Legal Reality Newsletter 01/15/ A. D. 2012Posted: January 15, 2012 | |
15 January A.D. 2012
There may be more to the litigation, and if so, we’ll be able to match these concepts with that “final” ruling on the matter.
The 10th Circuit’s ruling is 100% consistent with our present legal reality.
The problem with these “anti-sharia law” efforts is that they’ve been “sabotaged” from the outset. They were never intended to prevail. They were intended solely as an outlet so that the “anti” voice could be slammed into the ground, so as to allow “marketing” on the concept that might not otherwise be possible.
(In this very context, this author views the litigation regarding the “obama-nation’s health/death care” legislation to be exactly the same — an effort designed and intended to be lost so as to appease the “anti” voices among us.)
Here’s the ballotpedia page on the Oklahoma anti-sharia law effort:
Of course STATEs have 100% control over their own “laws.” Of course they do. What STATEs can’t control, in the day and age of “commerce uber alles,” is the option of “choice of law” that parties to any particular deal want to choose. Of course the STATEs control their own laws; and, of course, they cannot (yet) compel selection of “choice of law.” To compel “choice of law” is to infringe upon the “right to contract.” “Choice of law” is as much a negotiable term to any deal as quantity, color, size, shape, delivery date, FAS, FOB, and COD.
In the same breath as the assertion, thus confirmation, of this “right (not) to contract” is the assertion, and confirmation, that there is no “constitution.” Our rights come from God, not any “constitution,” anyway. So, we don’t need a “constitution” or a “Bill of Rights” (which list doesn’t “grant” “rights” to anyone at any time for any reason, but rather enumerates “Additional Prohibitions” on the exercise of (governmental) power). It makes absolutely no sense for a free people to set up a system by which they grant all powers to “representatives” and reserve to themselves limited rights. This is what is marketed to us daily, and it turns the foundational principles on their ear. A free people set up a limited government reserving to themselves all rights.
(Does it follow, then, that where the government is “unlimited” and the people “limited,” we’re no longer talking about a “free” people?” No! What exists today didn’t exist in America before 1965, in that we’re 100% free to pick our form of “bondage.” We have two choices: bondage to the “law of man” or bondage to the Law of God. The unlimited nature of “government” in America, and around the “free” world, is the direct by-product of our exercise of our 100% commercial freedom to the favor of bondage under the (commercial) “law of man.” How did we pick that form so readily, so thoroughly, so completely? We abandoned God’s system of weights and measures and adopted the international banking cartel’s “funny money” as our medium of exchange. We still have that choice, today.)
(Technically, we’ve seen this situation before. It occurred when Rome de-based its “money.” Technically, they went to a Law of the Sea system, which change went hand-in-hand with the dissolution of the Republic into the dictatorship it became.)
Because we exist at a time where the “government” has “all power” and the people “limited rights,” the notion stated in the piece below that the “constitution” is the “last line of defense” greatly misunderstands both the problem and the solution regarding “sharia law.” The “constitution” has never existed, so it has never provided a “defense” against such things. If it had ever existed, and if it existed to this day, then, even as stated, it wouldn’t prevent the exercise of “choice of law” of “sharia law” anywhere in the land.
Why can this effort to prevent “sharia law” not work in our present reality? What we’re talking about here is what this author talks about when he describes nations not as nations but as “churches.” “Church of United States,” “church of Great Britain,” “church of France,” “church of Germany,” “church of Italy,” “church of the Israelis,” “church of Saudi Arabia,” etc.
What we, in America, are “finally” coming to, full circle, is the reality that there is no distinction between a “state” and a “church.”
What is a “state?” It’s a body politic congregated around a foundational moral code. How do we know? Because each “state” maintains a standard by which to evaluate its own laws. Why were the TEXAS statutes struck down in Roe v. Wade? Because there’s a standard by which we evaluate our own laws, and those statutes didn’t make the grade. Why is it possible for BOND in PENNSYLVANIA to challenge the “law” on which the attempted homicide charge against her is based? Because there’s a standard by which we evaluate our own laws, and this author fully expects that BOND’s challenge will prevail.
Why were people drawn and quartered? Because it “seemed right” at the time. Why does that not happen as part of state-imposed punishment, these days? Because the moral code on which the “state” operates has changed. Drawing and quartering no longer “seems right.”
