The Tennessean newspaper lies, the left-progressives join hands with the Muslim Brotherhood sharia advocates and all shed crocodile tears wishing for the demise of good law, good sense, and this nation's national existence.

The first story on the proposed Tennessee law that criminalizes the material support of shariah organizations that engage in terrorism or intend to engage in terrorism was published by the Tennessean and was written by its hack reporter Bob Smietana.  Smietana has a reputation, a well-deserved reputation, as a lazy researcher and someone who will make up facts rather than take the time to actually do any research.  He is also a left-wing hack.

So, when he was tasked with writing an article about Tennessee’s “Material Support to Designated Entities Act of 2011,” House Bill 1353 and Senate Bill 1028, currently pending in the legislative process, he lied.  He wrote that the law criminalizes adherence to Islam’s religious code, sharia.  The story got national play because the Tennessean is a Gannett Co., Inc., paper which is the parent of USA Today, which ran the story in its online edition.

The howl begin immediately and on cue from the leftist-progressives and the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas-associated groups like CAIR and ISNA.  See here and here.

The problem with all of this howl is that it is predicated on an unmitigated false characterization of the bill. The proposed law is pretty straightforward.

The first section includes legislative findings that conclude that authoritative shariah is the basis for jihad around the globe and here domestically.  Also, the legislative findings make clear that the law refers to the objectively knowable sharia that is the law of the land in many foreign countries.  That list is rather obvious and daunting, including but not limited to, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Gaza, Sudan, Somalia, Taliban controlled Afghanistan and Pakistan, and parts of Muslim-controlled Nigeria, Indonesia and even the Philippines.

Thus, the second section of the bill, the legislative intent, states clearly that the target is a violent jihad driven shariah, not any religious practice including not peaceful Islamic religious practice.

The next section of the law includes definitions which define sharia as that objectively knowable shariah that calls for violent jihad against the West.

The next section of the bill provides the Attorney General with the authority to designate a shariah organization but ONLY if that organization is advancing the violent shariah AND either actually engaging in terrorism OR retains the capability to engage in terrorism AND intends to engage in terrorism.

Once designated, the shariah organization can have its financial assets frozen (tracking almost precisely the federal material support of terrorism statute upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court). 

The next section is the criminal section which makes it a crime to provide such a terrorist organization with material support, again tracking the federal material support statute.

Now, how in the world does this statute impact the peaceful worship by law abiding Muslims? Answer: it doesn’t even come close to them if they are not advocating violent sharia AND if they are not engaged or planning to engage in terrorism. Period. 

In fact, they can even embrace the doctrine of sharia and its call for jihad against the infidel West but as long as they are themselves not engaged in terrrorism or planning to engage in terrorism, the statute does not apply to them. But, according to the Tennessean and its friends in the Muslim Brotherhood, this is a bad law that outlaws halal applie pie. 

Did Smietana know this when he wrote his story? Yes. He lied because that is the kind of journalism the Tennessean has practiced for some time. See here for the earlier occasion of this type of journalism.    

How the Left-Progressives Use the Race-Card to Avoid Substantive Debate

David Yerushalmi has been at the forefront of the fight against shariah and its doctrine of jihad to establish a worldwide political order it calls the Caliphate.  Mr. Yerushalmi has drafted laws that have been enacted into law in several states and are pending in many others to prevent foreign laws such as shariah from being recognized or applied in state courts when that application of foreign law would violate the parties’ fundamental state and federal constitutional liberties.  You can read about this work here. 

Guess who opposes such laws? Muslim Brotherhood types like the Hamas front group, CAIR, and leftist-progressives. 

Now, you’re confused, you say.  How is it possible that leftist-progressives oppose a law to protect fundamental constitutional liberties?  The answer of course is that leftist-progressives only support constitutional liberties when they put national existence at risk and oppose them when they work to protect national existence.  

Why is that?  The answer is patent at many of the essays posted at this SANE Web site (below), so we won’t repeat it here other than to say that leftist-progressives, not unlike the Muslim Brotherhood shariah advocates, all disdain national existence in the search for a world state.  The leftist-progressives seek a UN-like transnational structure with forced redistributions of wealth while the shariah advocates seek a unified “ummah” (Muslim nation) in ascendancy to reclaim its mantle as the dominate global empire it once was. 

Recently, a bill to outlaw the material support of jihad terrorism (motivated by shariah) has been introduced in Tennessee.  The law was drafted by the Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C.  The resulting public discussion has not been a fact-based debate on the worthiness of the proposed legislation, but false reporting by the likes of the Tennessean reporter Bob Smietana, who claimed the bill “would jail shariah followers” and now a typical left-progressive attack piece against Mr. Yerushalmi by a Tim Murphy writing on the leftist blog called Mother Jones. 

When Mr. Yerushalmi pointed out to the Tennessean reporter that the bill did not impose any burden even on the advocacy of shariah-inspired violence, rather only the combination of such advocacy along with a capability and an intent to engage in terrorism, the reporter stuck to his guns and insisted that the proposed law did what it did not do.  The man is so driven by his advocacy of left-progressive causes he is prepared to be a public idiot. 

The next example of the public debate to date comes in the form of a now tired ad hominem claiming that Mr. Yerushalmi, an orthodox practicing Jew, is somehow a white supremacist who would, presumably, join hands with neo-Nazis and KKK types even as he would be their first victim. 

As in the case of previous ad hominem attacks against Mr. Yerushalmi, we here present a fact-based response by Mr. Yerushalmi to Mother Jones and Tim Murphy: 

Dear Mr. Murphy: It is obvious at this point that your email and telephone calls to me were not seeking an opportunity at fact finding but just the ability to add a throw-away quote for your form of bigoted journalism.   I note that you had available to you my detailed response (at SANE's website) addressing the identically absurd allegations of "white supremacy" raised by leftist-progressives every time they wish not to deal with the substance of an argument but rather to attack personalities with ad hominem. 

Let's begin with the "white supremacist" label. As an orthodox Jew, whose grandparents were immigrants to this country, I am the first person that real white supremacists wish to murder.  Have you not read neo-Nazi or KKK literature? 

Further, I am from the same group that leftist-progressive bigots such as you attack when they wish to express Jew-hatred disguised as "anti-Israel." 

Now, let's look at your actual evidence of "white supremacy." First, you claim that I wrote an essay asserting that "whites are genetically superior to blacks." That is a fiction. And, indeed you cannot find such a quote in my writings. The long and sourced essay to which you refer and indeed the actual quote you cite to suggest that I believe that "whites are genetically superior to blacks," says no such thing which is why those are your words (“whites are genetically superior to blacks”) not mine.

The article simply makes the point that biologists and medical specialists have found time and again that there are genetic racial components to skin color, muscle development, body structure, propensity to disease and the like.  

Have you not heard of sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs? Are these diseases "racist" or "white supremacists" because they affect people of African descent and Ashkenazi Jewish descent, respectively? Indeed, the point of the essay was that this does not speak to a "supremacy" by one group over another, merely a distinction or difference.  Where in the essay does it speak in any way about one race being "superior" as in better or as in deserving certain "rights" over another?   

Secondly, you suggest I am a racist because I criticize liberal Jews. I dare say that insofar as I am an orthodox, practicing Jew, my criticism of liberal Jews can hardly be counted as "racism;" yet, indeed, you make this asinine argument. 

Third, you claim a statement articulating SANE's mission is racist: "America was the handiwork of faithful Christians, mostly men, and almost entirely white." That does not even suggest that whites or Christians ought to be superior to non-whites or non-Christians--it is a statement of fact.

My grandparents were Russian Jewish immigrants who came to this country only in the 20^th century. I can say with certainty that my ancestors and Jews generally had very little to do with founding and building this country. Does that make me a Jew-hater or anti-Semite? Your charge that I am a white supremacist is not just leftist ugliness, it is patently absurd.  

Fourth, you claim I have authored a bill to outlaw Islam and being Muslim. Another patent falsehood. The bill I drafted outlawed explicitly a Sharia advocacy that promoted likely and imminent violence.  Indeed, I have represented Muslims pro bono to get them asylum and entry visas into this country to protect them from this Sharia doctrine and system, and this is made clear at SANE's website, had you chosen to actually report facts and not just engage in a bigoted ad hominem attack. 

Finally, you throw in a few quotes out of context as other leftist-progressives have done to suggest I am an anti-something-or-other. For example, you write: 

If his racially infused writings and rhetoric are any indication, it's Yerushalmi, not his Muslim bogeymen, who seems most determined to remake the American political system. Per its mission statement, SANE is "dedicated to the rejection of democracy and party rule," and Yerushalmi has likewise criticized the universal suffrage movement. As he once put it, "there's a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote." 

Is the first statement about rejecting “democracy and party rule” to you an extreme statement or a remaking of America? Have you not read the Federalist Papers or taken a rudimentary college course in political theory? Do you not suppose that our form of government was a rejection of what was later to be developed in Europe? Our form of government, at least as set out in our Constitution, is not democracy in any Athenian or parliamentary sense nor is it party-rule as in the parliamentary systems adopted in the main on the Continent.  Do you not understand the differences between our system of a constitutional republic with the separation of powers (not present in the typical parliamentary system) dominated by two parties historically and the multi-party parliamentary system developed in other Western democracies?  

As to the latter statement about the founding fathers not providing blacks or women suffrage, I have responded to this in detail in my response to another leftist-progressive blogger and it was available to you at SANE. Is there any doubt that you chose to ignore it because you wish to frame the debate as a racist one when you knew at the time you wrote your article it had nothing to do with race? This is what we call in the law, “actual malice.” 

Below, is in fact what you had available to you at SANE which highlights the bolded sentence you quote and places it in its more complete context as part of my response to yet another of your ilk:

There is a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote. You might not agree or like the idea but this country’s founders, otherwise held in the highest esteem for their understanding of human nature and its affect on political society, certainly took it seriously. Why is that? Were they so flawed in their political reckonings that they manhandled the most important aspect of a free society – the vote? If the vote counts for so much in a free and liberal democracy as we ‘know’ it today, why did they limit the vote so dramatically? 

Your point is, as you note in your blog entry, that I “dislike” blacks and women. Let’s assume further that your point is that I am a bigot and a misogynist.  The problem once again is that the portion you quote, and it is clear in context as well, is a question.  It is not a position. And, it is a point of serious consideration among scholars as well.  

That is, if you are going to take the position that our Founding Fathers, men to whom we have erected monuments in our nation’s capital, withheld the most cherished and fundamental liberty in a free society (the right to participate in representative government via the vote in their respective states) to entire subsets of our population, you must be prepared to answer, Why?   

Now, you might simply respond as follows: they did so because they were evil bigoted and chauvinistic men. If so, you still have not answered why they did not recognize the chasm between “democracy” theory and the constitutional order actually employed?  Were they also political buffoons?  Were they so oblivious to the obvious contradiction?  If so, why do we hold them in such high esteem? And, how do we even justify the existence of this nation, which was built on the destruction of indigenous peoples and subsequently developed through the denial of the right to vote to so many? 

Now, we know your answer and the answer of your fellow progressive travelers. Your pat answer: America was founded upon evil and in evil.  That is why you wish to radically change the country and why you worship “progress” as in Time or History as transcendent. But I was not writing to you and your ilk. Your positions are well known. I was writing to otherwise patriotic Americans who nearly worship our Founding Fathers and founding as heroic and our nation as a great advance for mankind. (This would be the position to which I would most closely associate.) This group must be forced to confront this issue head on. It was to this group that I asked the question.  In my world, analysis and penetrating questions are the sine qua non of the quest for knowledge.  

You, however, take the question out of context to make it a pathetic statement of bigotry as if I were proposing to roll back the franchise to a pre-Civil War state. Again, this is argument by caricature. You can get away with this on a blog written for other progressives where no one is prepared to actually think for themselves and ask you the questions I have raised here.  But in the world of policy, where real lives are affected by real decisions with real impact, this is a dangerous if not fatal approach. 

Mr. Murphy, at the end of the day, this response is not for you because you are not interested in facts. This response is for others who have some interest in reality. Moreover, this response will become part of a brief discussing “actual malice” in the context of the First Amendment. Good luck.

How the New York Times and Other Progressives Treat their Enemies

After the Center for Security Policy published the first detailed national security threat analysis of the shariah-driven jihad associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, notably the stealth jihad taking place here in the Homeland, the Leftist bloggers went on the attack. 

Avoiding any effort at substantive critique, these bloggers, typical 20- and 30-something no-nothings like Matt Duss and Adam Serwer, together with their more gray haired colleagues like Alex Kane and Charles Johnson, whose collective claim to fame is their ability to use ad hominem with a vicious and reckless abandon, did their thing on cue.  Each blog simply cited the other blogs' "proofs" of racism and Islamophobia in an attempt to marginalize various of the authors of the Report.  Through it all, not a single effort at substantive critique.

The two entries immediately below this one flush out this story: the publication of the Team B Report and the first reports by the progressive bloggers amounting to childish ad hominem.  This was followed by the Washington Post and the New York Times linking to such reports as "source" material. Nothing new. 

We post this email by David Yerushalmi to Matt Duss discussing the specifics of these ad hominem attacks not because Mr. Yerushalmi thinks Duss is worth anyone's time, but as an example of the putrid intellectual dishonesty and shallowness of the progressives' approach to the important subject of national security.  Posting this correspondence also serves to document this for those who are interested in understanding how the Left seeks to destroy serious public discourse on subjects of grave importance. 

From: David Yerushalmi
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 12:11 PM
To: 'Matthew Duss'
Subject: on your most recent posting 

Mr. Duss: I have read your most recent posting on my supposed extremism, racism, and what have you (found here).  You state at the outset that you wish to continue your “analysis” of the Team B Report on “The Shariah Threat to America” by examining more closely my “extremist” views.  In other words, as I pointed out in regard to your first “analysis” of the Team B Report, you apparently view national security “analysis” as an ad hominem exercise.  That is to say, the Team B Report was prepared by 19 individuals from different backgrounds, professions and areas of expertise.  Your analysis of the Team B Report is to purposefully avoid having to discuss any of the substance of the report by taking quotations from essays I have written to suggest that I have some nefarious agenda.   

But, even assuming I, as one of 19 professionals who worked on this report, do in fact have such an agenda, what does that have to say about the substantive material of the report?  In order to make your ad hominem attack on me even relevant, you must actually read the report and point out that there are “opinions” contained therein that are either irrational, suspect, or based on false facts.  Then, you’d need to have some basis to conclude that those irrational opinions can be attributed to my “agenda,” which you have assumed I must have based upon some purported quotations taken from essays I have written in the past. 

In fact, you’ve done no more than the Hamas front group CAIR and other hard-core leftist pundits have done before you – that is, to post snippets of quotations, oftentimes out of context, and sometimes even fabricated, in an effort to complete what you consider a character assassination as an effort to marginalize my work and to frighten others from even reading the Team B Report.  It is your version of a book burning. 

But you cannot consider yourself either an honest man or a serious thinker. Let’s just run through your “proofs” of my extremism with just the briefest of reproofs.  

·         You begin with my American Thinker (AT) book review of Mary Habeck’s Knowing the Enemy. You use a quote to show I have some irrational or extreme view of Islam.  Specifically, I write that Islam was born in violence and that for modern reformers to have success in keeping young Muslim men away from the jihad recruiters, Islamic educators and reformers must be able to distance themselves from the early leaders of Islam (Mohammed and especially the Righteous Caliphs and also their lesser successors) precisely because the bellicosity of early Islam is embedded not simply in the culture but in the law.   

This of course could be accomplished in many ways, as other religions and cultures have done: through revisionism, rebellion of faith (i.e., Protestantism), or myth.  But, the failure to engage the enemy—i.e., those who themselves espouse the enemy threat doctrine by telling us what shariah is—by failing even to acknowledge what the enemy tells us and by mindlessly claiming that shariah can mean anything to anybody, is a formula for defeat.  My argument was clear in this book review: because violent jihad is fundamental to shariah as the enemy threat doctrine, we must meet the enemy’s kinetic war with a greater, more effective kinetic response.   

Now, the first question that might be asked is whether any of my scholarship and critique in the book review is wrong or lacking intellectual integrity.  You don’t address my scholarship at all. Rather, you simply take a few short quotes out of a 7000-word book review as a demonstration of “extremism.”  Who is guilty of extremism, Mr. Duss?  In fact, this book review was published not only at the American Thinker, a widely read conservative on line journal, but also by the respected Human Events.  More, it is actually quoted by the publisher, Yale Press (see here).  

A question one might ask of you is: are you challenging the well-documented history and role of jihad in Islam’s founding, its legal doctrine, and in Islam’s growth into the world’s greatest empire? Are you denying the place of jihad in the classic and still extant law of the ulema?  If you criticize my work on these grounds, have you bothered to study the work of Prof. M. Khadduri or even the far more obtuse Wael Hallaq, neither of whom would be termed Islam-bashers among their fellow esteemed academia? (See, e.g., Wallaq’s Shariah: Theory, Practice, Transformations (Cambridge, 2009) at 324-341, with special emphasis at 328-329.)  

Have you read Professor March’s recent study published by Oxford U. Press entitled Islam and Liberal Citizenship: The Search for an Overlapping Consensus. In that nearly 300-page study in which he examines shariah to prove his thesis that shariah-observant Muslims can live peaceably (and in a Rawlsian way) civilly in Western liberal society, the very best he can do after some obvious intellectual contortions is to conclude: “The results of this investigation into Islamic foundations for citizenship in non-Muslim states gives us surprisingly strong reasons to be optimistic about the prospects [DY: note these are only “prospects”] for such a doctrine.” (Emphasis added.) 

