“Liberals fear power or its application.… They talk glibly of people lifting themselves by their own bootstraps but fail to realize that nothing can be lifted except through power…. Radicals precipitate the social crisis by action — by using power…. Liberals protest; radicals rebel. Liberals become indignant; radicals become fighting mad and go into action. Liberals do not modify their personal lives[,] and what they give to a cause is a small part of their lives; radicals give themselves to the cause. Liberals give and take oral arguments; radicals give and take the hard, dirty, bitter way of life.”

In the last 1,200 years years of Islam, just 100,000 books have been translated into Arabic, about what Spain does in a single year. Seven out of 10 Turks have never even read a book.

The original material, which contains links to the original studies referenced, is here.

The South Carolina state legislature is considering a bill that would bar foreign laws – such as Islamic sharia law – from conflicting with U.S. and state laws. Opponents of the legislation claimed that such a bill is unnecessary as sharia law would never be used in violation of American laws and argued that such a law would be unconstitutional. They are wrong on both counts.

In a previous article at The US Report, we exposed attempts to label the bill unconstitutional as obfuscation. After all, how can a bill that clearly states that it will protect “constitutionally guaranteed” rights be unconstitutional?

Senate Bill 444 reads (emphasis mine):

A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States.

It does not preclude Muslims from all sharia activities – such as praying – as the bill’s opponents want us to believe, it simply prevents sharia from overriding constitutionally-guaranteed rights when the legal systems conflict.

Now, a new study released by the Center for Security Policy, a non-partisan national security organization, finds that sharia law was in fact utilized in numerous states, including one relevant case in South Carolina. Research was limited to published trial and appellate court documents on the Google Scholar website, so there are undoubtedly many more cases involving sharia than those detailed in the study.

The bill’s opponents have repeatedly stated that sharia will never be applied when it conflicts with U.S. or state laws, but despite the limited availability of data, this study found over two dozen cases where judges decided cases based on sharia law – even when Islamic law conflicted with our laws.

In one case, a New Jersey judge refused to grant a restraining order after an Islamic man sexually and physically abused his wife, stating that this was permissible under Islam. The judge determined that his religious belief negated any criminal behavior.

A judge from Michigan enforced an Islamic summary divorce obtained by the husband, known as talaq, which violates the woman’s right to equal protection. The wife had no prior knowledge of the divorce, was not allowed a hearing, and did not have an attorney. Sharia law states that the wife is only entitled to property that was in her name, contrary to Michigan policy.

Many cases involve child custody in which judges will defer to foreign sharia courts, which side against women and non-Muslims, without considering the best interests of the child.

At the forefront of the anti-sharia bill’s opposition is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The Investigative Project on Terrorism reported on Wednesday that the IRS removed CAIR and the CAIR Foundation from the list of tax-exempt organizations as the groups did not file their annual finance reports.

As of this writing, CAIR’s website still claims that donations are tax-deductible, despite losing their IRS status two weeks ago.

It also bears mentioning that CAIR remains an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2010 Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial, where Muslim organizations conspired to send millions of U.S. dollars to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Members of CAIR’s leadership had been under investigation until the Justice Department scuttled their pending terror financing prosecutions.

Now that we can see that not only is this bill constitutional, but also that sharia is in fact applied in courtrooms across the country, nothing should stand in the way of the bill’s passage.

“The event is a rally, a call for the Sharia, a call for the Muslims to rise up and establish the Islamic state in America,” said Imam Anjem Choudary, one of the proposed speakers. The Islamic Thinker’s Society has scheduled the event for March 3 and organizers claim it will be held in front of the White House.

If the event does take place, American citizens will have the opportunity to see something that the media has largely kept hidden – that there is a segment of the American population that wants to subjugate our society under Islamic law. That is not to say that all American Muslims prefer Sharia by default – the group has to import speakers from Britain. The event itself may be appalling, but it provides Americans the perfect opportunity to learn the facts about Sharia and begin a national discussion as to whether Sharia is permissible in our society. If Americans can hear for themselves the words of those calling for an Islamic state in our country, rather than the secondhand soft-soaping we are likely to get from the New York Times or MSNBC, that will have a far greater impact.