Scripture sets punishment for murder as death. So, why is Manson still alive? Because, at least for a time, the moral code changed, and the death penalty in California was commuted.
What is a “church?” It’s a body politic congregated around a foundational moral code. That moral code need not be Scriptural to be a “church’s” foundation. A popular debate right now is the difference between “christianity” and “mormonism.” The mormons add to Scripture. Thus, the mormons are a different “church.” A “church” that includes the Apocrypha is a “church” different from a “church” that does not include those books. Atheists have a moral code. Atheists are their own “church.” Same with agnostics. There’s a moral code around which those people congregate. They are their own “church.”
As God demonstrated from the moment Israel was born as a nation at Mt. Sinai (spelled sih NAH ee, pronounced CY ah nie), the “church” and the “nation” are fully one in the same.
Thus, what the muslims still have that we in America have abandoned is the understanding of the reality that “church” and “state” are very much one in the same thing. Very much one in the very same thing.
Thus, citizens of United States (of America) are members of what is at least an “Anything But Christianity” church. It’s run by flamingly anti-christian bigots. Some broaden the concept and describe the matter as “Anything But Fundamentalism” of any moral code or creed. Key is that “United States (of America)” is most assuredly a “church;” it just no longer looks to the predominantly christian moral code it adopted when it learned that survival meant the abandonment of communism (“from each according to his ability; to each according to his need”), which abandonment is celebrated as Thanksgiving, which was the by-product of several things, primarily the adoption of God’s moral code, which recognizes private property.
Since “sharia law” is 100% consistent with the “Anything But Christianity” “church of United States,” who is surprised to see the development? Really. Who is surprised? For those who truly are surprised, perhaps God will use this issue as a means to introduce our present legal reality.
With these concepts in mind, this author gets a chuckle out of the article at this link:
The author of that piece blasts away at the author of Oklahoma State Question 755, calling him a religious bigot, and slamming the people of Oklahoma, indirectly, as religious bigots, by throwing the “constitution” at the lot of them.
What a Hoot! That author needs some schooling in legal reality, at the very least, and in some basics about the Gospel of the Kingdom, as well. Bottom line, it ain’t anything about any “Supremacy Clause” or “religious freedom” (e.g., “First Amendment”) that works against State Question 755.
And, on a bit more serious note, any one who thinks that the concept of the First Amendment doctrine existed originally as a means to protect or promote islam or sharia law has not the first screamin’ stinkin’ clue about the history of America. If that correlation had even theslightest competence to it, then America would be just one more dessert war zone, meaning that it would not be attractive to those trying to escape the dessert war zone of the Middle East, where the religious bigotry has produced how many centuries of continuous war?
In this context, let’s be superabundantly clear about religious bigotry. It’s the religious bigotry among the tribes and churches in the Middle East that have produced centuries upon centuries of murder and mayhem involving not only the designated combatants but also those who were not. It’s religious bigotry that “allows” muslim tribes to massacre “christian” peoples found within the borders of nations that adopt “sharia law” as the law of that system. So, to haul off and slam the author of the legislation that raises the “hue and cry” in any STATE regarding the culturally instilled religious bigotry that justifies massacres and mayhem within the borders of those vary nations that promote the moral code on which “sharia law” is perched is to bite the hand that feeds. This author fully expects that if that author were really into his religion, he’d be over “there” instead of over “here.” So, there’s something unsuitable about that (his chosen) moral code, or else he’d be over there in the midst of the full reality of that what that moral code produces, in the form of religious bigotry that justifies that perpetual condition of war. For that author to be “here,” on “church of United States” land, exercising his God-given “right,” known around here, generally, as a First Amendment “right,” to slam those working the State Question 755 effort, and not just slam them, but to haul off and malign them all as bigots, without experiencing a genuine, real-time risk of being hauled off late at night, tortured, and killed for having, much less expressing, his perspectives on the matter, which reality is the by-product of the religious bigotry that so permeates the islam/muslim cultures where those cultures predominate, he’s shoved his head up where the light done shine (so brightly).
