language clearly states that it shall not interfere with ecclesiastical matters or be construed to violate anyone’s religious practice.

Moreover, CAIR’s supposition that ALAC is “unconstitutional” is laughable at best. ALAC has been in force in Tennessee and Louisiana since 2010, Arizona since 2011 and Kansas since May of 2012 and it has never been challenged. That’s because there is simply no legal basis for the embarrassingly contradictory theory that protecting individual fundamental constitutional rights is somehow unconstitutional.

America has an established tradition of allowing people of faith to make agreements and resolve disputes within the parameters of their religion, as long as any resulting contract complies with the US constitution. That is exactly what ALAC is designed to do—as is explicitly stated in the legislation.

CAIR documents have dishonestly portrayed ALAC. For instance, a letter sent by CAIR to the Oklahoma legislature in the spring of 2013 referred to the American Bar Association as being opposed to “such legislation.” This is an important point because it is not true. If you actually examine the American Bar Association literature on this, they were not referring to American Laws for American Courts legislation. In fact, the resolution they passed did not oppose American Laws for American Courts legislation.

CAIR has also created a phantom argument to scare state elected officials into thinking that standing up for individual, fundamental constitutional rights will somehow negatively impact the business community of a state or inhibit commerce in some way. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Not only does ALAC expressly apply to individuals, not businesses, but there has been no negative impact on business or commerce in any of the several states that have passed ALAC since 2010.

The reality of ALAC legislation can be summed up in three points:

1. American Laws for American Courts does not target a religion or religious community.

2. American Laws for American Courts is not explicitly aimed at Shariah.

3. American Laws for American Courts is targeted at safeguarding individual, fundamental constitutional rights and does not impact business or commerce in any way, shape or form. It has had no impact whatsoever on the business or commerce of the several states in which it has already passed.

Since we have taken the time to address the issues CAIR has raised with regard to ALAC, now we will take the time to address the myriad concerns thousands of freedom-loving Americans have about CAIR itself. These concerns are especially relevant given CAIR’s opposition to protecting the individual, fundamental constitutional rights of Americans:

Read the rest at Center for Security Policy

The Sharia Threat to America

By Fred Grandy

There is a great deal of misinformation circulating with regard to sharia and  the threat it poses to America and Western Civilization.

Some  misinformed observers and members of the Muslim Brotherhood liken concerns over  sharia to prejudice and bigotry, but the facts say otherwise.

sTerrorism  experts in the law enforcement, military and intelligence communities have cited  sharia as the Jihadists’ enemy threat doctrine in an intensive study called Shariah:  The Threat to America,” a scholarly, 352-page book based on  authoritative sources of sharia, or Islamic law. While sharia does include  “prayer and fasting” and “worship,” sharia is also an all-encompassing legal and  political code that covers aspects of life that have nothing to do with  religion.

Perhaps  most importantly, unlike other forms of religious law, such as canon law and  Jewish law, sharia is the only form of religious law extant that is also meant  to apply to people of other faiths, i.e. non-Muslims.

The  threat from sharia has nothing to do with prejudice or bigotry. The threat from  sharia is real and multifaceted.

Some  claim that sharia is no threat to the American legal system, but research shows  such a threat does exist. Just as sharia has gradually become embedded in the  legal systems of many European nations over the past generation, it is beginning  to be found in US court cases. An initial study by the Center for Security  Policy entitled Shariah  Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court  Cases,” examined 50 cases from 23 states that involved conflicts  between sharia and American state law. The study’s findings suggest that sharia  has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and  state public policy.

This  incursion of sharia into US court systems usually manifests itself in the form  of foreign law from nations such as Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan,  Libya, Syria and other predominantly Islamic nations.  As a result, four  states, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona and Kansas, have passed into law “American  Laws for American Courts,” legislation. Several more states are considering  American Laws for American Courts. Unlike Oklahoma’s infamous constitutional  amendment, American Laws for American Courts does not ban sharia. American Laws  for American Courts protects individual, fundamental constitutional rights by  preventing courts from applying foreign law when the application of that foreign  law in the case at hand would result in the violation of a fundamental  constitutional right, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, due  process and equal protection.

Among  the organizations that are clouding the issue on sharia is the Saudi-backed  Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

ISNA  was named as an unindicted co-conspirator and revealed to be a Muslim  Brotherhood affiliate in the US v. Holy Land Foundation, the largest terrorism  financing prosecution in American history.

ISNA  was co-founded in 1981 by Sami Al-Arian, a man who is now in federal prison  after having been convicted on terrorism charges as a member of Palestinian  Islamic Jihad.

Read more at American Thinker