Darryll Issa Shows Ignorance of Islam in Recent Donnelly-Kashkari Spat Over Sharia

darrell-issa-office-ap

Breitbart, By Pamela Geller, May 9, 2014:

California State Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, who is running for governor, recently pointed out that his rival Neel Kashkari “supported the United States submitting to the Islamic, Shariah banking code in 2008 when he ran TARP.”

The charge was true, but that didn’t stop the influential Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chair, from furiously denouncing not Kashkari, but Donnelly – illustrating again what’s wrong with the right.

Issa raged: “There is no place in any public discussion for this type of hateful and ignorant garbage. As far as I’m concerned, this type of stupidity disqualifies Donnelly from being fit to hold any office, anywhere. Donnelly is no longer a viable option for California voters… There is no place in the Republican Party or in this race for someone like Tim Donnelly.”

Donnelly duly apologized. But he shouldn’t have. He was right. Did Darryll Issa even look into the charge? Or did he knee-jerk smear Donnelly? And who died and made Issa king of the Republican Party? Who is this uninformed loudmouth to say who is or isn’t welcomed into the Republican Party? Like Brody said in Jaws, we need a bigger boat. If every time someone touches the third rail – jihad and sharia – they get burned and turned on, then the Republicans are going the way of the Whigs.

It’s Issa who should be taken to the woodshed, not Donnelly. What was hateful wasn’t Donnelly’s statement but Issa’s response. What is ignorant is Issa’s complete lack of knowledge of sharia, TARP, and the taxpayer-funded sharia programs. Why should the American taxpayer legitimize and institutionalize the Sharia? Sharia finance is the pernicious effort to force the banking industry to conform to Islamic law. Sharia banking finances Islamic terror through zakat (Islamic almsgiving) and would destroy whole sectors of the American economy, as it prohibits investment in whole industries, including pork, alcohol, tobacco, and some forms of entertainment.

Shariah Finance Watch explains that sharia-compliant finance “as monitored by paid Shariah law advisors to U.S. banking institutions must ‘purify’ certain return on investment (ROI) dollars that do not meet Shariah law standards. This money must be donated to Islamic charities – including some that promote Jihad and support suicide bombing. Investment disclosures state that these profits can be as high as 6% of profits of investments.”

That’s what Kashkari was selling when he spoke at a Treasury Department conference in 2008 that was intended to “inform the policy community about Islamic financial services, which are an increasingly important part of the global financial industry.” The conference’s stated purpose was to “provide government policymakers information about Islamic finance. The presentation materials from the conference discussed topics such as the source of Islamic finance, how Islamic finance works, and the market factors that caused its growth.”

The introduction of sharia finance in the U.S. has support at the highest levels. A recent lawsuit brought to light the fact that $153 million in taxpayer money has been spent on sharia-compliant finance. David Yerushalmi of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), who represented the anti-sharia plaintiff in that lawsuit, told me:

I take no position about what kind of governor Mr. Kashkari would make or indeed what kind of conservative bona fides he has in his brief. What I can say is that the U.S. Treasury under President Bush, during Mr. Kashkari’s deep involvement in TARP, actively promoted Sharia-compliant finance when it knew very well that this vehicle was being used not only to promote jihad, but also to effectively defraud Western investors by failing to disclose the Black Box that is Sharia. Mr. Kashkari might claim he was simply naive about the insidious and invidious nature of Sharia. That naiveté, though, becomes part of his resume for governor. But one thing I can say with absolute certainty: the Treasury Department he served knew exactly what it was doing. We uncovered documents during discovery where we learned that the Treasury was not merely promoting Sharia-compliant finance through its acquisition of AIG, but that it had been promoting Sharia as an international financing model leading up to the government’s takeover of AIG.

Confirming that is a statement from Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Robert Kimmitt, who said around the same time that this conference was held that “the U.S. government is currently studying the salient features of Islamic banking to ascertain how far it could be useful in fighting the ongoing world economic crisis.”

Nevertheless, Kashkari downplayed his involvement in the conference: “They were looking for a senior Treasury official to give the opening remarks at this conference, and I happened to be scheduled to be in the office that day.” He did acknowledge, however, that “these sorts of conferences were put on to help promote an understanding of how you can still have free market principles and open economics even in Islamic countries.” Really? Where? In which Islamic countries? His claim is false on its face.

Issa’s savage attack on Donnelly is yet another indication of how naïve and complacent establishment Republicans are about the threat of jihad and Islamic supremacism. Issa said this on Bill Maher’s show back in 2007:

One of the problems that we have as Americans in my opinion having traveled the region a little bit, is that we try to say Muslims as though it was one place. If you go to the Palestinian territories the one thing you’ll see is that for over 1000 years, Christians and Muslims have lived side-by-side… So we can talk about radical Islam, but we see no evidence out of it there. You go to Ethiopia, [where] you have some of the oldest Christians in the world and Muslims. They have a lot of problems in Ethiopia, we’ll endless[ly talk] about the problems in Ethiopia, except they look down on Somalia for their problems, but there is no question that religious tolerance of the two living side by side has not been about extremism, ‘convert or you’ll die.’