The televised event should be accompanied by programming with an objective analysis of Sharia. This is crucial as Sharia’s advocates have a habit of telling their Muslim, Arabic-speaking audiences one thing and telling non-Muslim, English-speaking audiences another. This was clearly exposed when Anjem Choudary, the event’s main speaker, appeared on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News earlier this month, declaring that under Sharia, women who are raped or commit adultery are not stoned to death. Hannity quickly pointed out that Choudary himself said that women who commit adultery should be stoned to death. Choudary then admitted that he supported Sharia’s penal code, including stonings.

Choudary said there are “misconceptions” about Sharia, but did nothing to clear any of them up. Therefore, instead of scheduling guests who repeat the same tired talking points, we need guests who will clear up these so-called misconceptions by explaining its background, what its crimes and punishments are, and especially whether it conflicts with our Constitution. What does Islam’s foundational texts say? Are women being stoned to death in Islamic countries? Does Sharia require that all women, Muslim or not, wear the Burqa? The truth is not what Choudary says, it’s what is written and what is occurring.

Today, the focus is on the speakers and organizations. Choudary’s organization, Islam4UK, was banned in 2010 under British counterterrorism laws. Islam4UK is a spinoff of the Islamist group al Muhajiroun, which is an offshoot of Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), a group seeking to install a global Islamic caliphate. HT also seeks to destroy democracy and states that Sharia has supremacy over the Constitution in the United States. The Islamic Thinker’s Society is the U.S. counterpart of al Muhajiroun. Choudary has expressed support for Osama bin Laden, praised suicide bombers, such as the “magnificent 19” 9/11 hijackers, and has called for the execution of Pope Benedict XVII. Fellow speaker Abu Izzadeen was just released from a three-year sentence in British prison following a conviction for inciting terrorism.

While it is beneficial to know who these speakers and organizations are, we should instead be focusing on what they are advocating. If Choudary is not allowed into the country or cancels his appearance, the threat Sharia poses to American society still exists.

Choudary told Hannity that he had a “truth phobia.” The reason Sharia is still a matter of debate in this country is because our media and politicians are the ones with the truth phobia. It is time to put political correctness aside and take a hard, honest look at Sharia law. Many Americans already know much about Sharia and the threat it poses to our society, but unless we capitalize on this rally, the truth is not likely to reach those who are unaware.

The Oath of Enlistment in its current form:

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

The wording of the Oath for Commissioned Officers varies slightly, but the point is the same:

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

When I swore the oath as a baby-faced seventeen year-old, I felt as if I had been reborn. That day I became part of something much larger than myself. Instead of playing football and delivering furniture, I was now safeguarding my Constitution and way of life. It was an experience I will never forget.

Not long ago, however, I realized that there is a catch to the oath of enlistment. While talking to an old friend who had served in the Marine Corps, he asked me if I signed anything releasing me from my oath on the day I separated from the military. Thinking back, I remember signing more papers that day than everything I have signed collectively since. But I could not recall any document releasing me from my oath. It was then that I realized that I had no choice. An oath is an oath.

Once I considered the cleverly-designed trap I had fallen into, the line I had previously pondered about – “all enemies, foreign or domestic” – suddenly became clear. The Constitution isn’t meant to be supported and defended solely by the men and women wearing the uniform. And the threats don’t always come from foreign shores.

All Americans have a civic duty to support and defend the Constitution, but veterans are honor bound. Our days of grabbing a rifle and jumping out of airplanes may be behind us, but those tasks are in the capable hands of a younger generation now. The military can handle the threats overseas, but in order to do so, they require the support of patriots back home. In order to achieve victory in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we must elect politicians who will support the troops. When Congress debates legislation that erodes our liberty or security, the military needs us to voice our concerns. We must make contacting our elected officials as much a part of our day as brushing our teeth. The task may appear daunting, but it pales in comparison to the sacrifice of the millions of patriots who came before us.

The military won’t let us down, so it is up to us not to let them down.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the United States has 23.2 million military veterans. Together with 3 million active duty, reserve, or National Guard troops, we constitute nearly 9 percent of all Americans. Compared to 309 million Americans, that number may not sound staggering, but not all Americans vote. If all veterans and military members would have voted in the 2008 presidential election, veterans and military members would have accounted for one in five votes. We would have represented nearly one out of three votes in the 2006 mid-term elections, which traditionally have less turnout.