Let me add what Prof March writes just before this admission that he’s at best “optimistic” that maybe sometime in the future Islamic law will justify shariah-adherent Muslims living in the West as patriotic citizens:  

This wider justification of accepting a non-Islamic form of rule as legitimate or just is something I hope to study in a future work [DY: meaning it is hardly self evident]. I have thus been very clear from the beginning that a comprehensive doctrine of citizenship in liberal democracies  would require a few pieces missing from this study, chiefly an argument for the substantive justness of liberal orders despite their being un-Islamic and a justification of the liberal duty of self-restraint toward the errant, sinning Muslims [DY: he is saying here that liberal democracies are not “just” precisely because they allow individuals to act immorally as long as it is not illegal—a distinction that shariah does NOT make—morality and criminality align in shariah –in theory of course-- while they don’t align in man-made secular laws.  Governments based in man-made laws recognize that the state must allow some divergence on morality as a form of tolerance]. In addition, some more detailed treatment of the range of Islamic conceptions of the good life and how it can be lived outside Islamic political authority would thicken such a doctrine of citizenship. 

Note this last sentence. After nearly 300 pages, the good professor was unable to adequately develop even an academically based shariah conception of the “good life” as “lived outside Islamic political authority.” 

·         Your next proof of my “extremism” is that I criticize President Bush’s “nation building” doctrine “among a ruthless people who believe in a murderous creed falsely labeled a ‘religion of peace.’” (Also from my AT book review.) You added the emphasis. But the point I make there is one made by both sides of the political spectrum, but in slightly varying, albeit stark terms. Do you suppose the creed of the Taliban is peaceful and the Taliban themselves are advocates of a religion of peace? What about Khomeini’s Shi’ism which exercises substantial influence in Iraq or the al Qaeda aligned groups of Sunni Iraqis? Are these groups not ruthless? What of the Hamas in Gaza?  Or, the mujahideen of Pakistan? Or, the shariah-adherents of Sudan and Somalia? Are they bastions of peaceful teachings and practices?  No one argues that all or even most Muslims are ruthless or violent, but that is not the critical test of whether a society has a sufficient number of ruthless and violent people to destroy any effort at civilizing the society. 

You might be taking the Bush side in the nation-building argument but the fact that I have articulated the stark argument against it is hardly extreme. 

·         You next post the SANE Mission Statement.  That is relevant you say because SANE is an organization I founded and still direct.  You highlight two particular sections. The first reads that SANE is “dedicated to the rejection of democracy and party rule and a return to a constitutional republic.”  

Is that to you an extreme statement? Have you not read the Federalist Papers or taken a rudimentary college course in political theory? Do you not suppose that our form of government was a rejection of what was later to be developed in Europe? Our form of government, at least as set out in our Constitution, is not democracy in any Athenian or parliamentary sense nor is it party-rule as in the parliamentary systems adopted in the main on the Continent.  Do you not understand the differences between our system of a constitutional republic with the separation of powers (not present in the typical parliamentary system) dominated by two parties historically and the multi-party parliamentary system developed in other Western democracies? 

You highlight this sentence in order to leave your reader with the impression given by other idiot leftists, such as Richard Silverstein, that I reject “democracy” in the sense that I reject representative government and advocate some form of “fascism.” This is asinine and anyone who has followed my work at even a distance knows it to be so.  How can one be for the Constitution in a “return to a constitutional republic” and reject representative government? 

·         The next quote you highlight from the SANE Mission Statement is “So you can know at the start that liberalism (and this includes libertarianism) and Islam are in our sights.” 

What are you suggesting here?  That any critique of Islam (or for that matter Judaism and Christianity) is somehow off-limits?  Why? Has criticism of Islam become a taboo subject that only “extremists” will be guilty of violating?

Presumably, this is your way of saying that I would target for criticism even peaceful pietistic forms of Islam as opposed to the institutionally dominant and violent shariah-based Islam.  But, given the literally hundreds of thousands of words I have written to the contrary, this impression you attempt to leave by purposefully distorting what I have written is patent for what it is: intellectual prostitution to a cause.   

For example, you located enough of my work via Google that one would have thought you could have located the article located here,  which states explicitly: “American Muslims who fully reject traditional Shari’a as an all encompassing binding law and political ideology and seek to pray and raise their families peacefully and as fully committed Americans deserve that chance like all Americans.”  I have made the same point in countless publications including in my law review article on shariah-compliant finance.  The threat is not from Muslims simply or Islam as practiced by any number of peaceable Muslims but rather from the institutionally dominant form driven by shariah’s classic texts and tenets. 

Moreover, before you assert that I have some agenda against Muslims qua Muslims, are you aware of my quite public role in representing pro bono Muslim reformers in their efforts to escape from the tyranny in their home countries and to refuge in the West? Are you aware of my pro bono efforts in representing African American Muslims suing Hamas front groups like CAIR for fraud?  Apparently, your research runs only skin deep and it happens to be the thin-skin of leftists looking to attack someone they do not know or wish to bother to know even though the subject of the attack has a 27-year public history as a litigator and expert on public policy issues. 

·         Your next quote is from a legislative proposal SANE published to begin the public discussion that classical shariah fits the definition of criminal sedition.  In this legislative proposal, the criminal doctrine was clearly defined in exactly the way seditious conspiracy is defined in the federal criminal code. In other words, we did not propose criminalizing the peaceful Islam you seem to wish to highlight but the violent, shariah adherent form.

You link in your piece to a Daily Kos version of our work but you fail to read our actual proposal which never outlawed Islam or Muslims but rather clearly defined the criminal doctrine to be violent shariah and those Muslims who advocate the violent destruction of this country. The Blind Sheikh and others have been convicted essentially for the same crime of seditious conspiracy in recent times.   

Moreover, the SANE proposal and the explanation for it is up at the SANE homepage (scroll to the bottom), fully accessible to the public. Yet again, you wish to leave the impression that I would simply outlaw all peaceful pietistic versions of Islam and criminalize all Muslims and further that I have hidden my intentions behind SANE’s membership wall. The facts demonstrate your failure to achieve even a minimal level of intellectual integrity. 

·         Finally, you fault me for harshly criticizing the radical Left Jewish contingent in the West.  I plead guilty. As an actual practicing Jew, I have my whole life contended with the fact that the Left’s most radical leaders are overwhelmingly represented by Jews.  Alinsky and Chomsky come to mind, to name but a few of recent vintage. And, of course, the well known pattern in the U.S. that finds Jews overwhelmingly voting for leftist politicians and supporting their causes. While you might, as a radical leftist/progressive, embrace those causes, you can hardly deny the fact of the influence of the Jews among you.   

But, you write that I “dislike” liberal Jews. This is a manifestation of your immaturity.  I don’t dislike fellow Jews (or for that matter, non-Jews) simply because I disagree with them. I don’t in fact dislike “liberal Jews.”  I might disagree with them, but “dislike” is a childish term in this context. 

Now, I have responded to you. I did not before because you had not staked out a position. Now that you have, as pathetic as it might be, I have. Let’s see if you post it in its entirety.  

·         Update: I realize that I left off your reference to an essay I wrote engaging the issue of race in modern discourse. In your reference, you quote from a prefatory statement I make about the fact that if you even dare to speak about the race issue with any analytical rigor, you are accused of being a racist. I noted in that statement that “one cannot engage in a discussion of Islam as an evil religion, or of blacks as the most murderous of peoples (at least in New York City), or of illegal immigrants as deserving of no rights.”  But what you fail to say is that I don’t say these are my views; simply, that they may or may not be rational views based upon available facts and that even taking these positions leaves one vulnerable to the race-card.   

For example, if Islam is what more than 50% of Muslims in a variety of Muslim nations claim it is—an al Qaeda-like strict shariah—then it would most certainly be an evil religion.  If Islam is what the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia claim it to be, would it not be evil—at least in the eyes of Western women?   

The reference to blacks and murder in New York specifically linked to an article I had written (and published in the American Thinker here) which analyzed a New York Times story which addressed the Department of Justice statistics that show that blacks in New York are grossly overrepresented among the City’s murderers.  Indeed, I point out that the victims in these cases are most likely to be fellow blacks.  Would one be irrational to conclude that blacks are more likely to murder (more “murderous”) than non-blacks?  To suggest otherwise is to argue that the statistics reported by the DOJ  and relied upon by the New York Times are inaccurate.   Moreover, nowhere in the article do I even begin to suggest that these statistics are explained by skin color or race more broadly, and indeed the article leaves open the why because statistics themselves could never tell us that.   

Finally, there are any number of serious legal scholars who would argue that an illegal immigrant is not deserving of the rights granted citizens.  The statement “no rights” was clearly not meant literally, but rather in the context of legal residency or citizenship, since a literal interpretation would be an absurdity. Finally, you quote this paragraph of the racism essay, itself more than 4000 words long, as follows: 

There is a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote. You might not agree or like the idea but this country’s founders, otherwise held in the highest esteem for their understanding of human nature and its affect on political society, certainly took it seriously. Why is that? Were they so flawed in their political reckonings that they manhandled the most important aspect of a free society – the vote? If the vote counts for so much in a free and liberal democracy as we ‘know’ it today, why did they limit the vote so dramatically? 

Your point is, as you note in your blog entry, that I “dislike” blacks and women. Let’s assume further that your point is that I am a bigot and a misogynist.  The problem once again is that the portion you quote, and it is clear in context as well, is a question.  It is not a position. And, it is a point of serious consideration among scholars as well.  

That is, if you are going to take the position that our Founding Fathers, men to whom we have erected monuments in our nation’s capital, withheld the most cherished and fundamental liberty in a free society (the right to participate in representative government via the vote in their respective states) to entire subsets of our population, you must be prepared to answer, Why?   

Now, you might simply respond as follows: they did so because they were evil bigoted and chauvinistic men. If so, you still have not answered why they did not recognize the chasm between “democracy” theory and the constitutional order actually employed?  Were they also political buffoons?  Were they so oblivious to the obvious contradiction?  If so, why do we hold them in such high esteem? And, how do we even justify the existence of this nation, which was built on the destruction of indigenous peoples and subsequently developed through the denial of the right to vote to so many? 

Now, we know your answer and the answer of your fellow progressive travelers. Your pat answer: America was founded upon evil and in evil.  That is why you wish to radically change the country and why you worship “progress” as in Time or History as transcendent. But I was not writing to you and your ilk. Your positions are well known. I was writing to otherwise patriotic Americans who nearly worship our Founding Fathers and founding as heroic and our nation as a great advance for mankind. (This would be the position to which I would most closely associate.) This group must be forced to confront this issue head on. It was to this group that I asked the question.  In my world, analysis and penetrating questions are the sine qua non of the quest for knowledge.  

You, however, take the question out of context to make it a pathetic statement of bigotry as if I were proposing to roll back the franchise to a pre-Civil War state. Again, this is argument by caricature. You can get away with this on a blog written for other progressives where no one is prepared to actually think for themselves and ask you the questions I have raised here.  But in the world of policy, where real lives are affected by real decisions with real impact, this is a dangerous if not fatal approach. 

David Yerushalmi

Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C.:
Washington, D.C., New York, California & Arizona
T: 646.262.0500 (direct line)
T: 800.714.9650 (toll free Ariz. office)
T: 202.379.4774 (D.C. office)
F: 801.760.3901
E: contactyerushalmilaw@verizon.net  
W: www.davidyerushalmilaw.com

SANE's Email Update for Free Subscribers: Vol. 6; No. 7

Dear SANE Subscriber, Member, or Friend:

Welcome!

***

The latest legal victory in the battle against the Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas movement whose stated goal is a “settlement process” described as a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated.”

 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Federal Court Ruling:  Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Must Answer to Fraud Charges by Five Former Clients 

District Court Judge Denies CAIR Motion to Dismiss Federal Fraud Complaints by African American and Pakistani-American Muslims 

October 4, 2010 – Washington, DC:  A federal judge in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia has denied a motion to dismiss complaints by five former clients of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).   

CAIR is a Muslim organization previously named as a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group by the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office in the federal criminal trial and conviction of a terrorist funding cell organized around one of the largest Muslim charities, the Holy Land Foundation, which raised funds for violent jihad on behalf of Hamas.   

CAIR had asked federal court judge Paul L. Friedman to dismiss the fraud cases on several grounds, but the judge refused CAIR’s request in its entirety. 

(Judge Friedman did dismiss one duplicative claim of consumer fraud based on D.C. law because he allowed an identical claim under Virginia law, ruling that Virginia law applied in the case). 

The five former clients had earlier this year filed two separate lawsuits in federal court alleging common law and statutory fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against CAIR, a self-described Muslim public interest civil rights law firm. These two lawsuits follow an earlier lawsuit which had also alleged that CAIR’s fraudulent conduct amounted to racketeering, a federal RICO crime. In that case, the court dismissed the RICO counts concluding that CAIR’s conduct as alleged was fraudulent but not a technical violation of RICO.    

The two new federal civil complaints were filed in the federal district court for the District of Columbia on January 6, 2010, and served on January 13, 2010.  CAIR filed its motion to dismiss on February 26, 2010, and the matter was fully briefed by May 15, 2010. 

Both lawsuits arise out of the same facts and as a result the court has consolidated the two cases.  

The lawsuits allege that Morris Days, the “Resident Attorney” and “Manager for Civil Rights” at the now defunct CAIR-MD/VA chapter in Herndon, Virginia, was in fact not an attorney and that he failed to provide legal services for clients who came to CAIR for legal representation.  CAIR knew of this fraud and purposefully conspired with Days to keep the CAIR clients from discovering that their legal matters were being mishandled or not handled at all. 

While attorney David Yerushalmi represents the five plaintiffs in these two lawsuits, three of whom are Muslim Americans, the complaints allege that according to CAIR internal documents, there were hundreds of victims of the CAIR fraud scheme. 

According to the complaints, CAIR knew or should have known that Days was not a lawyer when it hired him. But, like many criminal organizations, things got worse when CAIR officials were confronted with clear evidence of Days’ fraudulent conduct. Rather than come clean and attempt to rectify past wrongs, CAIR conspired with Days to conceal and further the fraud. 

To this end, CAIR officials purposefully concealed the truth about Days from their clients, law enforcement, the Virginia and D.C. state bar associations, and the media. When CAIR did get irate calls from clients about Days’ failure to provide competent legal services, CAIR fraudulently deceived their clients about Days’ relationship to CAIR, suggesting he was never actually employed by CAIR, and even concealed the fact that CAIR had fired him once some of the victims began threatening to sue.  

“The evidence has long suggested that CAIR is a criminal organization set up by the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas to further its aims of stealth Jihad in the U.S.,” Mr. Yerushalmi said referring to the fact that CAIR has been named by the federal government as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial. In addition, several of CAIR’s top executives have been convicted of terror-related crimes. As a result, the FBI has publicly announced that it has terminated any outreach activities with the national organization, which bills itself as “America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization.”  

“As it turns out, CAIR is America’s largest Muslim criminal organization whose criminal activities know no bounds,” Yerushalmi continued. 

“According to the facts as carefully laid out in both complaints,” Yerushalmi explained, “CAIR has engaged in a massive criminal fraud in which literally hundreds of CAIR clients have been victimized and because of the CAIR cover-up they still don’t realize it. The fact that CAIR has victimized Muslims and non-Muslims alike demonstrates that CAIR is only looking out for CAIR and its ongoing effort to bilk donors out of millions of dollars of charitable donations thinking they are supporting a legitimate organization.” 

The complaint also alleges that in addition to covering up the fraud scheme, CAIR forced angry clients who were demanding a return of their legal fees to sign a release that bought the client-victims’ silence by prohibiting them from informing law enforcement or the media about the fraud. According to the agreement, if the “settling” clients said anything to anyone about the fraud scheme, CAIR would be able to sue them for $25,000. 

This enforced code of silence left hundreds of CAIR’s victims in the dark such that to this day they have not learned that Days was not an attorney and that he had not filed the legal actions on their behalf for which CAIR publicly claimed credit. Days has since died of a lung complication. 

CAIR’s motion to dismiss argued that the failure to name Morris Days and CAIR-MD/VA as “indispensable” party-defendants was grounds to dismiss.  The court saw through this ruse by noting that Mr. Yerushalmi had pointed out that Days was dead.  Insofar as there was no probate of any estate, Days likely died intestate and poor.  Similarly, CAIR-MD/VA, as alleged in the complaints, was shuttered and rendered defunct by CAIR to try and cover-up the crime.  Unsuccessfully, CAIR’s motion to dismiss had strategically and dishonestly ignored those facts.   

CAIR also argued that it could not be held liable for Days’ criminal behavior.  The Court dismissed this defense as well pointing out that there was more than enough evidence to show Days acted for and on behalf of CAIR. 

Over a lengthy 24-page opinion, the Court surgically dissected and dismissed CAIR’s arguments for dismissal on all counts. 

Mr. Yerushalmi made clear that “the evidence in this case will finally put to rest the myth that CAIR is a legitimate Muslim American civil rights organization when in fact it is little more than an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood and a recipient of huge donations from operatives of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC).”   

Mr. Yerushalmi concluded, “Why this organization is allowed to exist as a non-profit, tax-exempt organization at all is mind-boggling.”   

For those interested in a fact-intensive tutorial on CAIR’s foreign government agency connections in the context of possible violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, the same law used recently to arrest and deport a large sleeper cell of Russian spies, need only visit www.CAIRObservatory.org, where the actual documents evidencing potential crimes are on full display for the reader to judge for him or herself.  

About David Yerushalmi, Esq.: David Yerushalmi has been practicing law for more than 26 years. He is a litigator specializing in securities law, public policy relating to national security, and public interest law. Mr. Yerushalmi is licensed and practices in Washington D.C., New York, California, and Arizona and currently serves as General Counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., one of the nation’s leading national security think tanks founded by former Reagan administration official Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., and has been Of Counsel and Senior Legal Advisor for Policy Affairs to the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies (Potomac, Maryland) since 1988. 

For a copy of the court’s opinion, go to www.DavidYerushalmi.com and click on Recent Events.

***

As always, those of us at the Society of Americans for National Existence continue our focus:

To strengthen America’s national existence by probing a new and deeper discussion of the issues others fear or just avoid. We are convinced that with integrity of purpose and thought, graced with civility, the SANE message will pierce the fog that lies heavy on the ground.