“No evidence” of “radical Islam” in the Palestinian territories? What is he smoking? There are churches in those areas because under Muslim rule the Christians were subjugated dhimmis, denied basic rights and paying jizya (poll tax) to the Islamic state. The Muslims let them live because they constituted their source of revenue for the state. That’s tolerance?

Clearly Darrell Issa knows nothing about Islam, sharia, or Islamic history.

In 2011, Issa co-sponsored the Hezbollah Anti-Terrorism Act (HATA), a bill to cut aid to the Hezbollah-led Lebanese government. However, he has also denounced “Israel’s wanton violation of Lebanese territory and its somewhat failed attempt to defeat Hezbollah.” He has even said, “You can’t end an idea or a terrorist organization by guns alone.” So does Issa suggest we roast marshmallows with Boko Haram? Al-Shabaab? Hamas?

Darrell Issa is the latest illustration of what’s wrong with the Republican Party and of our increasingly serious need for a genuine opposition party in Washington.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the ResistanceFollow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

 

CAIR Targets Private Citizens in Michigan for Opposing Construction of Islamic Center

cair_michigan_borderjpg_a1303223f31e4345.pngThe American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) is representing seven private citizens who were issued harassing subpoenas by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) because they publicly expressed their opposition to the construction of an Islamic center in their neighborhood in Pittsfield Township, Michigan.

In 2012, the Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor (MCA) requested that the Township rezone a parcel of land to build an Islamic School and community center.  The Township denied the request, citing infrastructure and traffic concerns.  Nevertheless, CAIR, which bills itself as “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization,” filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Township on behalf of the MCA, alleging that the denial of the MCA’s rezoning application violated the Islamic group’s constitutional and statutory rights.

The MCA’s rezoning request was opposed by a group of Township residents who live in the neighborhood of the proposed construction.  The residents expressed concerns about the traffic congestion that would be caused by the construction of a school and community center in their neighborhood.  Pursuant to their rights protected by the First Amendment, these private citizens circulated and submitted to their elected Township officials a petition expressing their opposition to the rezoning and several of them spoke out at public hearings held by the Township to discuss the matter.  As a result, CAIR served harassing subpoenas on a number of these citizens, demanding that they produce private emails and other documents, and in some cases, appear for a deposition.

Indeed, AFLC is representing a husband and wife who came home one day to find several papers jammed in the crack of the front door of their home.  The papers included subpoenas demanding the production of personal emails and other documents and a subpoena commanding the wife to appear at a deposition.

In response to CAIR’s discovery requests, AFLC filed a motion to “quash” and for a protective order in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, arguing that CAIR’s discovery demands were harassing, irrelevant, and oppressive.  As stated in AFLC’s memorandum in support of its motion:

As a private citizen and resident of the Township, [AFLC’s client] has a fundamental right to publicly express to her elected officials her opposition to Plaintiff’s proposal, which will personally impact her by increasing traffic in her neighborhood.  [AFLC’s client] had no authority whatsoever to either grant or deny Plaintiff’s rezoning application—she is a private citizen, not a public official.  Her personal views, whether expressed to the Township, Township officials, or her neighbors, are not remotely relevant in this litigation.

Robert Muise, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented:

“There is no doubt that CAIR – a sharia-adherent Islamist group that notoriously uses the legal system to silence any opposition to its nefarious agenda – is abusing the discovery process to retaliate against and intimidate private citizens who dared to publicly express their opposition to the Islamic center.  AFLC is quite familiar with CAIR’s bullying tactics, which is why it is important that we defend these private citizens’ constitutional rights.”

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented:

“CAIR’s discovery demands plainly infringe upon precious First Amendment liberties and the paramount right of a private citizen to publicly express her opinions to elected representatives on matters that affect her and her community.  On a broader level, CAIR’s decision to browbeat these ordinary Americans clearly shows the pervasiveness of sharia-adherent Islam and its ‘civilizational jihad’ within our borders.  Needless to say, if CAIR wishes to persecute Americans through the legal system, they’ll have to contend with us.”

CAIR, a self-described Muslim public interest law firm, was previously named as a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group by the FBI and the 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 (HLF).  HLF raised funds for violent jihad on behalf of Hamas, and top CAIR officials were part of the conspiracy.  As a result, the FBI publicly announced that it has terminated any outreach activities with the national organization.

 

Federal Judge Sending “Muslim Mafia” Case to Trial

seh_darn_CAIR_300x188

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) v. Gaubatz, Center for Security Policy (CSP)

American Freedom Law Center:

Late last week, Federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, sitting in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, denied the Council on American-Islamic Relation’s (CAIR) motion for partial summary judgment in a lawsuit CAIR filed against the Center for Security Policy (CSP) and several of its employees, thereby setting the stage for the case to go to a jury trial.

CAIR, which bills itself as “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization,” sued CSP – a national security policy think tank – and its employees for working on a documentary designed to expose CAIR’s Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas ties and other illegal activities.

While dealing a blow to CAIR, the court granted most of CSP’s motion for summary judgment, sending a few of the surviving issues to trial on the presentation of the slimmest of evidence by CAIR.  Based on this “evidence,” the court concluded that there were factual disputes that had to be resolved by a jury.