No, No, and a million times No. Let’s be 100% perfectly clear on this point. The “sharia law” practitioners have an escape zone called “church of Western Europe” and another escape zone called “church of United States,” because those favoring some form of christianity settled those lands and then kept the muslim/islamic hordes out. This author isn’t in a position to bless the Crusades and all that “passed muster” under that banner; not by a long shot. However, this author is absolutely, totally, and completely in a position to recognize that the Crusades, which thwarted the westward advance of that form of religious bigotry called muslim/islam, which is still manifesting itself in war to this very day where that’s the predominant moral code, made possible the existence of the escape zones to which the “sharia law” practitioners now seek as a refuge.
If Scripture instead of “tradition of man” had been adopted early on, this author expects that there’d have been a lot less religious-bigotry-turned-war in Ireland and related lands. The muslim/islam moral code is not the only one that advocates “war” as a necessary by-product of adhering to its moral code. War is a Judgment. It’s a huge clue, sent straight from God, that something major is horribly wrong, and that at the moral code level.
War, Famine, Pestilence (Disease, Plague), and “Beasts.” Where those are, God is, as God Almighty, the Judge of His creation. “The” solution is called repentance. The change that matters is that which abandons “man’s” moral codes and adopts His moral code.
No, No, and a million times No. We should never confuse the First Amendment with a promotion of all religions on the face of the planet. It was never a remote thought in the minds of the Founding Fathers to create a safe haven for “sharia law” (or atheism, or agnosticism, or wiccan, or etc.). This is why this is such a sensitive issue throughout this nation. This is why the people in STATEs such as Oklahoma, where christianity, in some form, is still part of the daily culture, are doing all they can think to do to stop the spread of muslim/islam teachings and practices in their communities.
That effort has failed, and it will continue to do so, for so long as the reasons God Judges any nation still abound. Thus, in this same breath, it must be recognized that those doctrines, including the First Amendment, do provide a more than adequate “cover story” for the commercial reality in which we find ourselves. While it’s facially nuts to say that “sharia law” must be allowed because the “Supremacy Clause” and/or the First Amendment compel it, the reality is that the “Commerce Clause” doctrine is the reason “anti-sharia law” efforts have failed and will continue to fail. All have a “right” to choose a “choice of law” for this and that and the other agreements into which one may enter. Where commercial activity is not engaged in the environment of a moral code that looks to Scripture, we get exactly what we have today. Popularly, it’s called multi-culturalism. Where perverting the “money” system doesn’t advance the self-destruction of the nation to suit the schedule of those designing that result, including a dose of multi-culturalism always does the trick. If adoption of, or at least toleration of, “foreign laws” don’t destroy the nation, then almost nothing on the planet will.
On the practical side, having studied a little bit into the mechanics of how the “sharia law” is actually implemented, this author finds that “sharia law” shows up most often in the “family court” context, and the decision-makers, in many jurisdictions, are either mediators or arbitrators knowledgeable in the ways of “sharia law.” Thus, the “sharia law” aspect is an adjunct to the normal process, even in the “family court” setting.
Thus, “sharia law” has not (yet) replaced the “commercial codes” or the “penal codes” or the like. It is noted for purposes of the “commercial codes” that “choice of law” is exactly what the commercial codes supply where the parties have not selected some other choice. Thus, built into the commercial codes is the recognition of the use by the parties to any particular agreement of their discretion when it comes to “choice of law” for that deal.
In short, then, on the one hand, the only people subject to “sharia law” are those who have first agreed to have their agreement governed by “sharia law.” And, on the other hand, since this nation stopped being a “christian” nation at least as of the time gold was no longer a lawful medium of exchange, and certainly since the time “funny money” became a “legal” medium of exchange, we should not be one bit surprised that other moral codes are rising up all over the place. Where “man” is the nation’s god, this is exactly what the nation may expect, and in spades.
In sum, the point of this author’s note is this. We do have a long-recognized right of the “right to contract.” Part of, and a key part of, any deal is the “choice of law.” One of the early discussions on “choice of law” and how we know what law applies to any particular agreement is Ogden v. Saunders. <http://supreme.justia.com/us/25/213/case.html>. In our present reality, where commerce is everything, i.e., where commerce is the moral code, then “choice of law” of the agreement must remain up to the parties to decide.
What follows is “the rest of the story.” For example, is there “reciprocity” in the “sharia law” nations for the people there to base their agreements on, say, Scripture, or, on the Common Law of Oklahoma? This author’s guess is, “Not on your life.” Not all nations recognize the “right to contract” as broadly as it is expected to be recognized in “church of United States.” This is simply another confirmation that each “church” has its own moral code.