All the best,

SANE Staff

Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE)^(sm)

The Progessive "Analysis" of National Security

As published at BigPeace.com:

Anyone interested in a microcosmic view of how the Alinsky-ite progressives earnestly carry water for the Shariah-driven jihad against America—whether the violent variety or the “Civilization Jihad” version laid out by the Muslim Brotherhood—need only visit any number of progressive blogs and examine their reporting of the most recent report by the Center for Security Policy entitled, The Shariah Threat To America.  The book-length analysis of shariah as the enemy threat doctrine, which I wrote about here last week, is subtitled, An Exercise in Competitive Analysis: Report of Team ‘B’ II.  This Team B II Report is modeled after the 1976 document known as the ‘Team B Report,” which was the original “exercise in competitive analysis” by intelligence community outsiders who challenged the then-prevailing official CIA-driven U.S. government intelligence estimates of the intentions and offensive capabilities of the Soviet Union and the policy known as “deìtente,” which such estimates ostensibly justified.

Quite simply, the 2010 version of Team B’s competitive analysis challenges the politically correct dogma dominating our defense, law enforcement, and intelligence establishment elites.  To wit, that the terrorism conducted throughout the world against the U.S. and its allies has nothing to do with Islam and, to the extent it does, it is an absolute perversion of extant and authoritative Islamic law and doctrine.  As with many dogmatic positions, very little substantive analysis of the empirical evidence supports this politically correct narrative myth, which nine years after 9/11 continues to dominate and blind those in charge of our national defense from knowing who are enemies are and, even more importantly, why they have aligned against us in a global war of terror.

The report was announced at a press conference on Capitol Hill on September 15 before members of Congress and the media.  In attendance, of course, was at least one of the progressive “starlets”—typically young, college-age progressives who write for progressive blogs, which feed the broader left-wing blogosphere like Salon and the Huffington Post, which in turn spoon-feed the slow moving, elder statesmen of leftist progressivism—the main stream media, viewed by their younger cohorts as senile seniors in need of journalistic aid ranging from assisted living care to full convalescence.

To understand how the progressive “analysis” of national security issues work—and here we mean national security issues where real innocent men, women, and children are murdered every day by jihad combatants, both here in the U.S. and abroad—we turn to the still nascent analysis of Team B, as it rolled off the presses.

In attendance at the press conference on Capitol Hill was one Matt Duss, essentially a young college kid with no experience in anything of substance—certainly not national security or shariah. He had just received an Executive Summary, certainly had no time to have read the full embargoed report, yet he asked the following question: “You’ve made some bold statements about what shariah is in this report; can you tell us which Muslim scholars and shariah experts participated in the preparation of the report?”

The answer at the press conference, which was coming to a close, was too brief to have been much help to Duss, but in essence it was that the report’s collaborators and team members were overwhelmingly experts themselves in national security issues dealing with this issue and many of whom had individually and collectively worked with and consulted many such Muslim scholars and experts over the years.

Duss decided to run with that answer without actually having read the report itself in order to be the first attack dog to take a bite of flesh.  That very same day, just two hours after the press conference concluded, Duss published an entry at the hard-left Think Progress blog called The Wonk Room (as in a place for policy “wonks” or “experts” to bone-up on their chosen policy professions). 

The entire Duss analysis, however, is void of any, and here I mean literally ‘any’ analysis.  It begins with some descriptive introductory paragraphs and then informs the reader, in an effort to gain credibility as a real journalist, that the writer, Duss, was actually at the press conference.  When he finally gets to a place in his blog entry where he might engage substance, Duss writes:

Questioned about the report’s assertions about Islamic law, the Center for Security Policy’s general counsel David Yerushalmi — someone so extreme even Daniel Pipes [link embedded here] has distanced himself — insisted that all that was needed to understand sharia was “to look at the doctrine” and “look at the text.”

In other words, Duss hints at some substantive discussion and then simply reverts to an ad hominem attack against me, as one of the Team B II members.  In fact, Duss doesn’t even honestly set up the attack. 

The question, a reasonable one by the Voice of America journalist in attendance, was whether there was a difference between shariah and its counterpart in the Jewish world, halacha.  Frank Gaffney, the head of the Center for Security Policy which sponsored the report and the moderator at the press conference, asked me, as the resident expert on such comparative law issues, to address the question.  Here at BigPeace.com you can view my answer in full (and actually read a more detailed essay, long-published in the blogosphere, which of course was available to Duss).  Indeed, here you can witness how Fox News reported the event.

Duss’ reference to Daniel Pipes, long-considered a “radical” Islamophobe by the Muslim Brotherhood, even though he is one of the tamer critics of Islam—contending that Islam has enormous inherent powers of self-correction and reform—is to make the point that I am simply an off-the-charts extremist.  Duss of course ignores my credentials as an attorney of 27 years, whose record is devoid of any claims of wrong doing by clients or the courts before whom I have practiced, and as one who has worked in the area of national security and written extensively on the subject of shariah and its intersection with national security and terrorism.  Yet, Duss is comfortable identifying me as an “extremist.”

More, the only evidence Duss offers of my “extremism” is a link to a hard-core leftist blog written by a man, Richard Silverstein, who the California trial and appellate courts have ruled as a matter of law is a liar who defamed a pro-Zionist journalist by calling her a Kahanist terrorist.  In a deposition, for which I was specially retained by the plaintiff to conduct, I was able to get this Israel-bashing Jewish leftist to admit that his accusations against the plaintiff and me (and other conservatives and Israel supporters) labeling us as “fascists” and “Jewish terrorists” were factually baseless, and which he knew at the time were factually baseless. 

In other words, without yet a word of substance or analysis of the report’s substantive claims, Duss authoritatively links to a man, in an effort to discredit me and those associated with me, who has, under oath, admitted to being a serial defamer and one who does so with malice.

Duss now moves on to his next ad hominem attack, wherein he writes:

Noting some of the report’s broad and controversial claims about Islamic law, such as that all Muslims are duty-bound to wage jihad against unbelievers, I asked Gaffney how many actual Muslims or Islamic scholars he and his group had consulted with in writing the report. He could not name any, though he noted that he had consulted with various Muslims “over the years.”

The problem with this statement is that Duss tries to create an aire of credibility to his query when none in fact exists.  Thus, Duss did not in fact note any “broad and controversial claims about Islamic law.”  What he did was to simply assert that the report included “bold statements” about what Islamic law—shariah—is.  But again, what Duss said at the press conference and what he wrote in his blog are simply examples of sophomoric childishness, or, if not that, a conscious water-carrying for the Muslim Brotherhood, which states clearly in its internal documents that it seeks to follow shariah in its efforts to destroy us from within.

In fact, had Duss actually taken even a moment to glance through the report prior to writing his blog, he would have seen that the entire report is little more than the aggregation of descriptions of shariah and jihad by contemporary and classical ulema—Shariah scholars in the Muslim world who are undisputedly the world’s most authoritative voices on Shariah; Muslim and non-Muslim academic scholars who have written publicly on shariah and jihad, oftentimes in apologetic tones; and of course the leaders of the world’s mujahideen—the jihad warriors—themselves.

The balance of the Duss blog entry then attacks the original 1976 Team B report claiming it got the Soviet Union threat assessment all wrong—as if that puts the final touches on Duss’ analytical tour de force.

And, several blogs have essentially copied Duss’ approach sometimes adding additional ad hominem attacks against me or other of the Team B members.  The use of the word “racist” is ubiquitous as a kind of exclamation mark that one need not actually investigate.  Mere accusation suffices on the Left.

But nary a word about substance. Not one word.  This of course follows the Muslim Brotherhood playbook as exemplified by the most notorious of such groups in the U.S., the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been named by the U.S. government as a front-group for Hamas—itself an offshoot of the Brotherhood.

This is the level of political discourse available to the progressive Left.  It is incoherence writ large.  The blogosphere is for them the perfect synthesis of Rush Limbaugh’s famously correct description of the main stream media as “drive-bys,” who have barely the time to think much less analyze, and the mindless incantations developed by progressives to avoid thinking outside the box, which includes the most popular rhythmic chant of the elite Left—all conservatives are mindless bigots, fascists, and, now of course, Islamophobes.  And, the proof they offer?  Why, anyone who is not progressive and seeking to unravel national sovereignty and to apologize for America’s very founding could be nothing but a mindless patriot. 

SANE's Email Update for Free Subscribers: Vol. 6; No. 6

Dear SANE Subscriber, Member, or Friend:

Welcome!

***

The following article published today in the American Thinker speaks for itself:   

September 16, 2010

The Shariah Threat to America

By David Yerushalmi

Nine years ago, another in a decades-long assault on the U.S. and Western interests was carried out by mujahideen -- Islamic jihad warriors. September 11 didn't launch this existential threat of jihad, but it certainly exposed the underbelly of American vulnerability like no other previous attack (including the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon a decade before that).

That vulnerable underbelly is not, as some have contended, our "freedoms." There is no "tension," as many commentators suggest, between freedom and security. The idea that there is a natural tension is evidence that the pundit has adopted nihilism as the "natural" or "preferred" political order and views every act of securing the realm a diminution of a libertine anarchy. 

In fact, political order based upon an equal treatment before the law as grounded in a constitution founded upon the Judeo-Christian tenet that society consists first of individuals who come together to form a People through representative government, stands not on the shoulders of libertarian nihilists, but on those who cherish the political order which gives voice to the individual -- his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. 

No, the underbelly of American vulnerability exposed by the jihadi existential threat is the modern idea that despises the fact of a discreet and identifiable American people. Or, or to put it in a more modern parlance, our progressive elites, who control the educational system and mainstream media, reject national existence. These progressives despise and seek to destroy any vestige of national sovereignty by embracing a transnationalism that would render national sovereignty an anachronism in the face of world governmental bodies to which we should all bow, Obama-like, such as the U.N. or the International Court of Justice in the Hague. 

In a word, this underbelly of vulnerability is the inability to accept that the American people as a nation unlike any other nation is worth defending and that there are enemies allied and aligned against us precisely because of who we are. Quite simply, our enemies are at war with us because of our nation's greatness and the world's dependence on that greatness. 

This underbelly expresses itself in our military, law enforcement, and political elites -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- refusing to come to terms with the existential threat we face from Islamic terrorists. It is simply incredible that nine years post-9/11, there has been no definitive study or analysis made public, even in unclassified form, which identifies the "common enemy threat doctrine" of the world's Islamic terrorists. 

Yet if you read their jihad tracts and listen carefully to their pronouncements, the mujahideen from the Arabic-speaking Middle East variety -- from the Farsi-speaking Persians, the Indian-Pakistani Urdu-speakers, and the tribal Afghans and their Pashtu dialects to the Arabic speaking Africans of the Maghreb, and down to the multilingual sub-Saharan tribes -- all embrace the all-encompassing theo-political-military-legal doctrinal system of shariah as the basis for their actions. In other words, these grossly disparate cultures with no common language, history, or political grievances all come together to agree on one thing: Islamic law -- shariah -- binds them to strive with life and limb (the root word in Arabic: j-h-d) to impose a worldwide political hegemony, called the Caliphate, on the Muslim and non-Muslim world.  

Under shariah, Muslim unbelievers are labeled apostates and warned to repent; if they do not, they are murdered. Non-Muslims, called infidels, are given the following choices: convert, agree to live under an apartheid-like system as a subjugated second-class resident called ahl al-dhimma, or be prepared for the violent death of jihad.   

There are two brute facts about the shariah common denominator among the world's fully committed mujahideen and the still dangerous but lesser committed jihad sympathizers -- collectively numbering in the hundreds of millions according to surveys in the Muslim world. 

FACT ONE: The shariah doctrine which calls for the murder of apostates and jihad against the infidels is not some perversion of a peaceful Islamic law.   

Shariah by its own terms is a holistic doctrine and system not subject to division such that the innocuous ritual laws -- for example, those that regulate diet -- can be amputated and cauterized from the broader corpus which divides the world up into the dar al-Islam (the realm of peace) and dar al-harb (that part of the world controlled by infidels and therefore in a state of constant war with the Muslim realm as a matter of doctrine). 

FACT TWO: U.S. law enforcement, intelligence, military, and political authorities have not as of yet conducted a serious study and analysis of shariah as the common enemy threat doctrine.   

That is, the authorities who have taken an oath to protect and defend our lives and our Constitution from this nation's enemies have consciously chosen not to engage the enemy by willfully failing to "Know the Enemy," the most fundamental rule of successful warfare. What drives this failing is not the lack of empirical evidence of the threat doctrine, but the politically correct fear that identifying shariah as the enemy threat doctrine will somehow make hundreds of millions of "moderate" Muslims go "radical" and join the jihad, either in body or in spirit via aid and comfort. Ergo, we live in a P.C.-fear mode, ever mindful of the threat from "radicalized" "moderate" Muslims. 

All of this came to an end yesterday, September 15, 2010, with the publication of The Shariah Threat To America, published under the auspices of the Center for Security Policy, the Washington, D.C.-based think tank founded in 1988 and headed by Frank Gaffney. Mr. Gaffney was acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, the senior position in the Defense Department with responsibility for policies involving nuclear forces, arms control, and U.S.-European defense relations, under President Reagan. 

The book-length analysis of shariah as the enemy threat doctrine, subtitled An Exercise in Competitive Analysis: Report of Team 'B' II, is modeled after the 1976 document known as the "Team B Report," which was the original "exercise in competitive analysis" by CIA outsiders who challenged the then-prevailing official U.S. government intelligence estimates of the intentions and offensive capabilities of the Soviet Union and the policy known as "deìtente" that such estimates ostensibly justified. 

Quite simply, the 2010 version of Team B's competitive analysis challenges the politically correct dogma dominating our defense, law enforcement, and intelligence establishment elites. To wit, the terrorism conducted throughout the world against the U.S. and its allies has nothing to do with Islam, and to the extent it does, it is an absolute perversion of extant and authoritative Islamic law and doctrine. As with many dogmatic positions, very little substantive analysis of the empirical evidence supports this politically correct narrative myth, which nine years after 9/11 continues to dominate and blind those in charge of our national defense from knowing who our enemies are and, even more importantly, why they have aligned against us in a global war of terror. 

The key findings of the Team 'B' II Report are as follows: 

• The United States is under attack by foes who are openly animated by what is known in Islam as shariah (Islamic law).
• Shariah is based on the Quran, hadiths (sayings of Mohammed), and agreed interpretations. It commands Muslims to carry out jihad (holy war) indefinitely until all of the dar al-harb (i.e., the House of War, where shariah is not enforced) is brought under the domination of dar al-Islam (the House of Islam -- or literally, the House of Submission, where shariah is enforced).
• Shariah dictates that non-Muslims be given three choices: convert to Islam and conform to shariah, submit as second-class citizens (dhimmis), or be killed. Not all classes are given the second option.
• Both Islamic terrorism and pre-violent "civilization jihad" (popularly referred to as "stealth jihad") are commanded by shariah. That is not the view of only "extremists" and "fringe" elements "hijacking the religion," but of many authorities of Islam widely recognized as mainstream and drawing upon orthodox texts, interpretations, and practices of the faith.
• The Muslim Brotherhood is the font of modern Islamic jihad. It is dedicated to the same global supremacist objectives as those (like al-Qaeda and the Taliban) who share its adherence to shariah but who believe that violent jihad is more likely to more quickly produce the common goal of a global caliphate.
• The Brotherhood's internal documents make clear that civilization jihad is subversion waged by stealth instead of violence only until such time as Muslims are powerful enough to progress to violent jihad for the final conquest.
• Those who work to insinuate shariah into the United States intend to subvert and replace the Constitution (itself a violation of Article VI) because, according to shariah, freedom of religion, other civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution, and the rule of man-made law are incompatible with Islam (which means "submission").
• The shariah-adherent enemy prioritizes "information warfare," manifested in American society as political warfare, psychological warfare, influence operations, and subversion of our foundational institutions. Our government structure fails to recognize this strategy because it is focused so exclusively on kinetic attacks. As a result, the United States remains crippled in its inability to engage this enemy effectively on his primary battlefield.
• The Brotherhood exploits the atmosphere of intimidation created by Islamic terrorists, thus inculcating in the West a perceived need for "outreach" to the "Muslim community," which, in turn, opens up opportunities to pursue a campaign of stealthy infiltration into American and other Western societies. The combined effect of such "civilization jihad" and jihadism of the violent kind may prove to be considerably more dangerous for this country and other Western societies than violent jihad alone.
• The Brotherhood has succeeded in penetrating our educational, legal, and political systems, as well as top levels of government, intelligence, the media, and U.S. military, virtually paralyzing our ability to respond effectively.
• Muslim Brotherhood organizations conduct outreach to the government, law enforcement, media, religious community, and others for one reason: to subvert them in furtherance of their objective, which is implementation of Islamic Law.
• An informed and determined counter-strategy to defend the Constitution from shariah can yet succeed -- provided it is undertaken in the prompt, timely, and comprehensive manner recommended by Team B II.

While this Team 'B' report will not, and should not, be the final word on the analysis of the enemy and its threat doctrine, it is by light-years the most rigorous and empirically true analysis conducted to date. All of us who worked on the Team 'B' II Report tirelessly over many months can only hope those in positions of authority will finally break free of the PC chains of fear and denial and engage this competitive analysis seriously. Their oath of office demands no less. 