With regard to six of the claims advanced by CAIR, the court had these harsh words to say:

The Court finds that Plaintiffs [i.e., CAIR] have thus far been frustratingly unclear as to the injuries at issue for each of the claims.  In addition, Plaintiffs have not specified which injury, if any, corresponds to which of the Plaintiffs, and have made little effort to explain the proximate cause linking the alleged tortious conduct to the injuries at issue.  Instead, Plaintiffs speak in broad generalizations, asserting injuries and damages and proximate cause across multiple counts and multiple Plaintiffs.  As a result, the Court has received only opaque and largely unhelpful briefing. . . .  Plaintiffs are not specific as to these issues, making resolution of the threshold questions of injury and proximate cause next to impossible for the Court.

Robert Muise, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), which is representing CSP and its employees, commented:

“While we believe that the court incorrectly went to great lengths to find scant ‘evidence’ to conclude that there are material issues of fact to be resolved by a jury, CAIR is nonetheless in trouble not only with its few surviving claims, but also with the possibility of a public trial that will most certainly expose CAIR for what it is – a sharia-ist front group.”

AFLC is planning to file a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the court misconstrued both the law and the facts with regard to the few surviving claims.

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented:

“We are certainly disappointed that the court did not rule entirely in favor of our clients, especially because CAIR manifestly abused the legal process in this litigation and because the facts uncovered clearly demonstrate that the documentary was undertaken legally and quite properly.  However, we are eager to prove in court what the documentary sought to prove in the public square: that CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group.”

In 2008, Dave Gaubatz, an experienced federal investigator, was hired as an independent contractor to put together a team of field researchers to assist in the documentary.  As part of the field research, Dave Gaubatz trained his son, Chris Gaubatz, to work undercover as an intern with CAIR, which required Chris to wear an audio-video recorder on his clothing to obtain recordings of the routine activities of a CAIR intern.  During this internship, it became clear that both a major fraud occurred within the organization and that CAIR officials were attempting to cover it up.  (AFLC represents five former CAIR victims in a federal lawsuit in the same court alleging fraud and a cover-up by CAIR.  AFLC has filed a motion for summary judgment in that lawsuit as well and is expecting a ruling from the court very soon.)

After the field research for the documentary was completed, Dave Gaubatz published a book entitled,Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America, which was an exposé on CAIR.  Shortly after the book was published, CAIR filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., against Dave and Chris Gaubatz.  CAIR then amended its lawsuit to add CSP and several of its employees who were involved in the production of the documentary.  CAIR’s lawsuit alleges violations of various federal wiretap and hacking statutes as well as several common law torts, such as breach of fiduciary duty and trespass, among others.

The case has been ongoing for nearly four years.  At various times throughout the litigation, the court criticized CAIR and its in-house legal counsel for their inability to both efficiently manage the case and to comply with court procedures.  Furthermore, the court scolded CAIR’s in-house lawyers for filing untimely and substantively deficient motions.

CAIR, a self-described Muslim public interest law firm, was previously named as an unindicted co-conspirator and Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the successful prosecution of a terrorist funding cell organized around one of the largest Muslim charities, the Holy Land Foundation (HLF).  HLF raised funds for violent jihad on behalf of Hamas, and top CAIR officials were part of the conspiracy.  As a result, the FBI publicly terminated its outreach activities with CAIR.

Video: Sharia and the Threat to American Freedom

American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) Co-Founders and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise gave a presentation in Cincinnati to a standing-room-only crowd entitled, “Sharia: Threat to American Freedom.”  Yerushalmi explains sharia as “the enemy threat doctrine”. A highlight of Muise’s presentation is his discussion of American Freedom Defense Initiative’s freedom of speech cases. Watch this very informative video.

Order in ‘Muslim Mafia’ case exposes CAIR’s ‘shell game’

cair-340x161 (1)WND:

A lawsuit brought by the Council on American-Islamic Relations against investigators who probed the group’s connection to radical jihad and its founding as a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood is coming into sharper focus after an order today by a federal judge.

D.C. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denied a motion by CAIR for summary judgment in the case, which would resolve it based on its merits, without a full trial. She also ordered that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part.

CAIR filed suit in 2009 against former federal investigator Dave Gaubatz and his son, Chris Gaubatz, after the two carried out an undercover investigation of the Islamic group. The Washington, D.C., think tank Center for Security Policy and three of its employees were later added to the suit for their part in commissioning a documentary about CAIR, along with attorney David Yerusalmi and his non-profit group SANE, which campaigns against the advance of Islamic law, or Shariah.

Evidence from the Gaubatzes’ investigation was published in the WND Books expose’ “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.” The book documents CAIR’s support of radical jihad, recounting its origin as a front group for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, the worldwide movement that has stated its intent to transform the U.S. into a Saudi-style Islamic state.

CAIR alleges it suffered damage after the younger Gaubatz, posing as an intern, obtained access to some 12,000 pages of CAIR internal documents under false pretenses and made recordings of officials and employees without consent.

‘Severe pruning’

Significantly, today’s order underscored CAIR’s formation of two separate legal entities that it has used interchangeably, the CAIR Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and the CAIR Action Network, a lobbying organization.

