Along with Arizona, Oklahoma has been at the forefront of protecting citizens from the predations of foreign moochers and criminals. In 2007, Oklahoma passed HB 1804, which prevented illegal aliens from receiving state benefits and authorized police to check for immigration status while enforcing other laws.
In recent weeks, the Oklahoma legislature has become even more pro-active, seeking to put a sharia-prevention initiative before the voters. Apparently some wise legislators have observed the rapid ingress of hostile Islam into European society with alarm. For example, Islamic sharia courts have been operating in Britain for several years, and the Archbishop of Canterbury thought that â€?constructive accommodationâ€? with Islamic legal traditions would be a fine multicultural thing.
No one thought decades ago that Muslim immigrants would bring a completely separate society with them, rejecting the Western culture that created the freedoms they enjoy. Muslim immigration is incompatible with our values, and Oklahomans want to benefit from Europeâ€™s mistake by sending a clear signal that they are not interested in submission.
As the late Enoch Powell remarked, â€?The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.â€?
Oklahoma Lawmakers Seek Voter Backing to Ban Shariah From Courts, Fox News, June 15, 2010And if you still think that worrying about sharia law in America is silly, consider this: The current nominee for the Supreme Court did not object to $20 million from Saudi Arabia in 2005 to establish a center for the study of sharia at Harvard:
Oklahoma lawmakers are asking voters to weigh in on a proposal that would ban local courts from considering Shariah or other international law in their rulings.
The unusual measure calling for an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution was approved in late May by the state Senate, sending the issue to voters in the fall in the form of a ballot question.
Though the questionâ€™s supporters have not pointed to any specific outbreak of Shariah, or Islamic law, being considered in the U.S. judicial system, they describe it as an encroaching threat. State Rep. Rex Duncan, author of the measure, has called the ballot question a â€?preemptive strikeâ€? against Shariah coming to his state.
Duncan said in a statement after the vote that he hopes other states will soon follow Oklahomaâ€™s lead.
â€?Judges in other states and on the federal bench have increasingly turned to citing international law in their court decisions, something I and others feel is grossly inappropriate in a sovereign state such as our own,â€? he said.
In an interview with The Edmond Sun, Duncan said the courtsâ€™ willingness in Britain to consider Shariah has become â€?a cancer upon the survivability of the U.K.â€? He said the ballot question â€?will constitute a preemptive strike against Shariah Law coming to Oklahoma.â€?
Sen. Jeff Sessions: Why Does Elena Kagan Oppose Donâ€™t Ask Donâ€™t Tell But Not Sharia Law?, Mediaite, June 16th, 2010
Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions questioned the strength of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kaganâ€™s moral principles today. Sessions argued that Kaganâ€™s opposition of military recruitment on the Harvard campus â€“ which she called a discriminatory group due to its Donâ€™t Ask, Donâ€™t Tell policy â€“ was hypocritical as she did not also protest against the creation of a new Center for Islamic Studies â€?and Sharia Law.â€?
Sessions, who spoke on Kagan as a ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, attacked Kagan for being â€?less morally principled in her approach than has been portrayed,â€? and questioned why she did not speak out in 2005 when a Saudi prince donated $20 million to the creation of a Center for Islamic Studies at Harvard. This showed a double-standard, he argued, because some Muslims follow Sharia Law literally, in which homosexuality is sometimes punishable by death.