The members of Team 'B' II, of which I am honored to have been a part, include some of the best minds on national security, defense, and the law this country has to offer.  They include: 

• Lieutenant General William G. "Jerry" Boykin, U.S. Army (Ret.), former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence
• Lieutenant General Harry Edward Soyster, U.S. Army (Ret.), former Director, Defense Intelligence Agency
• Christine Brim -- Chief Operating Officer, Center for Security Policy
• Ambassador Henry Cooper -- former Chief Negotiator, Defense and Space Talks, former Director, Strategic Defense Initiative
• Stephen C. Coughlin, Esq. -- Major (Res.) USA, former Senior Consultant, Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
• Michael Del Rosso -- Senior Fellow, Claremont Institute and Center for Security Policy
• Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. -- former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Acting), President, Center for Security Policy
• John Guandolo -- former Special Agent, Counter-Terrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Brian Kennedy -- President, Claremont Institute
• Clare M. Lopez -- Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy
• Admiral James A. "Ace" Lyons -- U.S. Navy (Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet
• Andrew C. McCarthy -- former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney (Southern District of New York); Senior Fellow, National Review Institute; Contributing Editor, National Review
• Patrick Poole -- Consultant to the military and law enforcement on antiterrorism issues
• Joseph E. Schmitz -- former Inspector General, Department of Defense
• Tom Trento -- Executive Director, Florida Security Council
• J. Michael Waller -- Annenberg Professor of International Communication, Institute of World Politics, and Vice President for Information Operations, Center for Security Policy
• Diana West -- author and columnist
• R. James Woolsey -- former Director of Central Intelligence

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_shariah_threat_to_america.html at September 16, 2010 - 01:13:34 PM CDT

***

As always, those of us at the Society of Americans for National Existence continue our focus:

To strengthen America’s national existence by probing a new and deeper discussion of the issues others fear or just avoid. We are convinced that with integrity of purpose and thought, graced with civility, the SANE message will pierce the fog that lies heavy on the ground.

All the best,

SANE Staff

Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE)^(sm)

SANE's Email Update for Free Subscribers: Vol. 6; No. 5

Dear SANE Subscriber, Member, or Friend:

Welcome!

Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. Files Amicus Brief in Ninth Circuit Appeal of Arizona Anti-Immigration Law Case 

Center for Security Policy, Society of Americans for National Existence, and Thomas More Law Center file Amicus Brief in Support of Arizona Law S.B. 1070 

SANE's Email Update for Free Subscribers: Vol. 6; No. 4

Dear SANE Subscriber, Member, or Friend:

Welcome!

***

By now, most of you have learned that a federal court in California has ruled that it is unconstitutional for states to determine that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman.  The court struck down California’s Proposition 8, which passed by a solid majority and which limited marriage within the state to the traditional Judeo-Christian institution of one man-one woman.  The opinion can be accessed here. 

Even homosexual activist libertarian lawyers worry about the fact that this opinion was what they call “maximalist,” meaning the judge could have easily ruled against California’s Proposition 8 on much narrower grounds but chose the broadest constitutional ones he could muster. See here for example.

Over a year ago, David Yerushalmi penned an essay we published in one of these SANE Updates, which both predicted the outcome and analyzed what it really means to base U.S. law in particular or Western law in general on social science. 

After the decision came out, David Boise, one of the two “super lawyers” who represented the plaintiffs, gave a victory speech.  You can access it here.  (Ted Olson, Republican and former Solicitor General, was the uber-liberal Boise’s co-counsel.)

Two things to note at this point, especially in response to the “factual” “social science” arguments Boise refers to in the linked clip above.  His argument before the case, during the case, and now after victory, is that social science trumps a Western Judeo-Christian concern for moral foundations.  Justice Scalia issued a warning about this dangerous precedent in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (which struck down state anti-sodomy laws).  In Lawrence, the majority called upon the social sciences to conclude that no state has a rational basis to outlaw sodomy.  Scalia warned that if a state has no valid interest to legislate on moral issues absent social scientific findings, we have effectively abandoned morals legislation altogether.

But while Justice Scalia was worried about morals legislation, there is a more ominous danger in this now unstoppable juridical momentum.  In Yerushalmi’s essay, reprinted below, Scalia’s criticism, which was correct but not nearly adequate, is expanded upon.  For those of you focused on national security issues, and not “social issues,” you might ask of us, “So what?  We’re worried about existential threats to this country and your worried about homosexual marriage?” 

The answer to this reasonable query is Reason: if you are prepared to abandon, as “conservative” Ted Olson has, bedrock Judeo-Christian principles and morals at the altar of science in the guise of social science, you have abandoned Western civilization and national sovereignty to a “humanist” science that will NEVER justify a defense of who we are and why we deserve to survive as a unique nation-people.  Social science qua science as the counting of things simply cannot justify war to preserve national existence because the very notion of discriminating between those born inside some man-made border and those born outside cannot be justified on scientific terms.

Along the same lines, we at SANE have made the point time and again that those who argue that Shariah violates “human rights” (the favorite refuge for transnational social scientists) as opposed to the argument that Shariah seeks our destruction have undermined the very ability to fight the existential threat from Shariah.  “Human rights” are what exactly?  Voted upon by whom exactly?  Subject to what consensus exactly?  Are you prepared to give “humanity” a “right” to vote on what we will call “human rights”?  How do you imagine that vote will turn out for the U.S.?

We challenge anyone to justify national existence—which is the ultimate “formal discrimination” that Boise and Olson ignore when they claim that heterosexual marriage was the last vestige of formal discrimination in this country—on the basis of social science or “human rights.”  It cannot be done—at least not coherently.

Immediately below, is the essay we published in September 2009.  It remains timely and important.

***

The legal dynamic duo of Ted Olson and David Boies have made the news and the talk-show rounds promoting their lawsuit on behalf of gay marriage. Olson, a conservative Republican former Solicitor General, and Boies, a liberal Democrat who is known as a litigator’s litigator, were once adversaries locked in the epic battle over Florida chads, which ultimately played out in the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. Now, the two men have joined forces to beat back the gay-bashing Christian hordes in California who dared to amend the state constitution to insist that marriage should be preserved as a union between one man and one woman.

The dynamic duo’s legal case, laid out in interviews and various op-ed essays, notably by Boies in a July 20^th oped in the Wall Street Journal, is based on a three-tiered argument that begins at the level of social science, elevates itself to science proper, and then concludes at the moral level. Robert J. Loewenberg of the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies has termed this argument the Reciprocal. Meaning, if you can reduce the basis of a political discourse to science or mathematical symbol, you win because science permits no discrimination based upon value judgments. Alternatively, or reciprocally, if you reduce the argument to all that is not science, that is opinion or belief, you win as well since society may never discriminate between any two things once the differentiation is understood as unscientific. The dirty little secret of the Reciprocal is that nothing today is admitted to being anything but science or belief. In a word, the Reciprocal rules all. Point-game-match.

Thus, the first leg of the dynamic duo’s case for the constitutionality of gay marriage is that there is no “legitimate” policy to deny homosexuals the “fundamental right” to marry a same sex partner. By “legitimate” they mean rational, as in validated by data collected by social scientists. Proposition 8 in California, therefore, is illegitimate because there is no basis in social science to prohibit gay marriages. This reliance on social science as the poor cousin of the “hard” sciences is a respected argument in constitutional jurisprudence, but it has a difficult time standing fully on its own without some help from its more pedigreed hard science cousins. We will see this shoring up with hard science momentarily.

The specific social science argument in favor of gay marriage is that since gay unions have now been accepted as commonplace and we see no measurable (i.e., empirical) social, economic, or political harm in these unions, any moral argument against gay marriage is irrational. Even more specifically, since heterosexual marriage and family life is not affected deleteriously by granting homosexuals the same privilege, society’s bias in favor of opposite sex marriages that will produce naturally conceived children remains unharmed by eliminating any legal bias against homosexuals.

But, social science only goes so far, and the reason is that statistics applied to social phenomena are notoriously subject to manipulation. The Christian right often comes into court loaded with its own empirical-statistical evidence about the negative influence homosexual marriages will have on the children of these unions, typically adopted or artificially conceived. While the Christian social science advocates are at a distinct disadvantage since most social scientists with academic degrees will amass as a “consensus” in favor of the progressive no-harm side, the very hint that the social sciences are really nothing more than beliefs dressed up in empirical fact allows the ‘hard’ sciences to make an entry and rescue the argument from uncertainty.

The hard science argument in this case is based upon biology. Human sexuality is a fact of genetic composition, which in turn is a product of evolution. Even the age-old argument over homosexuality—nature or nurture or some combination thereof—has been denuded by evolutionary biology’s newest “discovery” that man like all matter is locked in an ever-evolving environmental process that precludes any rational person from claiming that evolved behavior X at time Y is somehow more moral or better in any scientific way than behavior not-X.

In the Journal op-ed authored by Boies, hard science’s shoring up is accomplished by declaring that even if homosexual marriage were in fact perceived by an overwhelming consensus in our society as a bad thing, homosexuality is a status determined by evolutionary biology and not subject to correction.

Once homosexuality has been turned into something akin to race (i.e., biological), all past discrimination becomes evil (meaning, scientifically irrational) and the legal argument, based upon 20^th century jurisprudence, has been converted from rational basis to compelling interest. Now the state must show that gay marriage threatened harm to a compelling state interest and that there was no other less discriminatory fix available to protect this interest. As you can well imagine, the compelling interest argument is one that a state rarely musters successfully.

Having moved the argument from the rationality of statistics in the social sciences to the compelling certainty of biology, the dynamic duo’s argument finally comes to rest on the other side of the Reciprocal—morality or belief. This tack grants that a large segment of American society views the world through a Christian (sometimes referred to as the Judeo-Christian) moral lens and that this group has a First Amendment right to cling to their belief. However, because religion is mere opinion or belief and lacks the certainty of science or even the rationality of the social sciences, it can never be the basis for a discriminating law.

The problem with this argument against morality-based legislation, however, was foreseen by Justice Anton Scalia when the Supreme Court first appeared to embrace it in Lawrence v. Texas. There the Court, with Justice Kennedy authoring the majority opinion, concluded that the state’s moral basis for prohibiting homosexuals from engaging in sodomy was not rational. Left unsaid, but certainly implied, is the conclusion that this morality legislation prohibiting homosexual sodomy was not supported by either the hard or soft sciences. Without that “objective” rational basis, morality alone is an arbitrary and uncertain basis to deny a man his liberty to engage in private consensual sex with the object of his choosing.

In his dissent, Justice Scalia described the societal dilemma this new a-moral jurisprudence presented:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bower’s [the Court’s earlier decision on anti-sodomy laws] validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.

In other words, America’s constitutional law is now understood to prohibit laws forbidding behavior touching upon sex or any other “fundamental liberty” on moral grounds. Morality standing alone is mere belief, uncertain, and as such irrational, or at least not rational. While Justice Scalia provided a list of horribles that may no longer be penalized, his own listing failed “to cabin the scope” of the Court’s almost full-throated embrace of the Reciprocal.

Given the Court’s rejection of morality standing alone as a valid basis for criminalizing what most would consider aberrant or even deviant sexual conduct, what does the future hold for the most “immoral” of sexual perversions, i.e., pedophilia?

A year before Lawrence, in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, the Court was comfortable assuming that sex with children was “abusive” and, as so defined, “an act repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people”. We must suppose, enlightened as we are by Lawrence, that what saves laws against pedophilia from being declared unconstitutional are not “the moral instincts of a decent people”, but rather the abusive nature inherent in the child-adult sexual relationship. Thus, social science can be employed to make the argument that children lack the maturity to consent to such behavior and that sex with a minor will result in substantial emotional harm to the child, which in turn will cause societal harm as the individual harm aggregates.

But the question must be asked: does science save us here? Is the Court right about the lack of mature consent necessarily constituting abuse, and is it inevitable or even probable that adult-child sex results in “empirical” harm to the child or to society?

Let’s begin with the consent issue. Do we as a society worry about a child’s inability to consent if adults wish to smile at the child? Do we worry about “consensual” waving at a child or playing peek-a-boo with an infant? Or, do we bother with consent issues when a parent convinces the child to brush her hair or to take a bath? No. And the reason we don’t is because none of these acts carry any “moral” opprobrium. They are what we might call morally neutral.

Similarly, a growing number of Americans don’t consider sex an act laden with moral overtones. Indeed, the atheist essayist Christopher Hitchens argues that Christian morality has destroyed man’s freedom to enjoy sex by imposing all sorts of religiously engendered taboos. So, why isn’t sex like washing your hands?

The answer, of course, is because our Judeo-Christian moral foundations say it is properly an intimate and essentially holy act to be vested in the divinely sanctioned institution of marriage between two adults of the opposite sex. Now, it is true that much of this Judeo-Christian foundation has eroded, but enough remains to inform us as a society that certain acts are “repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people”.

But, Muslims who follow their prophet Mohammed, who, according to Islamic sources married a six year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was but nine, find nothing wrong in forced marriages and therefore sexual relations with young prepubescent girls. The only reason Muslims would today find this behavior reprehensible is because they have absorbed Judeo-Christian standards (one reason to applaud colonialism).

Yet, Muslims are not alone in this rather approving attitude toward adult-child sex. In Japan, the national criminal code sets the age of consent at 13 (which is raised by law in certain local jurisdictions). So, there are certainly many people and societies who don’t view adult-child sex as “morally repugnant”. 

What this means, of course, is that as a society we are concerned about coercive consent in sexual relationships because we have labeled sex something other than brushing our teeth. By imposing our “religious” filter on the act, we have elevated “consent” to some moral high ground. Yet, if we were to remove the religious or subjective moral filter and rely upon science, any claim about the morality of pedophilia based upon the “moral instincts of a decent people” is on its face vacuous. Devoid of our unscientific “moral instinct” unique to a “decent people”—at least in our case that means the Judeo-Christian moral instinct—you can know nothing about the virtue or vice of pedophilia.

Indeed, if we move onto the second argument, which claims that there is a rational, empirical basis for a secular law against pedophilia, the logic is at best tentative and at worst circular. The tentative argument rests on a social science analysis of the individual and societal costs of such behavior. But, this means that if science can marshal enough empirical evidence to show that consensual, non-violent, adult-child sex is not harmful, the rational basis for such laws would evaporate. Indeed, social scientists have already gathered empirical evidence which suggests that child-adult sex at a young age, even in our current religiously-biased society, does not necessarily lead to subsequent trauma and this, the researchers argue, should lead to a more nuanced and scientifically enlightened approach. (See, Rind, B., Tromovitch, P. & Bauserman, R. (1998). “A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples”. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), pp. 22-53.)

But more than tentative, this argument turns out to be circular. What would happen if our society adopted the secular, scientific view of sex? That is, sex is not a divinely sanctioned act between a married man and woman but simply a biological urge to reproduce and play in the Darwinian arena of survival.

Arguably, the only reason adult-child sex might cause a child emotional or psychological harm is because our society starts with the Judeo-Christian premise about sex and such behavior. If children were taught by their guardians, peers, and society at large that sex was like brushing one’s teeth, how could they be traumatized by it? 

What this means to the secular “social science” adherent is that pedophilia is not morally wrong because that characterization is meaningless to science and wholly subjective and arbitrary as a social norm. Indeed, given the science-belief Reciprocal, we are but one vote away from embracing a moral positivism predicated upon science devoid of Judeo-Christian foundations. In this way, we (as in a majority) could merely agree (democratically of course) to treat sex of all types like brushing your teeth. It might not be something we’d do in public, but it certainly ought not to carry any moral opprobrium. A child who had sex at age 5 or 9 would be like a child who brushed her teeth at that age and of absolutely no concern to society (presumably it would still make sense to make it a crime to cause a child physical harm).

But alas, this whole discussion becomes absurd because no decent Jew or Christian would tolerate such a view of the world. And even those among us who reject such religious affiliations understand still today that child-sex is morally repugnant. But this is so because we as a people have embraced the Judeo-Christian moral compass even as so many mindlessly mouth objection to it.

Yet with each passing day, with each scientific advancement or “progress”, we lose sight of that compass. And, to remove that compass from us altogether—as the Court has done in Lawrence and as our dynamic duo suggests we do now with the institution of marriage—is to render our society no society at all but a mass of homogenous solitary particles of matter combining in endless but ultimately meaningless ways, bound only by the laws binding all matter, everywhere. And, as all political societies progress closer to this certainty of the science-opinion Reciprocal devoid of any common faith in transcendent truth, we move inexorably closer to the Reciprocal’s political articulation in the science-democracy one world order.

And, it is not hard to predict the future. Today, to speak in public of the moral abomination of homosexual conduct is to be set up for ridicule and, in some jurisdictions in Europe, possibly an indictment for hate-speech. But this was not always the case. Just a few years ago, it was a crime to engage in such behavior. As was the case with adultery and other such “moral offenses”. But in the science-democracy political order, we embrace “scientific advancement” as a measure of both time and social-political progress. In our new world order, we view technological advancement as human advancement simply. We have reduced “being” in human being to a historical ontology based upon the movement of matter. In a word, we have rid ourselves of what it means to be Man and replaced it with literally nothing.

__________________

David Yerushalmi is a trial attorney specializing in public policy and constitutional issues. He serves as General Counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., one of the nation’s leading national security think tanks founded by former Reagan administration official Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., and has been Of Counsel and Senior Legal Advisor for Policy Affairs to the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies (Potomac, Maryland) since 1988.

***

As always, those of us at the Society of Americans for National Existence continue our focus:

To strengthen America’s national existence by probing a new and deeper discussion of the issues others fear or just avoid. We are convinced that with integrity of purpose and thought, graced with civility, the SANE message will pierce the fog that lies heavy on the ground.

All the best,

SANE Staff

Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE)^(sm)

SANE's Email Update for Free Subscribers: Vol. 6; No. 3

Sane Email Update Vol. 6. No. 3                                                                                                               June 8, 2010 

Dear SANE Subscriber, Member, or Friend:

Welcome!

***

As we informed you last, we have completed the conversion of SANE into the research and public relations arm of a public interest law firm in association with the Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. to handle aggressive and offensive pro bono litigation targeting on the one hand the Left-Elite’s effort to undermine if not destroy simply our national existence on the way to the “transnational” one world state and on the other hand the Muslim Brotherhood-Jihadi effort to force the West into a state of dhimmitude such that Shariah dominates our world view if not our actions. These seemingly two polar opposites are in fact convergent and converging at the point of tyranny in the effort to achieve the world state.

We see this development in Obamacare, in the bailout and effective takeover by government of the financial and automobile sectors, and we see it in the use of language where public criticism of this destruction of ‘self’ and of its reflection in a people with a national identity is now termed sedition; yet, real sedition by Muslim jihadists is called free speech in the context of multi-culturalism. This is words or speech in the employ of tyranny.

Below is a press release in the AIG case just now distributed:

***

Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 

Federal Court Must Decide: Is the Treasury Department’s Support of AIG’s Shariah-Promoting Subsidiaries Constitutional?