Attorney Daniel Horowitz, who represents the Gaubatzes, told WND the judge “did some severe tree pruning,” removing from the case claims by CAIR Action Network, the name CAIR uses but in actuality is just a shell.

“She left in CAIR Foundation, which has existed for ages but was not really used,” he explained.

Horowitz said the existence of the two CAIR entities “raises lots of issues of ownership and control.”

“Tax returns were filed in generic names without clearly reflecting which entity was filing. Meetings were held without clarification,” he noted.

Horowitz said it would be hard for CAIR to show damages to a “paper/shelf corporation,” which is why CAIR Action Network was removed.

David Yerushalmi, a defendant in the case who is a noted anti-Shariah activist, has explained that CAIR dissolved into two separate organizations after it faced accusations following 9/11 that it was funded by oil sheiks and other foreign supporters of terrorism.

Meanwhile, CAIR’s national organization in the nation’s capital continued to promote its organization as if it were a single entity founded in 1994.

Yerushalmi said CAIR used a maze of shell-corporations and several real estate holding companies to purchase properties with money from oil-rich sources in the Arab Gulf states.

The IRS was unaware, he said, that CAIR was operating a fraudulent scheme in which it sheltered millions of dollars of illicit funding by moving money between the shell corporations while insisting there is only one organization.

Horowitz said that, meanwhile, the CAIR Foundation, the entity that remains in the lawsuit, apparently has suffered no damages, and “the court is asking them to state the harms once and for all.”

Two counts of breach of contract brought by both CAIR Action Network and CAIR Foundation against all eight defendants were ruled out.

Not decided were accusations of conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, trespass, unjust enrichment, fraud and trade secret misappropriation.

Issues of electronic privacy and stored communications largely survived, Horowitz said, likely because public policy protects those interests regardless of a lack of damages.

“The court seems most concerned with the bigger picture issues,” he said.

Peeling away the layers

Yerushalmi said that as a result of CAIR’s “dizzying array of cover-ups and fraudulent activities,” it “has no coherent basis for explaining the structure and nature of its operations, much less the status of Chris Gaubatz when he interned with the organization.”

He explained that CAIR has claimed all along that Chris Gaubatz interned with CAIR Action Network but he insisted that’s impossible, because CAIR Action Network “is a shell organization without any staff or operations.”

In the course of the litigation, CAIR, with the court poised to dismiss the lawsuit, changed its claim, contending that Chris Gaubatz actually interned with CAIR Foundation.

Yerushalmi made a comparison to the current IRS scandal.

“While the IRS has been busy harassing conservatives, pro-Israel Jewish organizations and Catholic charities, they have essentially turned a blind eye to CAIR, which has been running a money laundering scheme over several years by, among other things, siphoning money from abroad and hiding it within their various entities,” he said.

Yerushalmi said the discovery process and the forced production of documents brought about through the nearly five-year court battle “has peeled the layers of the onion off by uncovering CAIR’s dangerous agenda, which poses a real threat to our national security.”

Read more at WND

Buy the Book:

download (89)Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America

 

Appeal to Ninth Circuit Filed after Federal Court in Seattle Upholds Censorship of Anti-Terrorism Advertisement

censoredThe American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed its opening brief on Friday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, appealing a lower federal court ruling that denied AFLC’s motion for a preliminary injunction.  AFLC’s motion requested that the court order the King County, Washington, transit authority to display an anti-terrorism bus advertisement that it had refused to display.

The proposed advertisement, which was submitted by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and its executive directors, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, included pictures, names, and a similar message from an earlier anti-terrorism advertisement sponsored by the U.S. State Department, which was accepted for display on King County buses.  The State Department advertisement depicted the “Faces of Global Terrorism” in an effort to “stop a terrorist” and “save lives.”  In addition, the advertisement offered an “up to $25 million reward” for helping to capture one of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists.

Moreover, in the State Department advertisement, thirty out of the thirty-two listed terrorists had Muslim names or are wanted for terrorism related to organizations conducting terrorist acts in the name of Islam.  After complaints from a Washington State politician and two Muslim-American advocacy groups that claimed the list of wanted global terrorists appeared to include only Muslim terrorists, the federal government terminated its “Faces of Global Terrorism” advertisement campaign.

In response to the government’s decision to remove its advertisement, AFDI created its own, similar advertisement to replace it.  Despite originally accepting the government’s advertisement, King County rejected AFDI’s ad, claiming that it was offensive to Muslims.

On January 27, 2014, David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, presented oral argument before Federal Judge Richard A. Jones, sitting in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. [See video of oral argument here.]  Yerushalmi argued that King County’s refusal to run the advertisement was an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech and therefore the court should order the agency to display the advertisement immediately.

Nevertheless, Judge Jones ruled that King County’s decision to reject the advertisement was “reasonable,” specifically noting that displaying pictures of Muslim and Arab terrorists and labeling them jihadis is offensive to Muslims.

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented: “We are confident that the Ninth Circuit will reverse this decision.  The trial court sacrificed Free Speech for political correctness.”