If the entire veteran community mobilized, we would form a demographic so large that no politician could afford to ignore us.

When we transitioned to the civilian world, we didn’t leave our responsibilities to this country behind, we simply traded our rifles for voting booths and telephones.

I think back to the day when I decided to join the military. The liberty and security paid for by the blood of millions of American patriots before me was such that I was willing to sacrifice my life if necessary in order to preserve it for future generations. Years later, our nation’s founding document has not lost its luster and importance to me.

The President is no longer my Commander-in-Chief. And I no longer have officers above me, nor do I fall under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. However, the most important part of the oath still does – and always will – apply. Therefore, I have reaffirmed my oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” I pray that others will do so as well.

[Originally published at Human Events]

History can be defined as the achievements and failures of mankind within their environment and within the parameters of human behavior. The truth of physical events, the motivations and results of those actions within the consequence of said actions, recorded faithfully without pride or prejudice and without emotional reaction.

I own history books recorded from 1901 to present day.  I have borrowed some from 1889 and 1802 (courtesy of Allen Kitchen and Freddy Grey over a long winter in the mountains). You would be surprised at the different stories they tell. So let’s establish this precept right here and now. The further you go back into history, the less accurate history becomes.

Allow me to illustrate it this way:

As events occur, faithful historians record it without prejudice – such as William Shirer’s recording of World War II. Books such as “NAZI Spies in America,” “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” “The Patton Papers,” the diaries of Eisenhower, Bradley, Gavin, Rommel, etc.. The historians who authored those books chronicled the truth with pictures, forensics, and eyewitnesses. They each had their perceptions of the results, but the truth was that they were horrified beyond words.

A short 65 years later, many institutions now claim that it didn’t happen that way – despite the photos, exhumed bodies, factual evidence, eyewitnesses… despite the TRUTH.

So how the hell does that happen when we should be dedicated to the truth in the United States?

How do these institutions of higher learning adopt a lie? Think about that for a minute. Why would people voluntarily abandon reason? Power perhaps? Or a personal agenda?

Maybe it’s a fact that we do not wish to acknowledge. Perhaps it is a human desire to dominate. When we do, we will wipe the slates clean from all wrong doing. It will be a lie – one we tell ourselves to justify our actions.

But that is not history.

Perhaps the reason these things are done is to invalidate the inarguable facts of the past to relive those days and hope for a different outcome. That outcome will never happen. Why? Because human nature dictates history. It is the single constant throughout the volumes of world and cultural history. The same basic drives – instinctual drives like those of the beaver he must either build or die. These are the things of history  These are the things we must face and overcome.

Has a civilization ever overcome human nature? No. History continues to repeat itself without regard to the past because we have never overcome our nature. That said, revisionist history condemns us to the same wars over and over. Wars are manifested in different places and for different reasons according to our perceptions, but it is the same motive that creates war – domination. For example, NAZI Germany blitzed Europe and within a year they dominated a continent. The history repeats itself over and over, but why?

Because history is distorted by political agenda. For example, Islam says the Holocaust never happened. Most Americans know better because our own ancestors were there. Why do we as a people start to believe that it “never happened?” Why would we believe the lies over the testimony of our own fathers and grandfathers? Because people are going to believe what is comfortable to believe. Thus, we will eventually relive what we already know has gone wrong.

When will we learn?

God Bless You,
Sandy Daniel, USN

Should they?

To those who have sworn an oath to “support and defend the Constitution,” I direct you to the Fourteenth Amendment: “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

My take on this is that the race, color, creed, religion, sexual preference, or in this case the occupation of the victim should not affect the sentencing of a criminal act. If a veteran of Vietnam or Afghanistan is murdered, they are just as dead as someone who hasn’t served, right? To me, if someone steals the photos and dog tags of a fallen hero from his widow, the punishment of theft in general is not sufficient to deter the act. After all, did the thieves break into the car because the victim was a veteran’s widow?

In my state, first responders are a “protected” category – if someone attacks me while I am working, it becomes a felony assault and battery. Why am I more equal under the law than, say a pizza delivery driver (who get mugged FAR more often than firemen)? And since I am a veteran, should that crime carry an even stiffer penalty?

I say no.

[Originally posted at Blackfive]