How is it possible that the U.S. Government allows AIG to funnel more than $1 billion to companies that promote Shariah--the very Islamic legal system that calls for jihad against apostates and infidels? 

June 8, 2010 – Washington, D.C.: – The Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C., together with the Thomas More Law Center, filed a motion for summary judgment on Monday, June 7, 2010, on behalf of Kevin Murray against the Treasury Department and the FED in the federal lawsuit pending in the Eastern District of Michigan. The lawsuit, captioned Murray v. Geithner et al. was brought by attorneys David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise, representing the plaintiff, Kevin Murray, a taxpayer and former combat Marine who served in Iraq. The federal lawsuit alleges that the U.S. government’s takeover and financial bailout of AIG was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Specifically, at the time of the government bailout (beginning in September 2008 and continuing to the present), AIG was (and still is) the world leader in promoting Shariah-compliant insurance products. Shariah is Islamic law, and it is the identical legal doctrine that demands capital punishment for apostasy and blasphemy and provides the legal and political mandates for global jihad followed religiously by the world’s Muslim terrorists. By propping up AIG with tax payer funds, the U.S. government is directly and indirectly promoting Islam and, more troubling, Shariah.

In May 2009, Judge Lawrence Zatkoff rejected the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint and later rebuffed the defendants’ efforts to stay the proceeding so the government lawyers could take an extraordinary appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The court then set the ground rules for discovery and granted the parties until May 2010 to conduct discovery.

After a year of document requests, depositions of current and former government witnesses, and three separate subpoenas issued to AIG and the New York Federal Reserve Board, Messrs. Yerushalmi and Muise filed Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment this past Monday, arguing that the undisputed facts demonstrate that the government, through its absolute control and ownership of AIG, and with tens of billions of tax payer dollars, have directly and indirectly promoted and supported Shariah as a religious legal doctrine.  What makes this case all the more egregious is that this doctrine—Shariah—also happens to be the underlying legal and military doctrine animating jihad against the West by Muslims from the Middle East, Asia, Russia, Africa, and even right here at home.  Each and every one of the domestic and foreign jihad terrorists have proclaimed their allegiance to Shariah and its call for “jihad against apostates and infidels.”  Two experts on Shariah, Shariah-compliant finance, and jihad testified at length through affidavits in support of plaintiff’s case. The government could not—and did not—oppose this expert testimony with any contrary evidence.

A year’s worth of discovery uncovered the following facts in addition to what was known from the public record:

·         AIG has five wholly-owned subsidiaries which promote and practice Shariah in Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Bahrain, and the U.S.

·         These Shariah-compliant companies employ or otherwise retain the services of Shariah authorities to tell them how to conduct their business according to Shariah, including the Shariah-compliant charities to which these AIG subsidiaries must contribute. 

·         The government places absolutely no controls on how its billions are used by the Shariah-compliant companies or to whom they support with their “zakat” (‘charitable’) dollars.  Moreover, these companies all accept Shariah’s mandate to support jihad with zakat insofar as they abide by the authoritative rulings of the world’s leading Shariah authorities.

·         Over one billion taxpayer dollars have flowed through AIG’s headquarters into supporting AIG’s Shariah businesses worldwide.

·         The government has actively promoted Shariah and Shariah-compliant finance in many ways and venues:

o   The Treasury Department has published, edited, and updated articles about Shariah-compliant finance, which essentially promote Islamic law uncritically.

o   The Treasury Department has created and staffed a position called the Islamic Finance Scholar-in Residence.  No other religious law is so honored.

o   Published presentations by senior Treasury Department officials lauding Shariah-compliant finance and stating explicitly that the U.S. government “places significant importance on promoting . . . Islamic finance” and has “recently deepened our engagement in Islamic finance in a number of ways,” including a “call[] for harmonization of Shari’a standards at the national and international levels.” 

o   After the AIG bailout, the Treasury Department co-sponsored a half-day conference called “Islamic Finance 101” for government policy makers which was in effect a cheerleading program to promote Shariah and Shariah-compliant finance.

Mr. Yerushalmi remarked: “It is one thing that our government felt compelled to bail out AIG after its fortunes were destroyed due to the company’s own recklessness and bad acts. It is quite another thing to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to promote and support AIG’s Shariah businesses—all of which don’t just sell Shariah products to the Muslim world, but actively promote Shariah as the best, most ethical way of life. Indeed, the Shariah authorities relied upon by AIG’s Shariah Supervisory Committees actively promote jihad—and by jihad we mean kinetic war against the infidel West.”

Mr. Muise, senior trial attorney for the Thomas More Law Center and co-lead counsel in this case, made the additional point that “We have not only traced taxpayer money to support Shariah, we have found explicit public statements by senior Treasury officials actually telling the world that it is U.S. government policy to support Shariah in the form of Islamic finance and even ‘call[ing] for harmonization of Shari’ah’s standards.’ Since when is it our government’s position to involve itself in the internal theological debates surrounding religious laws?”

The government defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that whatever aid was provided to AIG’s Shariah businesses, it was both unintended and de minimus. 

Richard Thompson, head of the Thomas More Law Center, added, “It’s outrageous that the federal government is the owner of a corporation engaged in a business with interests adverse to the United States.  We filed this lawsuit not only to defend constitutional principles, but also to defend our national security.  It’s clear we can’t leave the job of protecting America to the Washington politicians.”

The parties will now continue to brief the issue with cross-opposition  and reply briefs and then the court will decide.  Any decision is likely to end up on appeal at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  If the government loses, it is quite possible the case could be heard by the Supreme Court.

About David Yerushalmi, Esq.: David Yerushalmi has been practicing law for more than 26 years. He is a litigator specializing in securities law, public policy relating to national security, and public interest law. Mr. Yerushalmi is licensed and practices in Washington D.C., New York, California, and Arizona and currently serves as General Counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., one of the nation’s leading national security think tanks founded by former Reagan administration official Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., and has been Of Counsel and Senior Legal Advisor for Policy Affairs to the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies (Potomac,   

***

Below is our current listing of the pro bono work in which we are currently engaged:

• Thomas More Law Center et al. v. Obama et al. (U.S. District Court, E.D. MI): The Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. represents the Thomas More Law Center and other plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the recently passed health care reform bill (“Obamacare”). You can read about this lawsuit and download key legal filings here.

• AIG Derivative Lawsuit Against the NY FED: This lawsuit is in the preparation stage and will challenge the Fed’s takeover of AIG by establishing an illegal and invalid trust into which AIG was forced to transfer 80% of its equity and voting rights thereby robbing the public shareholders of most of the value of their shareholdings. For a detailed presentation on the theories underlying this prospective lawsuit, see here. (Any AIG shareholders who wish to join this lawsuit are encouraged to contact us.)

• Pam Geller & Robert Spencer v. Miami-Dade County Transit Authority and CBS Outdoor: This case, now fully settled, revolves around bus ads our clients, Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch had contracted to run on Miami-Dade County buses that were pulled after CAIR complained the ads “offended Muslims”. David Yerushalmi stepped in (with co-counsel Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center) and with but the threat of a federal lawsuit, got both Miami-Dade County and CBS to agree to a full retraction and to replace the ads with even more ads at no additional cost. You can read about this in more detail here.

• Pam Geller & Robert Spencer (Freedom Defense Initiative) v SMART Buses of Michigan: Same issues as in Miami (above) but this time in Detroit, Michigan. The State controlled “SMART Buses” refused the FDI ad providing assistance to “apostate” Muslims who are threatened with fatwas and honor killings (aka murders).  David Yerushalmi has filed a First Amendment challenge in the Eastern District of Michigan federal court.  Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center is co-counsel.

• Working with a Wall Street financial expert to prepare a detailed CLE course on the dangers of Shariah in the context of Shariah-compliant finance. The Law Offices of David Yerushalmi have produced an earlier one-hour CLE course which you can take for free here.

• Advising several non-profit organizations on legal-policy initiatives researched and drafted by our legal teams that will outlaw any foreign legal code or judgment/arbitration that violates our constitutionally protected liberties—one such example of an illegal foreign legal code is Shariah. This state-by-state legislation is working its way through several state legislatures now.

• Advising the group seeking to stop the building of the Ground Zero Mosque project.

• Murray v. Geithner et al. (U.S. District Court, E.D. MI): Lawsuit against the Treasury and Fed challenging its takeover of AIG on the grounds that tax payer funds are going directly to support Shariah in the form of AIG’s Shariah-compliant insurance businesses. See the latest press release here.

• Lopez et al v. CAIR/Saiyed v. CAIR (U.S. District Court, D.C.): Now three separate fraud-racketeering cases against the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Hamas-Muslim Brotherhood front group operating in the U.S. as a fund raising arm for global jihad. See the latest press release here.

• Stop the Madrassa v. Almontaser (NY App. Div. 2^nd Dept.): Defamation action by NY grass roots community coalition suing the former principal of a NY “Arab language and culture” public school, who sought to silence the school’s critics with false allegations of criminal behavior. The school Almontaser designed was in effect a CAIR-Muslim Brotherhood incubator.

• Representing former CIA agent and now Iranian expert researcher against subpoena issued by agents of the Iranian government.

• Representing Customs and Border Protections Officer in whistleblower disclosures when Obama administration issues policy directives for officers not to connect the terror dots.

• Representing local law enforcement first responders throughout the U.S. when sued or charged with Islamaphobia by Muslim Brotherhood allies.

***

As always, those of us at the Society of Americans for National Existence continue our focus:

To strengthen America’s national existence by probing a new and deeper discussion of the issues others fear or just avoid. We are convinced that with integrity of purpose and thought, graced with civility, the SANE message will pierce the fog that lies heavy on the ground.

All the best,

SANE Staff

Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE)^(sm)

SANE's Email Update for Free Subscribers: Vol. 6; No. 2

Sane Email Update Vol. 6. No. 2                                                                                                                 April 22, 2010 

Welcome!

***

Preliminarily, we apologize for the hiatus in these monthly SANE Email Updates. Our last was in January but just know that this means we’ve been inordinately busy. We’ll make this update quite substantive to make this point.

As we informed you last, we have completed the conversion of SANE into the research and public relations arm of a public interest law firm in association with the Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. to handle aggressive and offensive pro bono litigation targeting on the one hand the Left-Elite’s effort to undermine if not destroy simply our national existence on the way to the “transnational” one world state and on the other hand the Muslim Brotherhood-Jihadi effort to force the West into a state of dhimmitude such that Shariah dominates our world view if not our actions. These seemingly two polar opposites are in fact convergent and converging at the point of tyranny in the effort to achieve the world state.

We see this development in Obamacare, in the bailout and effective takeover by government of the financial and automobile sectors, and we see it in the use of language where public criticism of this destruction of ‘self’ and of its reflection in a people with a national identity is now termed sedition; yet, real sedition by Muslim jihadists is called free speech in the context of multi-culturalism. This is words or speech in the employ of tyranny.

Below is a current listing of the pro bono work in which we are currently engaged:

NEW FILES: 

• Thomas More Law Center et al. v. Obama et al. (U.S. District Court, E.D. MI): The Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. represents the Thomas More Law Center and other plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the recently passed health care reform bill (“Obamacare”). You can read about this lawsuit and download key legal filings here. 
• AIG Derivative Lawsuit Against the NY FED: This lawsuit is in the preparation stage and will challenge the Fed’s takeover of AIG by establishing an illegal and invalid trust into which AIG was forced to transfer 80% of its equity and voting rights thereby robbing the public shareholders of most of the value of their shareholdings. For a detailed presentation on the theories underlying this prospective lawsuit, see here. (Any AIG shareholders who wish to join this lawsuit are encouraged to contact us.) 
• Pam Geller & Robert Spencer v. Miami-Dade County Transit Authority and CBS Outdoor: This case, now fully settled, revolves around bus ads our clients, Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch had contracted to run on Miami-Dade County buses that were pulled after CAIR complained the ads “offended Muslims”. David Yerushalmi stepped in (with co-counsel Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center) and with but the threat of a federal lawsuit, got both Miami-Dade County and CBS to agree to a full retraction and to replace the ads with even more ads at no additional cost. You can read about this in more detail here. 
• Working with a Wall Street financial expert to prepare a detailed CLE course on the dangers of Shariah in the context of Shariah-compliant finance. The Law Offices of David Yerushalmi have produced an earlier one-hour CLE course which you can take for free here.
•  Advising several non-profit organizations on legal-policy initiatives researched and drafted by our legal teams that will outlaw any foreign legal code or judgment/arbitration that violates our constitutionally protected liberties—one such example of an illegal foreign legal code is Shariah. This state-by-state legislation is working its way through several state legislatures now.

 PREVIOUSLY REPORTED FILES: 

• Murray v. Geithner et al. (U.S. District Court, E.D. MI): Lawsuit against the Treasury and Fed challenging its takeover of AIG on the grounds that tax payer funds are going directly to support Shariah in the form of AIG’s Shariah-compliant insurance businesses. See the latest press release here. 
• Lopez et al v. CAIR/Saiyed v. CAIR (U.S. District Court, D.C.): Now three separate fraud-racketeering cases against the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Hamas-Muslim Brotherhood front group operating in the U.S. as a fund raising arm for global jihad. See the latest press release here. The key allegations in these complaints are:

 1.                  This is a diversity action alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“DCCPPA”) and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (“VCPA”) on behalf of Plaintiffs who sought legal representation from Defendant Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network, Inc., formerly known as Council on American-Islamic Relations, Inc. (“CAIR”). CAIR represents itself to the public as a public interest law firm representing Muslim Americans in matters relating to civil rights violations, employment discrimination, and immigration issues. In fact, CAIR is not a law firm and it does not provide licensed legal services to its clientele. Rather, CAIR uses the veneer of a Muslim civil rights organization to carry out its principle purposes as a criminal organization. Specifically, CAIR has been identified in several federal prosecutions as a co-conspirator in the financing and support of international terrorism (i.e., jihad) operating as a covert front group for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, organizations with a long history of terrorism through jihad.

2.                  …

3.                  This action arises out of a scheme by CAIR, a criminal organization which fraudulently purports to be a national public interest law firm, to conceal a wide-reaching fraud conducted by and through CAIR-VA, a CAIR branch office in Herndon, Virginia. . . .   

• Stop the Madrassa v. Almontaser (NY App. Div. 2^nd Dept.): Defamation action by NY grass roots community coalition suing the former principal of a NY “Arab language and culture” public school, who sought to silence the school’s critics with false allegations of criminal behavior. The school Almontaser designed was in effect a CAIR-Muslim Brotherhood incubator. 
• Representing former CIA agent and now Iranian expert researcher against subpoena issued by agents of the Iranian government.  
• Representing Customs and Border Protections Officer in whistleblower disclosures when Obama administration issues policy directives for officers not to connect the terror dots.  
• Representing local law enforcement first responders throughout the U.S. when sued or charged with Islamaphobia by Muslim Brotherhood allies.

Our most recent press release follows (but be sure to check out the links to the specific cases referenced above.

***

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 

Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. Win Victory for the First Amendment 

Case Demonstrates that CAIR is a Fraudulent Civil Rights Organization Lobbying on behalf of Hamas and the OIC 

For more information:
David Yerushalmi, Esq.
Law Offices of David Yerushalmi
ContactYerushalmiLaw@verizon.net
646.262.0500
www.davidyerushalmilaw.com

 April 21, 2010 – Miami, Florida: When the South Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) pressured the Miami-Dade Country Transit Authority to yank bus panel ads contracted and paid for by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer of the Freedom Defense Initiative because the ads were “offensive to Muslims”, the two activists turned to the Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. for help. Mr. Yerushalmi joined forces with the Thomas More Law Center and the two law firms began preparing a federal complaint alleging breach of contract and violation of Ms. Geller’s and Mr. Spencer’s First Amendment Rights. 

The bus ad, which appears immediately below, began running on Tuesday, April 13^th. Just two days later, on Thursday, after pressure from CAIR, the bus ads had already been pulled down and Mr. Yerushalmi’s clients received notice of the ad contract termination through media reports on Friday. 

  CAIR, as it typically does, issued nationwide press releases and blasted emails to tens of thousands of outlets on Friday crowing over its “victory” of suppressing free speech on the grounds that the ads promoted “bigotry”. Newspaper and other media stories in the Miami Herald, the Orlando Sentinel, Fox Business News, and NBC ran blindly with the CAIR-generated story on Friday with headlines like: “Miami-Dade Transit Throws Islamic Ad Under the Bus.” 

Ironically, CAIR, which has been named by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI as a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror fund raising trial—a trial which culminated in guilty verdicts for all of the Muslim Brotherhood defendants—claims it is “the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights organization.”  

“It is ironic,” Mr. Yerushalmi noted, “that the media allows CAIR to claim the mantle of a civil rights organization when it embraces censorship by the government all in the service of the ‘anti-blasphemy’ platform of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC), which calls for international legislation providing for criminal penalties against anyone who ‘insults Islam and its prophet Mohammed.’ Free speech is apparently not one of the freedoms in CAIR’s version of the U.S. Constitution—at least not for critics of Islam.”  

Mr. Yerushalmi added that the Center for Security Policy, a leading Washington D.C. national security think tank run by former Reagan administration official Frank Gaffney, has documented that CAIR is an illegal, unregistered foreign agent of the OIC, receiving millions of dollars from Islamic countries in order to pursue their political goals in the U.S. (See the CAIR Observatory at http://www.cairobservatory.org/.) Mr. Yerushalmi is General Counsel to the Center for Security Policy. 

By Friday, the day after the bus ads had been pulled, Mr. Yerushalmi and his co-counsel Robert Muise were prepared to go into federal court early the next week armed with a complaint and motion for temporary restraining order.  

A teleconference was arranged first with the Miami-Dade County Attorney’s office, which took place Monday afternoon. After listening to Mr. Yerushalmi’s brief, the county attorneys conceded the ads should not have been pulled. By Tuesday, Mr. Yerushalmi had negotiated a full and complete retraction of the contract termination with a NY-based attorney for CBS Outdoor. Not only would the original 10 king-sized ads go back up on the Transit Authority buses, but CBS would run an additional 20 king-sized bus ads for no additional charge. 