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise commented: “Simply put, the government’s position is inconsistent with reality – namely, sharia-adherent jihadists pose a significant threat to our national security.  This case is a classic articulation of political correctness as a form of tyranny, which violates our fundamental right to freedom speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.

 

Also see:

GOVERNMENT BANS CALLING TERRORISTS ‘JIHADIS’ (wnd.com)

AFLC’s Defense of American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) & Response to Critics

download (14)AFLC:

In a must see video, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise responds to critics of AFLC’s public policy initiative, American Laws for American Courts (ALAC), which is model legislation that was drafted by AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi.

In this compelling video, Muise debunks the often repeated and wrongheaded criticisms of ALAC advanced by those with good intentions, such as Joe Carter, who criticized ALAC in “The Dangers of Anti-Sharia Laws,” which was published in The Gospel Coalition Blog, and by those with evil in mind, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which objects to ALAC for obvious reasons: it undermines CAIR’s goal of imposing sharia in America.

Infiltrating CAIR: Propaganda, Lawfare, Media Manipulation

HooperChris GaubatzChris Gaubatz is a businessman, activist and Chris Gaubatz (right) as a CAIR intern shakes hands with Nihad Awad, Executive Director and Founder of CAIRowner of Chris Allen Gaubatz Publishing. He infiltrated the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S.Muslim Brotherhoodentity, by becoming an intern. His undercover research was then featured in Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America.

He is a defendant in the ongoing case, CAIR v Gaubatz. He is currently working on the publication  of a book titled CAIRvGaubatz by Egyptian author Hany Ghoraba, who previously wrote Egypt’s Arab Spring: The Long and Winding Road to Democracy.

The following is Clarion Project analyst Ryan Mauro’s interview with Chris Gaubatz:

Mauro: Where do things stand in CAIR’s lawsuit against you?

Gaubatz: Judge Kotar-Kelly will be ruling on two motions for dismissal—one on behalf of Frank Gaffney, David Yerushalmi, Christine Brim, Adam Savitt and Sarah Pavlis and the other is on behalf of Dave and Chris Gaubatz (myself). Once the Judge rules, the trial will either be over for all parties, or the case will proceed to trial.

Mauro: One of the difficult things for average Westerners to understand is how likable Islamists can be. They are often genuinely nice, donate to charity, etc,. and it doesn’t seem to match with their ideology. When you were inside CAIR, what was your experience like with the officials?

Gaubatz: Most of the people I worked with at CAIR, whether they seemed to align themselves ideologically with the Muslim Brotherhood or were at CAIR for different reasons, were likable. In fact, one of the most dangerous characters at CAIR-National, Ibrahim Hooper (Communications Director), was the person I cottoned to the most.

On a personal note, this was very difficult, as the ideology of the person defines their motives. This doesn’t always align with their attitude toward people in general. Whether they are Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc., if a person believes they are doing the right thing, even if their ideology juxtaposes liberty the world over, their general attitude may be pleasant.

This fact in no way belies the danger they pose to society at large. I had to remember this constantly.

download (5)Yaser Tabbara was another person that fit the Muslim Brotherhood mold of being likable, professional and well-spoken. He once told me that President Obama had a limp hand shake when he met him in Chicago. He is now a senior spokesman for the Syrian opposition, the “rebels,” many of whom are Al-Qaeda and/or are fighting for a Sunni Islamic state.

Raabia Wazir was no more Muslim Brotherhood than I was, but she was still helping the Brotherhood and was very nice.

The ironic aspect of this question is that if I really think about it, the only person that wasn’t pleasant in my opinion (and in the opinion of some of the interns) was the Executive Director of CAIR, Nihad Awad. He was aloof, bordering on smug. He is not personable. He seethes discontent and represents an organization that beseeches mutual understanding. Very odd.

That whole cliché interview with the neighbor of a terrorist or a serial killer usually ends with the interviewee adding, “I can’t believe this, he was just  so nice—quiet but nice.” That’s how I feel about Nihad Awad and some of the other CAIR officials.

Read more at The Clarion Project

U.S. Islamists Press to Block Anti-Sharia Legislation

states enacting ALACBY CLARE LOPEZ:

As momentum builds across the U.S. to reinforce safeguards for the primacy of American laws in the U.S. legal system through legislation at the state level, the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters are beginning to panic.

To date, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have all enacted legislation that would ensure primacy for U.S. Constitutional law in cases where enforcing foreign laws or judgments, including Islamic law (sharia), “would deprive a party of a constitutional right or liberty,” as explained by David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC).

In mid-summer 2013, the North Carolina legislature, both House and Senate, passed HB 522, the Foreign Laws/Protect Constitutional Rights Bill, with broad bipartisan support. Not surprisingly, the HAMAS and Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was named by the Justice Department an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial, has mounted an email blitz campaign, urging North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory to veto the bill instead of signing it.

Written in neutral language, this bill is modeled after American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) language offered by the American Public Policy Alliance (APPA). The North Carolina bill, now before Governor McCrory for signature into law, specifies that the intent of the measure is to “protect its citizens from the application of foreign law that would result in the violation of a fundamental constitutional right of a natural person.”