So, if there truly is no reciprocity, as this author fully expects is the case, why is it “tolerated” in/by “church of United States?” Because “church of United States” is hell bent for leather to destroy “christianity” in all possible ways, means, and methods.
Thus, let’s look at what else is happening in this nation and see if we can come up with a really good idea as to why this is developing in this land at this time.
Regarding a very popular political angle on this, what we find at this next link is the concept that “the muslims” are doing this.
That’s utter non-sense. IF something this big is occurring, THEN the puppetmasters are doing it, and the muslims are the patsies.
Along this exact same line of thought, we have the following.
The KKK is nothing without support from “the agenda makers,” i.e., the international banking cartel, and the KKK is a patsy, a mere pawn in the game of statecraft.
The environmentalists are nothing without the support from the “agenda makers,” i.e., the international banking cartel, and the environmentalists are patsies, pawns in the game of statecraft.
The homosexual community is nothing without the support from the “agenda makers,” i.e., the international banking cartel, and the homosexual community is a patsy, a pawn in the game of statecraft.
The NOW is nothing without the support from the “agenda makers,” i.e., the international banking cartel, and NOW is a patsy, a pawn in the game of statecraft.
The “big pharma” efforts are nothing without the support from the “agenda makers,” i.e., the international banking cartel, and while “big pharma” seems to be a puppetmaster right now, the reality is that it’s a patsy, a pawn in the game of statecraft.
The “big oil” efforts are nothing without the support from the “agenda makers,” i.e., the international banking cartel, and while “big oil” seems to be a puppetmaster right now, the reality is that it’s a patsy, a pawn in the game of statecraft. Take BP, for example. It certainly appears to be a patsy regarding the “Gulf Oil Spill.” Either way, they’re the controlled, not the controllers.
The atheistic “no prayer in school” efforts are nothing without the support from the “agenda makers,” i.e., the international banking cartel, and the atheist proponents of “no prayer in school” are pasties, pawns in the game of statecraft.
The NAACP efforts are nothing without the support from the “agenda makers,” i.e., the international banking cartel, and the NAACP is just one more organized patsy, a pawn in the game of statecraft.
The ACLU is nothing without the support from the “agenda makers,” i.e., the international banking cartel, and the ACLU is just one more organized pasty, a pawn in the game of statecraft.
Pick your favorite group, whether to support or to oppose. Republicans, Democrats, Tea Party, Constitution Party, Ron Paul party, etc., etc., etc. There’s not one single, solitary “special interest group” in this nation that gets positive or negative attention that isn’t first orchestrated from “on high.” Not one. When this or that conflict suits “the agenda makers,” they cause it to occur.
There’s one thing, though, that the power brokers have no control over. They can’t stop God or God’s forgiveness. They have power at present, because we’ve adopted their moral code and rejected God’s. We adopt God’s moral code, and thereby repent, and the world will (rapidly) become a different place. It’ll be “the change you CAN believe in!”
So, in this political climate, to say that “the muslims are doing it” is to make an extremely uninformed political assertion. They are just one more group of patsies being used as a pawn in the game of statecraft being orchestrated from “on high.”
Why were/are the homespun “militia” groups the targets of federal infiltration and political/legal sabotage? Because those groups are not part of the international banking cartels’ agenda. Such groups, obviously, are a manifest hindrance to that agenda, and, therefore, must be neutralized. That neutralization effort seems to have worked.
Hold onto your hats. That neutralization may be Ok, in final analysis, because God isn’t going to set up His Kingdom at bayonet point, anyway. Thus, in this exact same context, what these internationalist types obviously still don’t recognize is that they, too, are but pawns in the development of these matters. God has them right exactly where He wants/needs them, and they will do His bidding until their purpose has been accomplished. Then, He’ll clobber them, and but good.
The concept to keep firmly in mind is that this “anti-Sharia Law” effort is just as controlled from “on high.” The “pro” side and the “con” side are “owned” by the same people, who use the appearance of conflict to promote their agenda.