The new agreement was inked and signed by Wednesday, April 21. The ads are expected to go back up by early next week. 

“This is not just an important day for the First Amendment. It is a ‘teaching moment’ for the media and for others in various government agencies who come across CAIR,” Mr. Yerushalmi added. “CAIR is a criminal organization with ties to Hamas and other jihadists. This is not my opinion but the considered view of the U.S. Attorney’s office, the FBI, and the federal courts, all based on evidence CAIR has never refuted. If you find yourself on the same side of an issue with CAIR, you’d better examine the facts a bit more closely. You’re likely in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood, even if only unwittingly.”  

Mr. Yerushalmi is currently prosecuting two separate fraud cases against CAIR on behalf of five former CAIR clients, three of whom are Muslim Americans, who were defrauded by CAIR. 

About David Yerushalmi, Esq. 

David Yerushalmi has been practicing law for more than 26 years. He is a litigator specializing in securities law, public policy relating to national security, and public interest law. Mr. Yerushalmi is licensed and practices in Washington D.C., New York, California, and Arizona.   

***

As always, those of us at the Society of Americans for National Existence continue our focus:

To strengthen America’s national existence by probing a new and deeper discussion of the issues others fear or just avoid. We are convinced that with integrity of purpose and thought, graced with civility, the SANE message will pierce the fog that lies heavy on the ground.

All the best,

SANE Staff

Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE)^(sm)

SANE's Email Update for Free Subscribers: Vol. 6; No. 1

Sane Email Update Vol. 6. No. 1                                                                                                            January 13, 2010 

Dear SANE Subscriber, Member, or Friend:

Welcome!

***

We have a new development in SANE’s effort to counter the convergence between the Western Elite who would destroy national existence for a transnational or even supranational world order on the one hand, and the Shariah-driven Muslim mujahideen fighting and “striving” for a world order of their own—the Caliphate. The convergence between these two very real forces is personified in the current administration’s domestic and foreign policies.

The SANE Board of Trustees has just recently authorized a more invigorated and focused legal assault on both of these fronts by establishing a public interest law firm in association with the Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. As it is, Mr. Yerushalmi has dedicated a huge portion of his firm’s resources to these legal battles pro bono. A list of just the most recent work is impressive: 

• Murray v. Geithner et al. (U.S. District Court, E.D. MI): Lawsuit against the Treasury and Fed challenging its takeover of AIG on the grounds that tax payer funds are going directly to support Shariah in the form of AIG’s Shariah-compliant insurance businesses. 

• Lopez et al v. CAIR/Saiyed v. CAIR (U.S. District Court, D.C.): Now three separate fraud-racketeering cases against the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Hamas-Muslim Brotherhood front group operating in the U.S. as a fund raising arm for global jihad.  

• Stop the Madrassa v. Almontaser (NY App. Div. 2^nd Dept.): Defamation action by NY grass roots community coalition suing the former principal of a NY “Arab language and culture” public school, who sought to silence the school’s critics with false allegations of criminal behavior. The school Almontaser designed was in effect a CAIR-Muslim Brotherhood incubator. 

• Representing former CIA agent and now Iranian expert researcher against subpoena issued by agents of the Iranian government.  

• Representing Customs and Border Protections Officer in whistleblower disclosures when Obama administration issues policy directives for officers not to connect the terror dots.  

• Representing local law enforcement first responders throughout the U.S. when sued or charged with Islamaphobia by Muslim Brotherhood allies within and without their agencies. 

• Representing several policy think tanks when confronted with threatened legal action by groups aligned with Leftists and Muslim Brotherhood organizations.  

In the coming editions of the SANE Email Update, we will develop this idea of SANE as the first public interest law firm with the distinct focus on national existence and the battle against the convergence of the Elite and the Shariah-faithful. In the meantime, following is a press release on the most recent lawsuits filed against CAIR:

***

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 

Muslim Group CAIR Sued Yet Again by Former Clients for  Fraud & Breach of Fiduciary Duties 

For more information:
Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C.
ContactYerushalmiLaw@verizon.net
www.davidyerushalmilaw.com

SANE's Email Update for Free Subscribers: Vol. 5; No. 5

Dear SANE Subscriber, Member, or Friend:

Welcome!

***

We are in the midst of putting together our December Email Update, but we thought we’d send out now this recently posted oped (at National Review’s Corner blog) on the implications of the financial meltdown of Dubai World. The posting, by SANE’s David Yerushalmi, discusses the convergence of interests between the Shariah-faithful financial jihadists, the oil-soaked royal families in the Persian Gulf, and the “Western facilitators”, meaning the banks and their professional lackeys—the lawyers and accountants that make it all possible—and, lest we forget, the government policy makers and technocrats who endorse this dangerous tool of the financial jihad by engaging in a studied form of willful blindness.

The Threat of Shariah-Compliant Finance    [David Yerushalmi]

News of the financial meltdown of Dubai World — a quasi-sovereign global concern that owns 77 percent of the international port manager DP World and is the single largest real-estate developer in Dubai, which is known for its palm-tree-shaped luxury residential developments — has raced from the business pages to the headlines of the front pages in a matter of days. Since the first reports on Thanksgiving, the Wall Street Journal and just about every other major media outlet are now reporting on the worldwide implications of this latest financial shockwave.

What makes this story more than simply one of a massive real-estate-investment company gone bad is the double-edged sword so prevalent in the chase for oil-based Middle East wealth: sovereign wealth funds and Shariah-compliant finance.

Beginning in the 1970s with the Carter-era oil crisis and accelerating during the post-9/11 oil-price spikes, Persian Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E.’s wealthiest city-state of Abu Dhabi have been awash in liquidity. These trillion-dollar cash reserves are controlled in every case by the respective royal families, typically in sovereign or quasi-sovereign wealth funds.

Another phenomenon that followed the great Oil Rush of the post-9/11 era was the promotion and aggressive exportation of a Muslim Brotherhood doctrine called Shariah-compliant finance (SCF). SCF or “Islamic finance” was first articulated in the mid-20th century by men like Sayyid Qutb of Egypt and Abul Ala Maududi of Pakistan, both of whom argued for a jihad against Westernization and for the creation of Islamic polities that would ultimately join in a hegemonic global Caliphate, with the goal of establishing Shariah not merely as the supreme law of the land, but as the supreme law of the world.

In the post-9/11 era, Western imams and their infidel advisors in business suits speaking the Queen’s English have understood that, given the global jihad’s reliance on the dictates of Shariah to murder apostates and terrorize the infidels into submission, SCF must be attired in a kind of progressive Western garb to attract the attention of the financial centers in London, Hong Kong, and New York. So it was that SCF became known as “Ethical Investing” and Western and Muslim financiers began lecturing the world that fraud and abuse in the financial markets were driven by the desire for forbidden gain through interest and gambling. They told us that SCF was based not on forbidden interest and speculative paper assets, but on profits acquired through equity participation and sound investing in real assets.

Dubai World, a company wholly owned by the Dubai sovereign, has funded itself through debt to the tune of $60 billion. The Dubai debt now in default just happens to be Shariah-compliant bonds (or “sukuk”). These bonds pay interest just like their forbidden cousins in the Western markets, but the interest is put into the black box of Shariah-created fictions and “special purpose vehicles” to keep the forbidden interest off the books. What we now see as a real-estate-bubble collapse in Dubai is no different and no more or less ethical than any other financial failure. But what makes this collapse so problematic is precisely what makes SCF and sovereign wealth funds so dangerous.

To understand the rather opaque world of Islamic finance, one must understand the players. Since its founding, the modern SCF world has been driven by essentially two groups. The first we can label the Shariah fundamentalists. They come in the form of the fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood “political Islamists” operating principally in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia. These Shariah-inspired financiers understand SCF as “financial jihad” — indeed, as part of a larger stealth campaign to institutionalize Shariah in the West.

What makes this institutionalization a bit tricky is that the financial jihadists must convince the Western financiers and their governmental counterparts that Shariah-inspired finance is somehow distinct from Shariah-inspired global jihad against the infidel West. In other words, how do you export a financial model among infidels when that model is built upon a doctrine that manifestly calls for the death and destruction of the infidels and their political and social systems? The answer to this quandary is found in the second group of SCF advocates: the Western facilitators.

The financial jihadists built their strategy upon both sovereign wealth and the cravenness and fecklessness of the Western facilitators who would sell their own well-being and physical security for a place among the Fortune 500. Led by the Saudis but also joined by the other oil-soaked Persian Gulf regimes, the Shariah-inspired jihadists learned quickly that Western financial institutions and their professional lackeys in the legal and accounting fields would do anything for that next billion-dollar transaction.

Greed, self-indulgence, and even treason are of course not new to the international banking and multinational corporate worlds. But what the Shariah advocates have found even more to their liking is the fact that the Western technocrats and government policymakers have been more than willing to ignore Shariah’s call for global jihad and its resonance as the common doctrine articulated by jihadists around the globe.

The result has been the perfect convergence of (1) Western financial markets in dire need of liquidity, (2) the liquidity available in the sovereign wealth funds of the Shariah faithful, and (3) the willful blindness of Western governments.

— David Yerushalmi is an attorney specializing in litigation and general counsel to the Center for Security Policy, a Washington think tank specializing in national security.

***

As always, those of us at the Society of Americans for National Existence continue our focus:

To strengthen America’s national existence by probing a new and deeper discussion of the issues others fear or just avoid. We are convinced that with integrity of purpose and thought, graced with civility, the SANE message will pierce the fog that lies heavy on the ground.

All the best,

SANE Staff

Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE)^(sm)

SANE's Email Update for Free Subscribers: Vol. 5; No. 4

Dear SANE Subscriber, Member, or Friend: 

***

We begin by referencing War Strategy 101or “Relearning the Art of War,” by SANE’s Col. Thomas Snodgrass (USAF retired). This is an essay we published at SANE almost a year ago. The fundamentals elucidated in this essay are essential for anyone seeking to properly assess “counterinsurgency” as war strategy. We have reposted this essay at the public portion of the SANE Works for US log-in page (scroll down below the posted Email Updates).

Once you’ve digested the basics, we would recommend two shorter essays by Col. Snodgrass dealing directly with the Afghan war effort. Both essays have been published at the American Thinker (as well as in SANE’s membership library) and are available by following these links:

• Can We Find Clarity in the Afghan Strategy Debate?
• Is Counterinsurgency a Viable Strategy for America?

We would also recommend Andy McCarthy’s piece on the subject: This Mission is not McChrystal Clear.

Not surprisingly, the pro-counterinsurgency-Limited War theorists have already gone on the counteroffensive against Andy, including this one by Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute. We will respond to Kagan in full in our next edition but in the meantime we can say this: Counterinsurgency in Iraq has not succeeded. What it has done is to create conditions where it might succeed IF BUT ONLY IF (1) we cut off the Iranian and Syrian supply chains (which we have been unwilling to do because that would require attacking Tehran and Damascus) and (2) we were prepared to remain in Iraq taking casualties at least another decade.

That is, “orthodox” counterinsurgency theory (including the Petraeus-McChrystal version) is based upon a seven to twelve year horizon precisely because nation building is not easy. Add Shariah-Islam’s hostility to infidels occupying dar al-Islam and you have an almost impossible task with an absolutely unknown horizon.

Do the Kagan’s of the world actually expect Iran not to re-assert itself in Iraq the moment our battle-ready forces exit? Does Iraq not present Iran with the perfect theatre to control the West? Will there not be a direct relationship between Iranian-sponsored insurgency in Iraq with Western pressure on Iran’s nuclear program? Thoughts to the contrary are simply sand castles of blind faith constructed from President George W. Bush’s foreign policy and war doctrine: All men, everywhere, at all times desire liberty and free markets. The problem we should recognize by now is that this is not even true any more in the West much less in the Muslim Near East.

SANE's Email Update for Free Subscribers: Vol. 5; No. 3

Dear SANE Subscriber, Member, or Friend:

Welcome!

***

Last week in the SANE Email Update we delved into the question why liberals, conservatives, and independents are all progressives at heart. If you would like to go back and review that analysis, we have posted it at the SANE Works for US web site log in page. This week we highlight an essay by David Yerushalmi discussing the latest assault on this country’s longest-standing Judeo-Christian institution. It follows.

***

The legal dynamic duo of Ted Olson and David Boies have made the news and the talk-show rounds promoting their lawsuit on behalf of gay marriage. Olson, a conservative Republican former Solicitor General, and Boies, a liberal Democrat who is known as a litigator’s litigator, were once adversaries locked in the epic battle over Florida chads, which ultimately played out in the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. Now, the two men have joined forces to beat back the gay-bashing Christian hordes in California who dared to amend the state constitution to insist that marriage should be preserved as a union between one man and one woman.

The dynamic duo’s legal case, laid out in interviews and various op-ed essays, notably by Boies in a July 20^th oped in the Wall Street Journal, is based on a three-tiered argument that begins at the level of social science, elevates itself to science proper, and then concludes at the moral level. Robert J. Loewenberg of the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies has termed this argument the Reciprocal. Meaning, if you can reduce the basis of a political discourse to science or mathematical symbol, you win because science permits no discrimination based upon value judgments. Alternatively, or reciprocally, if you reduce the argument to all that is not science, that is opinion or belief, you win as well since society may never discriminate between any two things once the differentiation is understood as unscientific. The dirty little secret of the Reciprocal is that nothing today is admitted to being anything but science or belief. In a word, the Reciprocal rules all. Point-game-match.

Thus, the first leg of the dynamic duo’s case for the constitutionality of gay marriage is that there is no “legitimate” policy to deny homosexuals the “fundamental right” to marry a same sex partner. By “legitimate” they mean rational, as in validated by data collected by social scientists. Proposition 8 in California, therefore, is illegitimate because there is no basis in social science to prohibit gay marriages. This reliance on social science as the poor cousin of the “hard” sciences is a respected argument in constitutional jurisprudence, but it has a difficult time standing fully on its own without some help from its more pedigreed hard science cousins. We will see this shoring up with hard science momentarily.

The specific social science argument in favor of gay marriage is that since gay unions have now been accepted as commonplace and we see no measurable (i.e., empirical) social, economic, or political harm in these unions, any moral argument against gay marriage is irrational. Even more specifically, since heterosexual marriage and family life is not affected deleteriously by granting homosexuals the same privilege, society’s bias in favor of opposite sex marriages that will produce naturally conceived children remains unharmed by eliminating any legal bias against homosexuals.

But, social science only goes so far, and the reason is that statistics applied to social phenomena are notoriously subject to manipulation. The Christian right often comes into court loaded with its own empirical-statistical evidence about the negative influence homosexual marriages will have on the children of these unions, typically adopted or artificially conceived. While the Christian social science advocates are at a distinct disadvantage since most social scientists with academic degrees will amass as a “consensus” in favor of the progressive no-harm side, the very hint that the social sciences are really nothing more than beliefs dressed up in empirical fact allows the ‘hard’ sciences to make an entry and rescue the argument from uncertainty.

The hard science argument in this case is based upon biology. Human sexuality is a fact of genetic composition, which in turn is a product of evolution. Even the age-old argument over homosexuality—nature or nurture or some combination thereof—has been denuded by evolutionary biology’s newest “discovery” that man like all matter is locked in an ever-evolving environmental process that precludes any rational person from claiming that evolved behavior X at time Y is somehow more moral or better in any scientific way than behavior not-X.

In the Journal op-ed authored by Boies, hard science’s shoring up is accomplished by declaring that even if homosexual marriage were in fact perceived by an overwhelming consensus in our society as a bad thing, homosexuality is a status determined by evolutionary biology and not subject to correction.

Once homosexuality has been turned into something akin to race (i.e., biological), all past discrimination becomes evil (meaning, scientifically irrational) and the legal argument, based upon 20^th century jurisprudence, has been converted from rational basis to compelling interest. Now the state must show that gay marriage threatened harm to a compelling state interest and that there was no other less discriminatory fix available to protect this interest. As you can well imagine, the compelling interest argument is one that a state rarely musters successfully.

Having moved the argument from the rationality of statistics in the social sciences to the compelling certainty of biology, the dynamic duo’s argument finally comes to rest on the other side of the Reciprocal—morality or belief. This tack grants that a large segment of American society views the world through a Christian (sometimes referred to as the Judeo-Christian) moral lens and that this group has a First Amendment right to cling to their belief. However, because religion is mere opinion or belief and lacks the certainty of science or even the rationality of the social sciences, it can never be the basis for a discriminating law.

The problem with this argument against morality-based legislation, however, was foreseen by Justice Anton Scalia when the Supreme Court first appeared to embrace it in Lawrence v. Texas. There the Court, with Justice Kennedy authoring the majority opinion, concluded that the state’s moral basis for prohibiting homosexuals from engaging in sodomy was not rational. Left unsaid, but certainly implied, is the conclusion that this morality legislation prohibiting homosexual sodomy was not supported by either the hard or soft sciences. Without that “objective” rational basis, morality alone is an arbitrary and uncertain basis to deny a man his liberty to engage in private consensual sex with the object of his choosing.

In his dissent, Justice Scalia described the societal dilemma this new a-moral jurisprudence presented:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bower’s [the Court’s earlier decision on anti-sodomy laws] validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.

In other words, America’s constitutional law is now understood to prohibit laws forbidding behavior touching upon sex or any other “fundamental liberty” on moral grounds. Morality standing alone is mere belief, uncertain, and as such irrational, or at least not rational. While Justice Scalia provided a list of horribles that may no longer be penalized, his own listing failed “to cabin the scope” of the Court’s almost full-throated embrace of the Reciprocal.

Given the Court’s rejection of morality standing alone as a valid basis for criminalizing what most would consider aberrant or even deviant sexual conduct, what does the future hold for the most “immoral” of sexual perversions, i.e., pedophilia?

A year before Lawrence, in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, the Court was comfortable assuming that sex with children was “abusive” and, as so defined, “an act repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people”. We must suppose, enlightened as we are by Lawrence, that what saves laws against pedophilia from being declared unconstitutional are not “the moral instincts of a decent people”, but rather the abusive nature inherent in the child-adult sexual relationship. Thus, social science can be employed to make the argument that children lack the maturity to consent to such behavior and that sex with a minor will result in substantial emotional harm to the child, which in turn will cause societal harm as the individual harm aggregates.