Thus, contrary to some of the criticism aimed at this bill, there is nothing in its language that would prohibit consideration of foreign law in North Carolina courts: it is only if and when application of such foreign law (sharia or any other) would deprive persons before a North Carolina court the rights to which they are entitled under the U.S. Constitution (and its derivative laws).

In such a case, American law would take precedence over foreign law. In cases that involve no conflict between U.S. law and foreign law, comity (mutual recognition of a respective country’s legislation) may be applied.

With the June 2011 publication by the Center for Security Policy (CSP) of a report entitled “Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of American Appellate Court Cases,” the American Public Policy Alliance took notice that Islamic law increasingly has entered into state court decisions in ways that conflict with the U.S. Constitution and state public policy.

Alarmingly, not only do some judges not understand what sharia is, but make decisions that defer to it even when those decisions conflict with U.S. Constitutional protections. Islamic law is antithetical to American laws, principles and traditions in many ways, but most specifically in its rejection — and even criminalization — of basic freedoms, including freedom of belief, press, speech, due process, equal protection under the law, privacy and the right to bear arms

Read more at The Clarion Project

 

Sharia in Florida: Hamas-CAIR Terror Supporter Presents “Understanding Sharia & Family Law Mediation” at ADR Legal Conference

Screen Shot 2013-08-05 at 1.24.06 PM

By Pamela Geller:

Introducing sharia into ADR (alternative dispute resolution). For those who ask why Florida (or any state) would need a sharia prohibition, here’s your answer. The sharia creep is insidious and stealth.

Cornell University defines it this way:

Any method of resolving disputes other than by litigation.  Abbreviated as ADR.  Public courts may be asked to review the validity of ADR methods, but they will rarely overturn ADR decisions and awards if the disputing parties formed a valid contract to abide by them.  Arbitration and mediation are the two major forms of ADR.

Briefly, Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) “includes dispute resolution processes and techniques that act as a means for disagreeing parties to come to an agreement short of litigation……ADR has gained widespread acceptance among both the general public and the legal profession in recent years. In fact, some courts now require some parties to resort to ADR of some type, usually mediation, before permitting the parties’ cases to be tried.” (Indeed, the European Mediation Directive (2008) expressly contemplates so-called “compulsory” mediation; this means that attendance is compulsory, not that settlement must be reached through mediation).

The 21st Annual Conference for ADR Professionals: “Expanding Our Horizons” on August 9-10, 2013, at the JW Marriott Grande Lakes in Orlando, Florida is featuring sharia presented by none other than Hazb’allah supporter and Hamas-CAIR’s Hasan Shibly.

Why isn’t the conference organizers having some like David Yerushalmi, an expert on sharia law, to counter the propaganda? 

Contact conference organizer Amy Karimipour, Conference Manager amyk@akconsultinggroup.org 850-523-4200 and politely voice your concern and opposition to the their giving a platform to do dangerous and hate-filled terrorism supporter. (see below for sunstantiation). And request equal time for a legal expert like Steve Coughlin or David Yerushalmi.

The sharia calls for death to apostates, honor violence and murder, Islamic supremacism over non-Muslims, four male wtinesses in rape cases, sub-class status for women and non-Muslims.

Read more at Atlas Shrugs

First Amendment v. Sharia: Sixth Circuit Asked to Overturn Federal Court Decision that Condoned “Benghazi-like” Attack on Christians

-1408495185AFLC:

Cincinnati, Ohio (July 8, 2013) — The American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), a national nonprofit Judeo-Christian law firm, filed its opening brief on Friday in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, asking the court to overturn a lower court’s dismissal of a civil rights lawsuit brought by several Christian evangelists who were violently attacked by a hostile mob of Muslims while preaching at an Arab festival last year in Dearborn, Michigan, which has the largest Muslim population in the United States.  Video of the Muslim assault went viral on YouTube.

AFLC had filed the lawsuit in September 2012 on behalf of the Christians against Wayne County, the Wayne County Sheriff, and two Wayne County Deputy Chiefs for not only refusing to protect the Christians from the attack but also for threatening to arrest the Christians for disorderly conduct if they did not halt their speech activity and immediately leave the festival area.

This past May, Federal Judge Patrick J. Duggan, sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, granted Wayne County’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the lawsuit.  In his ruling, Judge Duggan stated that “the actual demonstration of violence here provided the requisite justification for [the Wayne County sheriffs’] intervention, even if the officials acted as they did because of the effect the speech had on the crowd.”

In its opening brief in the Sixth Circuit, AFLC argues that “liberty is at an end if a police officer may without warrant arrest, not the person threatening violence, but those who are its likely victims merely because the person arrested is engaging in conduct which, though peaceful and legally and constitutionally protected, is deemed offensive and provocative . . . .  Indeed, the district court’s decision compels private citizens who engage in . . . constitutionally protected conduct to surrender their fundamental right to freedom of speech to mob rule because violence now serves as a lawful justification for the government to suppress a speaker’s unpopular message.  As a result, the district court’s decision rewards and thus encourages violence as a legitimate means of suppressing unpopular speech—an outcome squarely at odds with the First Amendment.”

Robert Muise, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented: “The district court’s ruling is an unprecedented blow to the First Amendment.  Indeed, the fact that the court’s decision rewards and thus encourages violence as a legitimate means of suppressing unpopular speech jeopardizes the constitutional safeguards that our Founding Fathers fought so hard to establish.”