Key to consider, strongly, is the value in the “moderate” recognition of “sharia law.” (Keep the powder dry, but don’t reach for the blunderbuss over the mantle just yet. They’re taught violence, but if they wanted violence, they’d stay where there’s plenty of that, rather than leaving to where the war isn’t.) When Great Britain first recognized “sharia law,” this author thought, momentarily, that what remained of judicial sanity had just left the Island. Once the shock passed through, and reflection took hold, the reality set in that judicial sanity had actually be applied to the max, as is this author’s expectations of that Court (as it is this author’s expectations of the Supreme Court on this side of The Pond). Where the initial “christian” response to muslim/islam advances was to go to war with it, the present multi-cultural response is to embrace it, at least a little bit. If the people leaving the war-destroyed areas still thought that perpetual war were a good idea, they would not be flocking away from the zone where religious bigotry still produces violence daily. In short, they’re “growing up.” God put us here as the path-blazers so that they may, at this time, may come directly into contact with the culture(s) that are not so bigoted as to have (religious) war in/on the streets every day and every night. One reality about the “catholic” church is that such system has been absorbing and pacifying pagan cultures for millennia. This author is about as protestant as it possible to be, and, even still, reality compels recognition of certain aspects of the “catholic” system and method. For muslims to abandon that moral code is to risk death, itself. To make the transition, they must first be far enough away from their own religious bigots as even to consider the differences in moral codes. Their mosques are their form of Ellis Island. These “sharia law” alternate resolution forums are their form of Ellis Island. They just don’t know any better, yet. So, it may be a few generations, and there may still be plenty of animosity to work through, but there will come a time when the mosques WILL be replaced, taken down and rebuilt, as western architecture buildings in which Scripture is taught. Allah, the name of the prophet of their moon god, will be exposed as a fraud. Just watch it happen. It’ll just take a while.
“The” Black Swan event that will matter, for this issue and all other issues, is the “national” turning to God. While the obama-nation cannot destroy God’s people or God’s Kingdom, neither can Ron Paul save them or The Kingdom. Many feel they have repented already. Where they examine into the origin of their commercial thoughts and practices, and into their religious thoughts and practices, they’re going to be hard-pressed to find that origin in Scripture.
God intends to change us. That’s what “Beast” systems are all about. Changing the hearts and the minds of the people. If our regular activities and practices were satisfactory to God, we would not be under Judgment. We’d have the Blessings. Instead, what we have are War, Famine, Pestilence (Disease, Plague) and “Beasts.” Frankly, multi-culturalism is just another form of Judgment. Where God’s people were not satisfied with manna, he gave them quail, as a Judgment, which was so abundantly consumed that the people puked on it, and then many were Judged for their rebellion of rejecting His provision. God is moving this nation to the point that nothing but God will be able to provide. Those will be (more) bad days. But, this, too, shall pass.
Those who really and truly want the spread of “sharia law” to end must first learn from God, Who is more than glad to make known His standards, what He intends for us to use as the moral code of His church/state/nation. Those on that frequency will find one another, as has already long since been the case, and from that effort will come the church that will recognize itself also as a nation that will have no problems establishing limits on “choice of law” for agreements.
“Man” wants lots of choices; hence “man” offers lots of choices.
God provides One.
Harmon L. Taylor
Subscribe / unsubscribe : email@example.com
Tenth Circuit Says Oklahomas Anti-Sharia Law Unconstitutional
CAN STATES MAKE AND UPHOLD THEIR OWN LAWS?
by Bob Russell, from Conservative Daily News, reprinted with permission
(Jan. 11, 2012) The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling by U S District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LeGrange that Oklahoma State Question 755, passed on November 2, 2010, is unconstitutional. The State Question was passed by 70% of the voters of the State of Oklahoma to ban the use of Sharia Law, International Law, or the laws of any foreign country in the state.
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed a lawsuit saying the question discriminated against Muslims in Oklahoma. In the original filing, CAIRs Oklahoma director called the bill a case of anti-Muslim bigotry.
This is an important reminder that the Constitution is the last line of defense against a rising tide of anti-Muslim bigotry in our society, and we are pleased that the appeals court recognized that fact, said Muneer Awad. We are also hopeful that this decision serves as a reminder to politicians wishing to score political points through fear-mongering and bigotry.
The 10th Circuit agreed with Judge Miles-LeGrange and upheld her ruling in an opinion released on January 10, 2012.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said that states have the right to establish their own court systems and have a say in which sets of laws are followed.
With the decision by the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a temporary stay of State Question 755, the case will return to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to determine its constitutionality, Attorney General Scott Pruitt said. My office will continue to defend the state in this matter and proceed with the merits of the case.