But the question must be asked: does science save us here? Is the Court right about the lack of mature consent necessarily constituting abuse, and is it inevitable or even probable that adult-child sex results in “empirical” harm to the child or to society?

Let’s begin with the consent issue. Do we as a society worry about a child’s inability to consent if adults wish to smile at the child? Do we worry about “consensual” waving at a child or playing peek-a-boo with an infant? Or, do we bother with consent issues when a parent convinces the child to brush her hair or to take a bath? No. And the reason we don’t is because none of these acts carry any “moral” opprobrium. They are what we might call morally neutral.

Similarly, a growing number of Americans don’t consider sex an act laden with moral overtones. Indeed, the atheist essayist Christopher Hitchens argues that Christian morality has destroyed man’s freedom to enjoy sex by imposing all sorts of religiously engendered taboos. So, why isn’t sex like washing your hands?

The answer, of course, is because our Judeo-Christian moral foundations say it is properly an intimate and essentially holy act to be vested in the divinely sanctioned institution of marriage between two adults of the opposite sex. Now, it is true that much of this Judeo-Christian foundation has eroded, but enough remains to inform us as a society that certain acts are “repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people”.

But, Muslims who follow their prophet Mohammed, who, according to Islamic sources married a six year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was but nine, find nothing wrong in forced marriages and therefore sexual relations with young prepubescent girls. The only reason Muslims would today find this behavior reprehensible is because they have absorbed Judeo-Christian standards (one reason to applaud colonialism).

Yet, Muslims are not alone in this rather approving attitude toward adult-child sex. In Japan, the national criminal code sets the age of consent at 13 (which is raised by law in certain local jurisdictions). So, there are certainly many people and societies who don’t view adult-child sex as “morally repugnant”. 

What this means, of course, is that as a society we are concerned about coercive consent in sexual relationships because we have labeled sex something other than brushing our teeth. By imposing our “religious” filter on the act, we have elevated “consent” to some moral high ground. Yet, if we were to remove the religious or subjective moral filter and rely upon science, any claim about the morality of pedophilia based upon the “moral instincts of a decent people” is on its face vacuous. Devoid of our unscientific “moral instinct” unique to a “decent people”—at least in our case that means the Judeo-Christian moral instinct—you can know nothing about the virtue or vice of pedophilia.

Indeed, if we move onto the second argument, which claims that there is a rational, empirical basis for a secular law against pedophilia, the logic is at best tentative and at worst circular. The tentative argument rests on a social science analysis of the individual and societal costs of such behavior. But, this means that if science can marshal enough empirical evidence to show that consensual, non-violent, adult-child sex is not harmful, the rational basis for such laws would evaporate. Indeed, social scientists have already gathered empirical evidence which suggests that child-adult sex at a young age, even in our current religiously-biased society, does not necessarily lead to subsequent trauma and this, the researchers argue, should lead to a more nuanced and scientifically enlightened approach. (See, Rind, B., Tromovitch, P. & Bauserman, R. (1998). “A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples”. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), pp. 22-53.)

But more than tentative, this argument turns out to be circular. What would happen if our society adopted the secular, scientific view of sex? That is, sex is not a divinely sanctioned act between a married man and woman but simply a biological urge to reproduce and play in the Darwinian arena of survival.

Arguably, the only reason adult-child sex might cause a child emotional or psychological harm is because our society starts with the Judeo-Christian premise about sex and such behavior. If children were taught by their guardians, peers, and society at large that sex was like brushing one’s teeth, how could they be traumatized by it? 

What this means to the secular “social science” adherent is that pedophilia is not morally wrong because that characterization is meaningless to science and wholly subjective and arbitrary as a social norm. Indeed, given the science-belief Reciprocal, we are but one vote away from embracing a moral positivism predicated upon science devoid of Judeo-Christian foundations. In this way, we (as in a majority) could merely agree (democratically of course) to treat sex of all types like brushing your teeth. It might not be something we’d do in public, but it certainly ought not to carry any moral opprobrium. A child who had sex at age 5 or 9 would be like a child who brushed her teeth at that age and of absolutely no concern to society (presumably it would still make sense to make it a crime to cause a child physical harm).

But alas, this whole discussion becomes absurd because no decent Jew or Christian would tolerate such a view of the world. And even those among us who reject such religious affiliations understand still today that child-sex is morally repugnant. But this is so because we as a people have embraced the Judeo-Christian moral compass even as so many mindlessly mouth objection to it.

Yet with each passing day, with each scientific advancement or “progress”, we lose sight of that compass. And, to remove that compass from us altogether—as the Court has done in Lawrence and as our dynamic duo suggests we do now with the institution of marriage—is to render our society no society at all but a mass of homogenous solitary particles of matter combining in endless but ultimately meaningless ways, bound only by the laws binding all matter, everywhere. And, as all political societies progress closer to this certainty of the science-opinion Reciprocal devoid of any common faith in transcendent truth, we move inexorably closer to the Reciprocal’s political articulation in the science-democracy one world order.

And, it is not hard to predict the future. Today, to speak in public of the moral abomination of homosexual conduct is to be set up for ridicule and, in some jurisdictions in Europe, possibly an indictment for hate-speech. But this was not always the case. Just a few years ago, it was a crime to engage in such behavior. As was the case with adultery and other such “moral offenses”. But in the science-democracy political order, we embrace “scientific advancement” as a measure of both time and social-political progress. In our new world order, we view technological advancement as human advancement simply. We have reduced “being” in human being to a historical ontology based upon the movement of matter. In a word, we have rid ourselves of what it means to be Man and replaced it with literally nothing.

__________________

David Yerushalmi is a trial attorney specializing in public policy and constitutional issues. He serves as General Counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., one of the nation’s leading national security think tanks founded by former Reagan administration official Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., and has been Of Counsel and Senior Legal Advisor for Policy Affairs to the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies (Potomac, Maryland) since 1988.

***

As always, those of us at the Society of Americans for National Existence continue our focus:

SANE's Email Update for Free Subscribers: Vol. 5; No. 2

Dear SANE Subscriber, Member, or Friend:

SANE's Email Update for Free Subscribers: Vol. 5; No. 1

Dear SANE Subscriber, Member, or Friend,

Welcome!

At our SANE Works for US web site, we have now completed our conversion from an “open source” journal on public policy (stage one), to an open source web log (stage two), and now to a members-only policy web log and knowledge base (stage three). Our data archives are loaded with mineral-rich and protein-packed essays and white papers. Many readers, numbering in the hundreds, have requested membership information. Consider this email a response if you haven’t received a direct email response to date.

For basic membership privileges to access the web log, one should pledge $150 per month or make a one-time annual donation of $1200. For access to the archived knowledge base, $250 per month or $2500 annually. SANE of course is a 501c(3) tax-exempt organization and these donations are tax deductible. (These are suggested donation amounts and are subject to change.)

As we have explained previously, SANE has made this move for two reasons. One, we wish to engage in an uncensored policy debate that is prepared to call a spade a spade. Remaining an open source allowed jihad promoters like CAIR and leftists groups sympathetic to the jihad promoters to cut and paste context in such a way that we were spending too much time navigating around flak and not enough time affecting policy.

And, this is important to keep in mind. SANE is not a journalistic effort. We are not primarily about educating people, although that is certainly a big part of our mission statement. Our number one goal is to affect policy discourse in a meaningful way and to preserve national existence, principally America’s. To achieve that, we must educate the policy movers. At present, it is our view that this mission is best achieved through two modalities.

The first is by engaging in a targeted, more discreet educational approach through private briefings, direct email exchanges, and one-on-one discourse with policy leaders. This allows for more considered and contextual thought. This approach, we would think, is self-explanatory.

The second is by supporting a counter lawfare offensive.

As most of you know, the Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas-Salafi groups, led by CAIR, ISNA, and a whole host of alphabet soup acronyms, have taken a page out of the progressives’ play book, notably the ACLU’s, to destroy this country’s defenses “from within” through “civil rights” style litigation. What this means is that this country’s national existence is under direct attack not only from the traditional Left-wing groups, but also from the Shariah-faithful. As has been noted on these pages, this represents the perfect convergence between elite Left-wing One World types with the Shariah-driven Muslims seeking a resurgent One World Caliphate. This convergence is not unlike the overt and covert convergence we witnessed in the last century between the hard and soft Left in this country on the one hand and the Marxists and Stalinists seeking their own form of statist global hegemony on the other.

Until recently, this legal arena has been effectively ceded to the litigating jihadists because most conservative or religious groups, which have made it their business to take on the ACLU on discreet conservative or religious issues during the past two decades, have refused to engage the threat from Shariah-Islam. One man and his law firm have been an exception to this rule and we are pleased to say it is SANE’s founder, David Yerushalmi, and his law firm, the Law Offices of David Yeurshalmi, P.C. Thus, we have made the decision to line up our support behind the efforts of Mr. Yerushalmi and his frontal, offensive (as opposed to defensive) effort in this battle space. Our support has been matched by Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, for whom Mr. Yerushalmi serves as General Counsel.

The Thomas More Law Center, a nationally recognized public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is another exception to this rule and we have supported David Yerushalmi’s active partnership with this group of stalwart Catholic lawyers. As many of you know, Mr. Yerushalmi and Rob Muise of TMLC are in federal court as we write representing an Iraq War veteran, Kevin Murray, working to expose the U.S. government’s financial support of AIG’s efforts to promote Shariah globally through its promotion of Shariah-compliant insurance products (see the complaint in Murray v. Geithner et al here and the latest court ruling denying the federal government’s motion to dismiss here).

Mr. Yerushalmi is also prosecuting a civil racketeering and fraud action in federal court against the Muslim Brotherhood front group, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). (See background here and a copy of the complaint here.)

The second reason for our shift to a members-only web log is more mundane: pure economics. Providing free content is fine if you are prepared to live and die by the advertising dollar. We are not. Once you move in that direction, you are subject to hostile ad boycotts and the like and no truly independent policy organization should be so handicapped. The only other option is to live and die by the charity of your donor base, but the post-Madoff, post-financial meltdown world has changed those realities radically. Our position today is that our information and analysis has an intrinsic and extrinsic value. If you wish to take advantage of that value, you ought to be willing to pay for it. If we are right, we will raise the funds to support our work. If not, so be it. The response to date from our previously free member base suggests we have made the right, albeit tough, choice. We are of the view that we are way ahead of the curve on this new trend.

However, because many of our readers and friends cannot afford to pay for our content, we have decided to make our weekly email newsletter available to our free subscriber base. Feel free to forward these email newsletters to those in your address book you think might find it worthwhile. While this email will not have the detail of our online knowledge base, it will include the broad strokes of our current focus.

Now, onto substance.

* * *

This week we focus on an essay by our dear friend and true American patriot, Andy McCarthy. The former U.S. Attorney who prosecuted the Blind Sheikh for the first WTC bombing in the 1990s, and who is now a regular contributor at National Review and involved in policy discourse through a host of other outlets, is one of the most astute commentators on the national security scene today. You cannot go wrong reading and studying his body of work.

In an essay last week in the National Review, Andy artfully and persuasively makes the argument that “democracy-building” is a foreign policy nightmare. He explicitly makes the case that we have made in the past that the delusion, preached emphatically by President George W. Bush, that ‘all men, everywhere, and at all times desire liberty and free markets’ is patently false. Andy coherently points out that this is no where more evident today than among the Shariah-faithful or among even the Shariah-friendly. For reasons we appreciate although don’t adopt, Andy calls this crowd (numbering in the hundreds of millions) “Islamists”.

Andy’s essay closes with two powerful paragraphs worth repeating here because SANE’s Colonel Thomas Snodgrass and David Yerushalmi have been making the same case in dozens of essays at SANE since teaming up together in 2006:

We can’t stop Muslim countries from being Islamist. That is their choice. It should be no concern of ours who rules them as long as they do not threaten American interests. When they inevitably do threaten us, or allow their territories to be launch pads for terrorists, we should smash them. But the price of defending our nation cannot be spending years — at a cost of precious lives and hundreds of billions of dollars — in a vain attempt to give people who despise us a way of life they don’t want.

Meanwhile, we must accept that Islamism is our enemy and has targeted our constitutional system for destruction by slow strangulation via sharia. Instead of worrying about democracy in Afghanistan, we need to worry about democracy in America. The surge we need is at home: to roll back Islamism’s infiltration of our schools, our financial system, our law, and our government. In addition to not being universal, the “values of the human spirit” are not immortal. If we don’t defend them in the West, they will die.

Now, pay attention to Andy’s penultimate sentence. He is saying something nuanced but of ultimate importance. America’s “values of the human spirit” are neither universal nor immortal. In other words, Andy is confirming, even if in a passing way as a closing remark, what we have been saying for some time. The idea that our values are somehow part of a “universal human rights” paradigm is absurd. There are no such things as universal human rights. While there are specific liberties which arise out of discreet peoples organized within geographically bounded political orders sharing common history, culture, religion, language and political thought, if you advocate universal “rights”, you can count on them coming with a price tag. If you think otherwise, ask yourself where this universal human rights plank exists? How is it discovered? Who defines its particulars? Who enforces it?

There are only two answers to those questions (if you think about it you’ll know what they are; hint: think tyranny—active phase; passive phase) but both lead to precisely the same end: a one world political regime that denies national existence to discreet peoples. Why is this so? Because to create a transnational or supra-national political right, some political order or institution must first define that right and then be prepared to enforce it. That global sovereign by definition must reign supreme over the lesser national existences of its constituent parts. (The European Union is of course a minor league example of this in actu.)

Even the authors of the Declaration of Independence understood the inherent danger of declaring divinely ordained rights as “transnational” and purposefully and quite carefully followed their famous articulation of those unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which they understood were endowed by the Creator, with the eminently practical limitation that only discreet peoples could translate such lofty notions into concrete “political rights”:

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

These “unalienable rights” to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not dictate capitalism or western democracy. To the Leftist Progressive, it means the march toward global statism. To the Shariah faithful, the jihad toward a global Caliphate. The founders understood this and that is why they speak of “the right of the people to alter or to abolish it” and to reorganize “in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

Peoples, or what we call nations in modern political orders, differ fundamentally on what constitutes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. America is what it is because of its People and this People’s shared history, culture, language, religion, and political thought. While this People has of late given way to multi-culturalism and the notion that America is not a nation or a People but an “idea” of freedom and civil rights, enough of it remains to defend. It is why we see the People taking to the streets at town hall meetings and tea parties in protest of President Obama’s march toward statism and globalism in the guise of universal health care and carbon cap-and-tax policies.

(To suggest that Peoplehood doesn’t count is to belie history. If our Founding Fathers had been Chinese or Mexican or Buddhists or Slavs or Africans or Eastern European Jews would they have crafted and designed the political order founded in a Revolution in 1776? Not likely. By the by, imagine if today’s Blue State Democrats were the founding generation of this country. Do you imagine for a second that they would have crafted anything other than a statist, socialist regime?)

The question, however, remains. And it is one that Andy has steered clear of to date even though he has quite ably remonstrated against the transnationalists in the Obama administration. Why is it that Western democracies have “progressed” steadily toward this notion that there are no “Peoples” with discreet and unique values and interests but rather a global village consisting of its global citizens? Or, why have we marched, seemingly inexorably, toward universal and transnational solutions, thereby requiring universal and international political mechanisms and institutions, necessarily sacrificing our own sovereignty and consequently our own peoplehood? This question, however phrased, demands an answer if we ever expect to stem the tide even momentarily.

In our next issue, we will discuss how the notion of democracy-building, universal human rights, and globalism are the necessary conditions of the science-democracy Reciprocal. That is, we will suggest a diagnostic analysis of the malady, not merely descriptive punditry. If you don’t know what the Reciprocal is, you haven’t been paying attention. Stay tuned for next week’s edition.

* * *

As always, those of us at the SANE Works for US web journal continue our focus:

To strengthen America’s national existence by probing a new and deeper discussion of the issues others fear or just avoid. We are convinced that with integrity of purpose and thought, graced with civility, the SANE message will pierce the fog that lies heavy on the ground.

All the best,

Staff

Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE)^(SM)

We note that since the publication of the Muslim Mafia by Paul Sperry and Dave Gaubatz, we have had many visitors trying to figure out what SANE is or is not because CAIR has attempted to discredit Dave Gaubatz by discrediting SANE. Below is our explanation.

Initially, what you will read below was published before SANE became a members-only website. If you read below to the SANE email Update, Vol. 5, No. 1, you will gain some understanding of our purposes. We are re-publishing this statement of truth now because CAIR is attempting, in typical fashion, to discredit the recently published WND book entitled Muslim Mafia by discrediting one of its co-authors Dave Gaubatz.

Now, in our view Mr. Gaubatz is an American patriot. He has served his country his entire adult life, either in uniform or out. Whether you agree with everything he says or does is besides this point. Few men can match his dedication. 

CAIR attacks Mr. Gaubatz by suggesting that SANE, for whom Mr. Gaubatz worked as director of the Mapping Shariah project for several years (his contract ended more than a year ago), is a "racist organization". CAIR then marches out some quotes, some of which are simply falsely attributed to SANE, some of which don't even exist, and most of which have been kidnapped from context and raped of any meaning. But anyone who knows anything about CAIR, including its Muslim clients, knows this to be their modus operandi. CAIR is a criminal organization. You may read below our more specific responses to the CAIR lies and deceptions.

______________________________  

Some of the visitors to this site come by way of CAIR press releases attacking SANE, David Yerushalmi, or our Mapping Shariah project. Others come here by way of a dozen or so other pro-Shariah or dhimmi Elite web sites which regurgitate CAIR's talking points. Some few come via a Far Left pseudo-Jewish site called Tikun Olam which also employs ad hominem argument rather than substance.

The approach used in these attacks is to quote literally a word or phrase or in some cases a provocative query in a long analytical piece that examines the hard reality of facts but to quote it in such a way as to suggest some demonic (i.e., racist) agenda on the part of SANE and its participants.