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented, “In light of the ongoing Muslim violence around the world, particularly against Christians in Syria, Egypt, and elsewhere, this ruling effectively empowers Muslims in America to engage in violence to silence Christian speech that they deem offensive.  And pursuant to this ruling, it is perfectly justified for law enforcement officials to respond to such violence by arresting the Christian speakers for engaging in disorderly conduct instead of apprehending the violent Muslims.  The ramifications of this ruling are ominous, which is why the appellate court must overturn it.”

Muslim Claiming “Defamation” Dismisses Lawsuit against National Security Experts Who Exposed His Ties to Terrorism

UnknownAFLC:

A former “Multicultural Relations” officer at the Ohio Department of Homeland Security (OHS) who was fired for falsifying his background filed a notice today in Ohio state court, dismissing his “defamation” lawsuit filed against several national security experts for publishing reports about his role as a former high-ranking official in the Jordanian government and his ties to terrorist organizations.  The notice came in response to a motion filed on behalf of the security experts by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), which argued that the lawsuit lacked merit and should be dismissed by the court.

Omar Alomari, a Muslim who emigrated from Jordan in 1978, claimed that the experts cast him in a “false light” by publishing false statements about him and, as a result of the statements, tortiously interfered with a business relationship by causing him to be fired.

AFLC filed its motion to dismiss on May 28 on behalf of Todd Alan Sheets, Stephen Coughlin, John Guandolo, and Patrick Poole, who specialize on the Muslim Brotherhood and the sharia-driven threat of stealth jihad to America.  AFLC is representing the experts along with local co-counsel David W.T. Carroll of Carroll, Ucker & Hemmer, LLC.

In its motion to dismiss, AFLC argued that Alomari’s allegations lack the requisite elements to sustain either cause of action.  Moreover, the facts demonstrate that the OHS terminated Alomari because he falsified his background and covered up an illicit relationship he had with a student while he was teaching at a local community college.

David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented: “It is likely that Alomari folded his hand so he can re-file this case with another lawyer, perhaps with a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas lawyer from CAIR.  Under Ohio law, it appears that this option still remains.  Nonetheless, the writing is on the wall for Mr. Alomari.  If he wants to re-file this frivolous action, then the American Freedom Law Center is prepared – like always – to fight back against this form of Islamist ‘lawfare,’ which is nothing more than an attack on the constitutional rights of Americans who speak out against sharia-adherent Islam.”

Conspiracy, Treachery, and Terror: Ongoing Litigation Exposes CAIR’s Massive Web of Fraud and Deceit

seh-darn-CAIRAmerican Freedom Law Center:

This past Wednesday, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed another important document in a four-year court battle that has brought to light the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR or CAIR National) elaborate ties to terrorism; its abuse of tax codes and corporate law; and most shockingly, its deliberate deception to the federal government regarding both its use of shell-corporations and its dubious funding sources.

AFLC’s brief, which was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, was the final brief in support of the Center for Security Policy’s (CSP) and several of its employees’ motion asking the court to grant summary judgment in their favor in a case in which the CSP defendants were sued by CAIR National for working on a documentary designed to expose CAIR National’s Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas ties and other illegal activities.

David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented: “While the IRS has been busy harassing conservatives, pro-Israel Jewish organizations, and Catholic charities, they have essentially turned a blind eye to CAIR, which has been running a money laundering scheme over several years by, among other things, siphoning money from abroad and hiding it within their various entities.”

Yerushalmi continued: “Thankfully, this litigation, through both the discovery process and forced document production, has peeled the layers of the onion off by uncovering CAIR’s dangerous agenda, which poses a real threat to our national security.”

Read more

“American Laws for American Courts” Public Policy Initiative Advances in State Legislatures as AFLC Leads Citizens Awareness Drive

images (84)AFLC:American

In the past year, over 10,000 American citizens have petitioned elected representatives from their respective state governments to enact the “American Laws for American Courts” (ALAC) legislation, which is designed to prohibit the application of foreign law when it would violate fundamental constitutional rights such as due process and equal protection.  David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), was the principal drafter of the model legislation, which has passed in states such as Arizona, Louisiana, Kansas, and Tennessee.

AFLC sponsored a citizens awareness drive to alert Americans about this public policy initiative to protect their rights from constitutionally offensive foreign laws, including – but not limited to – sharia law.  Indeed, extensive research conducted by the Center for Security Policy, a national security thank tank, has found over 50 significant cases from a small sample of published cases indicating that sharia law has permeated state court decisions nationwide.

Yerushalmi commented: “The fact that 10,000 individual Americans responded to our citizens awareness drive demonstrates the growing concern about the imposition of sharia law and its pernicious effect in American courts.  Even more important, it shows that Americans are listening to AFLC’s arguments, which have exposed the fact that numerous judges nationwide have applied sharia over United States law.  People get it: American Laws for American Courts is not a slogan, it is actual legislation available to every state that enacts it, and it will ensure that no state court applies foreign laws or judgments that deprive a party of their constitutional rights.”