(Other smear approaches include: (1) making up quotes and not providing an actual link to the SANE site; (2) simply supplying the title and link to a long article, such as "On Race: a Tentative Discussion", to suggest that it must be "racist" and betting on the fact that most cyberspace drive-bys will never take the time to read the article much less attempt to study it at any level of seriousness; and (3) linking to articles by others that have been posted on other websites in David Yerushalmi's name--we're not sure if the spurious attributions have been deliberate or not because we haven't bothered to track them all down and read them. We ignore these smear tactics because they are facially juvenile.)

Here we go through some, but not all, of the representative samples of the more "substantive" critiques:

[1] The name: Society of Americans for National Existence. By just mentioning the word "national" in some positive way, the Elite respond by immediately crying out as if that were a demonstration that one advocates fascism. The argument: because some of the 20th century fascists have called themselves "national socialists" or would emphasize national interests as their calling card, anyone who advocates "national" as opposed to "human" interests is a fascist. Little needs to be said here since in fact most fascists are not true advocates of national existence and sovereignty but rather seek global hegemony well beyond "national" identity. This was true of Hitler's ultimate  designs and certainly true of Marxist-fascist regimes such as the Soviet Union. National existence or the advocacy of such is not an "ism" as in nationalism. It is a statement about how men live in political society--that is, about political order. It is about discriminating between a distinct people and others.

Now, it is absolutely the case that the Elite and the Shariah faithful abhor national existence--viz., the distinction between a nation and others. They both seek a worldwide political order where each man is a citizen of the "human race". They both understand, by necessity, man reduced to indiscriminate matter. The former understand man nullified and wholly subsumed within and to "scientific facts" and the latter to Allah's Shariah.

[2] From SANE's Mission Statement:

America was the handiwork of faithful Christians, mostly men, and almost entirely white, who ventured from Europe to create a nation in their image of a country existing as free men under G-d. This constellation of forces existed no where else in the world and resulted in a unique people and nation.

This reference to historical fact is often used to prove "racism". The reason this type of argument is successful is that almost any reference to the historical founding that emphasizes the particularity of the people who came to these shores with dreams of a new and different political order contradicts the absolute narrative imposed by the Elites and exploited by the Shariah faithful following the CAIR line of attack. This narrative allows one only to speak of non-peoplehood dressed up in talk of "multi-culturalism" and "pluralism". If you do mention White or Christian, it must be in a denigrating way. Thus, beginning in the 1960s and continuing to this day, the Bill Ayers-Noam Chomsky genre on university campuses never tires of speaking about how America is grounded in the White Christian racist, imperialist, colonialist agenda. The Muslim Brotherhood types like Edward Said of Columbia University exploited this narrative to attack non-Muslim academics who dared to even attempt to study what Shariah and Islam say about the world.

But, the quite obvious question must be asked: had the pioneers who came to this continent not been who they were, in particular White European Christians, would they have developed a constitutional republic resembling America? If one were to argue in the affirmative, we'd like to hear that argument made outside a comedy routine. But more to the point, the argument that historical fact is a cover for racism renders speech utterly incoherent and the refuge of totalitarian race-baiters who seek nothing less than the demise of meaningful political speech.

[3] Referencing the black subculture of violence, drugs, and the abuse of women is forbidden. In an earlier article (also published by the American Thinker in only slightly modified form), we point to statistics collected by the Department of Justice and reported by the New York Times indicating that blacks in NYC are 2.5 times more over represented as murderers than any other race and their victims are more likely to be black. Pointing to this statistic and asking hard questions about the source of this violence is similarly "racist" UNLESS you blame the White majority culture and identify institutionalized racism and poverty as the cause. We pointed out in our earlier article that while Latinos in NYC are more likely to live in poverty than blacks, the Latino murder rate mirrors their overall representation in the population. That of course suggests something other than simple poverty at work. Now, we certainly will not discount the impact of slavery on African Americans or even colonialism on the African continent to explain in part the violence of this sub-culture but that suggests issues of intractability that the Elite glibly ignore when they devise "social policies" such as affirmative action and welfare programs to "fix" the problem.

We note here as we did in our article that black Americans who have raised this same issue, such as Bill Cosby, have been excoriated by the Elite as well but not labeled racist since that epitaph is reserved for any one who is not "of color" who dares to raise these issues. Once again we find that the representation of fact is rendered an indictment for "racism", rendering language the exclusive tool of race-baiting scoundrels.

[4] The Founding Fathers purposefully limited the political franchise to a subset of the overall adult population. In several articles we asked the question why that was. It certainly was not, in their estimation, a mistake or an oversight. These men were brilliant political theorists who came together to author our founding documents and to create a social and political culture which developed into the greatest nation of modern times. This forces the question what it is the Founders sought to institutionalize by allowing such a limitation to the most important aspect of representative government. The modern narrative is that these men were flawed in the extreme and the great founding political error limiting the franchise in the way it did can be explained by the fact that the Founders were racists, bigots, and misogynists. But this narrative does not even bother to ask whether America could have come to exist or survive if modern notions of "democracy" as a kind of constant plebiscite among peoples with no common culture or worldview had existed at the time. Might it be worth asking if these men understood there to be an importance -- either in fact or in political theory -- to this discriminating limitation? But alas, to even ask this question is to suggest, at least by implication, that there might have been good reasons for such limitations. That, in today's politicized environment, is enough to indict even the best men.

[5] Finally, SANE's Immigration Proposal, which we have reposted below, in its original form called for outlawing Islam but it specifically defined Islam for purposes of the proposal as synonymous with Shariah, the Islamic law doctrine which seeks an Islamic worldwide political order predicated upon Shariah as constitutional and the use of violence and murder to achieve that end. In the various CAIR and CAIR-like attacks, this definitional limitation was ignored and the proposal was quoted out of context to suggest that we proposed outlawing Islam when worshipped as a personal, pietistic and quite peaceful relationship with Gd sans Shariah. Even though this malicious absurdity should have been dismissed by most, we have decided to be prudent rather than just morally and intellectually correct. We have since moved the definition up to the actual substantive provisions to avoid this version of cyberspace vandalism.

If someone wishes to take issue with our understanding of Shariah, which is effectively sedition when advocated from within our borders and an act of war from without, that is fine. We will take up that argument quite readily. But to argue that discriminating between legitimate religious expression and worship on the one hand and a violent doctrine seeking our destruction on the other is "racist" or "Islamophobic" is absurd in the extreme and deserves no more attention than we pay it here.

With this we conclude this defense of our purposes and ultimate mission in the context of race-baiting slurs by the enemies of America as a distinct nation and people. Reasonable visitors to this site and others who come across the dishonest diatribes of our critics will certainly have enough to discern for themselves the value of our analysis and the provocative nature (meaning contrary to the PC narrative) of our inquiries.

A proposal to deal with the threat posed by Islamic Jihadists residing in America and the security risks associated with open or effectively open borders. (Note: all references to "Islam" are meant to be understood as "Shari'a-faithful Islam".)

[Note: this is a modified version of our earlier posting to reflect the fact of cyberspace vandalism from the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR and Richard Silverstein's Tikun Olam site, a certifiable water carrier of such groups. See here and here for an explanation. The introduction to this Immigration Proposal (immediately below) has also been modified to reflect a re-evaluation of Lawrence Auster's "Separationist" proposal. Mr. Auster also writes to us to explain that his Separationist approach would in fact allow for kinetic  responses (as in use of the armed forces) to threats from Shariah regimes and that any characterization of his proposal to the contrary is not accurate. We accept this correction with good spirit and with approval.]

Previously we posted the SANE War Manifesto. It is not for the faint hearted. Today, we propose SANE's Anti-Sharia Draft Act. We have taken as a starting point for our legislative proposal a draft of a document in the form of a legislative-policy resolution on Muslim immigration prepared by Lawrence Auster and others at his web log, View From the Right. Auster’s work is a valiant effort to come to grips with the enormous existential domestic threat posed by Islam in America. This threat is made grotesque by the privilege we Americans give to “religion” and its free exercise. If religion can mean anything, then it means nothing. The question that Auster begins to address is whether Islam is a religion properly accorded constitutional protection or something else far more sinister.

We believe Auster’s work is a good first or even second effort but that it requires greater focus and less verbiage. Our version should be considered as part of the work-in-progress begun by Auster and his co-authors.

Two additional and more fundamental problems with Auster’s effort, however, require correction. First, is Auster’s attempt to conform this otherwise good and wise effort to his over-arching theory that while Shari'a-centered Islam is and has historically been at war with the West, sometimes quite actively and sometimes less so given its own weakness, the West should do what it can to avoid this war by simply separating from and quarantining the Islamic world. We have dealt with the fatal shortcomings of Auster’s Separationist doctrine in several of our essays posted in the Premium Archives under the rubric Affairs of War, but it is worthwhile to review them here.

First, Auster’s own critique of Islam accepts that Islam (we use the term Shari'a-Islam to be clear) is at war with the West and is not likely to quit the war until vanquished. Auster concludes, based upon sheer numbers and Shari'a-Islam’s built-in fanaticism, that we cannot win this war. His answer: we need not fight a "civilizational" war with Islam's 1.3+ billion adherents; we need only separate ourselves from them and their evil influence.  Initially permit us to say we reject his notion that this war cannot be won. We deal with that question below. But to respond to his notion of effectively quarantining Shari'a-Islam so it cannot effectively war against us, we would begin by suggesting that the devil here is in the details.The idea that the US, feckless Europe, duplicitous Russia, and self-serving China would somehow join hands to cooperate sufficiently to actually effectuate such a quarantine is at this point quite obviously silly. Whatever offensive or defensive plan the US develops in response to the war Shari'a-Islam is waging against the West, the US will have to be able to carry the day flying solo until it is obviously on the right path. Only then will our “allies” jump in to join the battle.

Second, even if we could successfully create a military-trade-finance-travel blockade of all of dar al-Islam, the Shari'a Muslim nations of the Near- and Middle-East have enough science and technological know-how to develop a massive arsenal of WMD and the necessary delivery capability to have that arsenal hand-delivered to our front doors. Pakistan is of course already quite nuclear. You don’t need Soviet-era ICBMs to deliver nuclear warheads to North American if you have fleets of Russian-, French-, Chinese-, Iranian-, and even US-manufactured fighter jets, attack helicopters and cruise missiles. NORAD couldn’t protect the Pentagon from one big relatively slow flying civilian jetliner even after two such projectiles flew into the Twin Towers; how does one suppose our air defenses will do with jet fighters approaching our shores flying at low altitudes? The only logistical issue for them to figure out is refueling but that is hardly insurmountable.

Third, by attempting to walk away from a war everyone knows Shari'a-Islam is waging against the West, and by attempting to build a wall of separation in lieu of responding with war, all we will have accomplished is to allow the Shari'a-Muslim world to develop these weapons and Jihadist plans in total secrecy. Everyone involved in intelligence gathering and analysis knows how difficult it is to acquire good intel and to assess it. It is far more difficult when the people and society about which we need to learn are wholly alien to our own culture and language. It is almost impossible among Arabs because of their tightly knit clans and tribes who rarely accommodate converts or outsiders. And, finally, it will be simply impossible if we exit the theatres of battle and build real and virtual walls.

Don’t misunderstand our criticism of Separationism. We’re all for building walls around our borders. We are though firmly convinced by history and by the science-art of war making that we will only emerge victorious and alive at the end of the day if we take the war to our enemies and eliminate their ability to establish Shari’a based regimes. War Making, as Colonel Snodgrass has taught us based upon Clausewitzian principles, equals Motivation + Capability. Destroy either one, and you win the war. We need not put large numbers of foot soldiers on the ground in any given theatre. Our mission should be to deny the Islamic Jihadists the capability to organize, train, plan, and deploy. This means we seek out their command and control centers, their infrastructure, and their leadership in hiding for destruction. As they rebuild their infrastructure and bury their dead, we destroy what they’ve rebuilt. As we exit each newly established no-fly zone, we drop leaflets, so to speak, with the following warranty: “Build Shari’a based civilian and military organizations, and we will be back to destroy them. If you desire democracy, develop it; if you desire an autocracy, establish one; if you desire socialism, so be it. We will remain politically agnostic. But build any political or military organization based upon Shari’a, and we will bomb it into non-existence. That comes with an American money-back guarantee.”

Jihadi Muslims have been beaten into submission before. They are not somehow immune from the horrible effects of a real war fought to destruction. It is only when we fight Limited Wars in an effort to construct democracies that we expose our weakness and encourage their insurgencies and worldwide Jihad. Leave them running from tree to tree and from cave to cave while their wives bury the dead and eventually you will not only have destroyed their capability, you will have zapped them of their motivation at least for another century or so.

A second failure of Auster’s approach as set out in his recently revised immigration proposal is it attempts to deal with the Islamic domestic threat by, in part, condemning Shari’a-Islam because it purportedly violates certain tenets of Western civilization or culture. Two examples given are polygamy and the inferiority of women.

This particular effort, however, is wrong headed for two reasons. One, it requires an analysis of such things as women’s roles or worth in Arab or Muslim culture and the West. This would be nonsensical since the “proofs” of the inferiority of women in Islam could very well be discovered in ancient and modern Christian civilizations and cultures. Are we to measure such distinctions per some scientific formula? For example, the fact that a Muslim woman’s testimony in court is less valued than a man’s or that a Muslim woman is not permitted a political voice are hardly unknown to Western civilization.

The second and most important reason this effort is wrong-headed is the fact that the reason to outlaw all Shari'a-adherent Muslim immigration (as opposed to outlawing all Hindu or Buddhist immigration) is not that Muslims think poorly of women or that they don’t particularly care for our civilization. The reason is that the political ideology of Islam as codified in Shari’a and developed by all five of the historical, traditional, and authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence (“fiqh”) calls for the conversion, submission or destruction of non-Muslim peoples and societies the world over. The only reason an Islamic Caliphate does not today exist as a One World State ruling all men everywhere is that Christian Europe defeated the Muslim armies in war, slaughtered them mercilessly, and pushed them out of Europe. That Muslim defeat was followed up by the defeat of the much weakened Ottoman Empire in World War I which ultimately led to the break up the Islamic world into separate countries more properly described as statist or oligarchic regimes.

Thus, while it is most certainly true that America ought to develop the notion and legal infrastructure to restrict non-Western and non-Christian immigration so that alien cultures and peoples should never come to threaten the national character of this nation, the grounds for outlawing Islam in this country and forbidding any Muslim immigration is based upon far more prudential concerns: national survival in a time of war. It is in this context that we offer the following.

Anti-Shari'a Draft Act

Whereas, Shari'a, as defined and understood by traditional and authoritative Shari’a  scholars, is a legal-political-military doctrinal system combined with certain religious beliefs; further, Shari’a is based historically and traditionally on full corpus of law and jurisprudence termed fique and usul al-fique, respectively, dealing with all aspects of a Shari’a-adherent’s personal and social life and political society.

Whereas, Shari'a as a political doctrine requires all its adherents to actively support the establishment of a political society based upon Shari’a as foundational or supreme law and the replacement of any political entity not governed and governing by Shari’a with a Shari’a political order.

Whereas, Shari'a requires all its adherents to actively and passively support the replacement of America’s constitutional republic with a political system based upon Shari’a.

Whereas, Shari’a in particular includes a war doctrine known as jihad, which is an organic, intrinsic and central feature of the laws and traditions of Shari’a due to a consensus among Shari’a authorities throughout the ages.

Whereas, jihad and Shari’a are inextricably linked, with Shari’a formulating and commanding jihad, and jihad being waged for the purpose of imposing and instituting Shari’a.

Whereas, the unchanging and ultimate aim of jihad is the imposition of Shari’a on all states and nations, including the United States; further, pursuant to its own dictates, Shari’a requires the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution or the destruction of the national existence of the United States of America.

Whereas, the imposition of Shari’a on non-Shari’a adherent states is to be brought about both by criminal and violent means, including terrorism, and by lawful and non-violent means, including immigration-fed population growth and the resulting increase of Shari’a-centric political influence and power.

Whereas, adherence to Shari'a is adherence to the legal, political, and military doctrines and law of jihad.

Whereas, adherence to and advocating of or for Shari’a poses an imminent likelihood of violent jihad and acts of terrorism. And,

Whereas, adherence to Shari'a is prima facie evidence of an act in support of the overthrow of the US Government through the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution by the use of imminent criminal and seditious violence with the aim of imposing Shari’a on the American People.

THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED THAT:

[1] A “Shari'a-adherent” shall be defined as any person who adheres to Shari'a or acts in support of the adherence to Shari'a or who makes any written or oral declaration in support of the adherence to Shari'a.

[2] “Adherence to Shari'a” shall be defined as any act, including any written or oral declaration, in support of Shari’a or in furtherance of the imposition of Shari’a within any territory of the United States of America. “Territory of the United States of America” shall be defined as any territory under the civilian or military control or governance of personnel acting for and on behalf of the US Government.

[3] “Shari’a” shall be defined as the set of rules, precepts, instructions, or edicts which are said to emanate directly or indirectly from the god of Allah or the prophet Mohammed and which include directly or indirectly the encouragement of any person to support the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution or the destruction of the national existence of the United States of America, and which  includes among other methods to achieve these ends, the real possibility of imminent violence. Any rule, precept, instruction, or edict arising directly from the extant rulings of any of the five authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence (the Hanafi, the Maliki, the Shafi'i, the Hanbali, the Ja’afariya, or Salafi school or fiqh) is prima facie Shari’a without any further evidentiary showing.

[4] It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Shari'a.

[5] The President of the United States of America shall immediately declare that all non-US citizen Shari'a-adherents are Alien Enemies under Chapter 3 of Title 50 of the US Code and shall be subject to immediate deportation.

[6] No Shari’a-adherent shall be granted an entry visa into the United States of America. Anyone seeking an entry visa into the United States of America from any country or regime which advocates or implements Shari’a bears the burden to establish evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he/she is not a Shari’a-adherent.