In Hosain v. Malik, a classic example of a state court enforcing sharia law, a Maryland appellate court agreed with a lower court’s decision to defer to a Pakistani Sharia Court that granted sole, unrestricted custody of a child to her father even though the mother was not provided due process in the proceedings.  The mother had argued that if she had gone to Pakistan to contest the case, she would have been subject to capital punishment for having a new relationship with a man not sanctioned by sharia.  Nonetheless, the Maryland appellate court ruled that her failure to go to Pakistan and take the risk of execution precluded her from making a public policy argument against the enforcement of sharia law.  In this case, ALAC would have provided the Maryland appellate court the legislative clarity to reverse the lower court’s decision.

In spite of its constitutional defenses, ALAC has faced fierce opposition from Muslim Brotherhood groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which claim that passing ALAC legislation discriminates against Muslims.

Yerushalmi commented: “Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR have joined the ‘blame-America’ Left to challenge these laws, but the fact is ALAC has not been overturned in any of the states that have passed it because it is not just a constitutional law, it is the best way to protect the constitutional liberties of all American citizens.”

Robert Muise, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, added: “The American Freedom Law Center commends those loyal and courageous American citizens who have sounded the alarm to their elected officials about the threat posed by sharia and other foreign laws to the American legal system.  And we hope these officials heed their citizens’ concerns by sponsoring this important legislation.”

The Center for American Progress’ Willful Blindness

images (76)By Andrew E. Harrod:

The Center for American Progress (CAP) unveiled its report Foreign Law Bans: Legal Uncertainties and Practical Problems at a May 16, 2013, event at CAP’s Washington, DC, headquarters.  CAP’s analysts are unconcerned by the influence of sharia and other foreign laws in America.

CAP’s event and report opposed state-level legislative efforts across the United States to implement versions of the American Law for American Courts (ALAC) model law of the American Public Policy Alliance (APPA).  The text of this law voids any foreign legal decision not respecting the “same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions.”  Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee have adopted such laws.

Stephen M. Gelé, a Louisiana lawyer active in his state’s adoption of ALAC, explored its rationale at Breitbart.  Gelé analyzed six appellate cases reviewing trial court decisions with varying results based upon troubling elements of sharia.  Gelé drew upon 50 state court appellate cases involving sharia law documented in a Center for Security Policy (CSP) study.

Contradicting CAP arguments that existing law negated sharia’s influence on the American judiciary, Gelé cautioned that “some appellate opinions, and almost all trial court judgments, are not widely published.” “Many, if not most, trial court decisions applying sharia” underwent no appeal, a process costing $10,000-50,000 in divorce and child custody cases.  Regardless, “women and children should not be forced to play legal Russian roulette” with courts “applying legal doctrines, including sharia, inconsistent with American constitutional rights and public policy.”

Similar concerns prompted me at the end of the CAP panel (mark 1:13 on the online video) to ask about any “seepage” of sharia norms into American free speech jurisprudence.  As referenced by me, in recent years several American incidents involving Islam and free speech have been deeply disturbing.  An October 2011 assault by a Muslim immigrant upon an atheist mocking Islam’s Prophet Muhammad in a Pennsylvania parade, for example, led to a district court judge dismissing clearly documented criminal charges amidst his discussion of Islamic prohibitions on blasphemy.

Another concern is so-called “libel tourism” in which various Muslim individuals have sought libel judgments against American authors in foreign jurisdictions not possessing America’s strict free speech safeguards.  In response, the APPA, the Middle East Forum’s (MEF) Legal Project (LP), and others have promoted “Rachel’s Law,” named for Rachel Ehrenfeld after being found guilty in a British court for libelously accusing a Saudi prince of funding terrorism.  Now in effect at the federal level and in several states, such laws prevent the enforcement of foreign libel judgments not respecting American free speech standards.  As indicated by me in my question, Rachel’s Law parallels the analysis of ALAC with respect to the single issue of libel, and ALAC would make any specific Rachel’s Law unnecessary.

David Yerushalmi, derided in the CAP report as the key “anti-Islam” activist behind the foreign law bans, meanwhile, has taken on along with his colleague Robert Muise at the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) several cases defending free speech involving Islam.  AFLC, for example, defeated breaching the peace charges brought against four Christians who distributed religious literature to Muslims at a 2010 Dearborn, Michigan, Arab festival.  In a civil rights suit against Dearborn city officials, AFLC later obtained a settlement including a city apology for the arrest and prosecution.  AFLC is similarly currently litigating another case involving the very same Dearborn Arab festival in 2012 and proselytizing Christians.

Intricate legal concerns involving posited unintended consequences from foreign law bans dominated the CAP panel and report.  As a matter of principle, however, CAP and its allied panelists seemed to recognize no threat in sharia, as the recorded response to my question shows.  Report coauthor Faiza Patel from the Brennan Center for Justice, for example, discussed the judicial “Void as against Public Policy Rule” previously cited by the panel and the CAP report such that any free speech infringement “would be kicked out.”  Yet as this article indicates,this rule, in the words of the APPA, is often unavailing “because state legislatures have generally not been explicit about what their public policy is relative to foreign laws.”

Read more at American Thinker