Empowering our law enforcement professionals: Announcing “The Thin Blue Line Project”

 

A Special Message from
Brigitte Gabriel, President


I’ve been eagerly anticipating today, the day I could send you this email.

Because today, it’s my great pleasure to announce the launch of a project we’ve been working on for over a year – one that could change the course of anti-terrorism strategies and tactics!

We call it “ACT! for America Education’s Thin Blue Line Project.”

The “thin blue line” is a reference to the line of law enforcement officers that stands between the law-abiding and the law-breaking.

Unfortunately, thanks to suffocating political correctness in our country, most law enforcement professionals aren’t getting the information, materials and training they need to effectively understand and fight Islamist terrorism.

This is why we’re launching “The Thin Blue Line Project,” a one-of-a-kind project designed by law enforcement for law enforcement (please see the video introduction at the bottom).

CHECK OUT THE HOME PAGE HERE!

(Note: Access to the entire site is for active or
retired law enforcement, by registration only).

Here’s what part of the home page looks like:

This password-access only website for law enforcement professionals gives them all the information they’re not now getting from the politically correct higher-ups in DHS and the FBI.

  • Who and what is the Muslim Brotherhood?
  • What is the Muslim Brotherhood plan for America, and why is knowing this important?
  • What is jihad and how does this relate to terrorism?
  • What kinds of covert and disinformation campaigns are being used by Muslim Brotherhood front organizations to advance sharia law and jihad?
  • How are law enforcement “outreach” programs frequently used by Muslim Brotherhood operatives and their allies to co-opt law enforcement officers – especially the leaders?
  • What is the role that local and state law enforcement can play in preventing terrorism?
  • Who and where are the radical individuals and organizations in America?
  • What are the best tactics and techniques for law enforcement to use in discovering, preventing and prosecuting terrorist activity?
  • And much, much more!
Here’s a shot of the radicalization locator map:

I guarantee you – this project is NOT politically correct!!!

Had FBI agents understood the role that jihad plays in terrorism, maybe they would have stopped Tamerlan Tsarnaev before he blew up the Boston Marathon.

Here’s what an FBI special agent said about “The Thin Blue Line Project.”

Since the FBI has decided to eliminate evidence/fact-based training on the threat to America from the Global Islamic Movement and Jihad, and replace it with more politically sensitive training which neither addresses the threat nor gives agents and officers the ability to pursue those threats, The Thin Blue Line Project should be the go-to place for everyone in law enforcement and all those with national security duties.


So I encourage you, get the word out to everyone you know – especially those in law enforcement. If you’re not in law enforcement, you can check out the home page here, and you can encourage law enforcement professionals to sign up for access to the site.

If you are or have been in law enforcement, please register today!

Because what you’ll learn on this site will make America – and your community – safer from the threat of radical Islam.

Video Report: U.S. Syrian Jihadist ‘Allies’ Establish Brutally Unjust Aleppo Sharia Courts

An Islamist rebel group in Aleppo called "the Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and Supporting the Oppressed" reviews applications for aid on Feb. 25. In addition to handing out aid, the Islamist group says it is carrying out civilian administration in parts of Aleppo.

An Islamist rebel group in Aleppo called “the Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and Supporting the Oppressed” reviews applications for aid on Feb. 25. In addition to handing out aid, the Islamist group says it is carrying out civilian administration in parts of Aleppo.

By Andrew G. Bostom:

N. J. Coulson, the renowned twentieth-century scholar of the Sharia, elaborated how “matters of procedure” under Islamic law were antithetical to Western conceptions of the rule of law. Coulson demonstrated the flimsy nature of Sharia-based “evidentiary proof,” while elucidating, under the Sharia doctrine of siyasa (“government” or “administration”), which grants wide latitude to the ruling elites, how arbitrary threats, beatings, and imprisonments of defendants were permissible to extract “confessions,” particularly from “dubious” suspects.

Particularly harsh treatment is recommended for the individual of reputedly bad character whose guilt is suspected but cannot be proved in orthodox fashion. He [she] should be subjected to rigorous examination, with beating and imprisonment if necessary,

Clearly, Sharia “standards,” which do not even seek evidentiary legal truth, and allow threats, imprisonment, and beatings of defendants to extract “confessions,” while sanctioning explicit, blatant legal discrimination against women and non-Muslims, are intellectually and morally inferior to the antithetical concepts which underpin Western law.

This is the “legal system” being applied now by the Syrian anti-Assad Sharia-supremacist “rebels” in the 2/3 swath of Aleppo, Syria’s second largest city, under their control. A TF-1 (the private, national French TV channelvideo report (with English subtitles) filmed by Solomon Kane and Luc Golfin at 5 minutes, 35 seconds through minute 6, demonstrates, explicitly, the application one such barbarous method of “extracting” a confession—beating a man on the souls of his bare feet with a wooden cudgel. Indeed, at just after the 6-minute mark, the head Sharia judge, “Al-Maz” enters the room where the “confession” is being “extracted,” and objects to the scene being filmed, exhorting his colleagues,

Do you want the people in Europe to think [emphasis added] we are barbarians?

Moreover, the documentary filmmakers also capture the good Sharia judge attempting to deny the very brutality their camera’s have in fact just recorded!

It is both morally unconscionable, and a looming geo-strategic disaster for the U.S. to be supporting with armaments, and potentially, missile strikes against the Assad regime, predatory, jihad-promoting “allies” who aggressively seek broad application of such a brutally unjust, Islamic Sharia totalitarian system.

Watch the French TV report below.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/invading-sunni-muslims-force-sharia-law-occupied-aleppo-syria

Many thanks for Translation to C.B.Sashenka, and subtitling to www.vladtepesblog.com.

 

CAIR Targets Constitutional Rights in North Carolina

download (26)By Christopher Holton:

Recently the North Carolina legislature passed American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation with broad bipartisan support.

The purpose of ALAC is to protect individual, fundamental constitutional rights in cases involving foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines. Among those fundamental constitutional rights are freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, due process and equal protection under the law.

One of the primary opponents of ALAC legislation is the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which seeks to supplant US constitutional rights and norms by accommodating foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, such as Shariah.

CAIR has targeted North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory with a nationwide e-mail and telephone blitz in an attempt to intimidate him into vetoing the ALAC legislation that both the North Carolina House and Senate approved with overwhelming, bipartisan majorities:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/07/28/cair-hits-nc-governor-with-email-blitz-to-veto-anti-sharia-bill-80548

As the article linked above explains, promoting Shariah in the US is one of CAIR’s top agenda items. In March 2012, the organization published a tool-kit for promoting Shariah for community organizers across America.

CAIR has attempted to create many misconceptions about ALAC legislation which require correction and clarification.

For instance, CAIR suggests that the purpose of ALAC legislation is to target religious practices. This accusation is baseless.

Anyone who actually takes the time to read the legislation can readily see this. The purpose of ALAC is explicitly spelled out: American Laws for American Courts is designed to protect individual, fundamental constitutional rights against the application of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, when the application of a foreign law or foreign legal doctrine would violate any of the parties’ fundamental constitutional rights—including freedom of religion.

In fact, the model ALAC language clearly states that it shall not interfere with ecclesiastical matters or be construed to violate anyone’s religious practice.

Moreover, CAIR’s supposition that ALAC is “unconstitutional” is laughable at best. ALAC has been in force in Tennessee and Louisiana since 2010, Arizona since 2011 and Kansas since May of 2012 and it has never been challenged. That’s because there is simply no legal basis for the embarrassingly contradictory theory that protecting individual fundamental constitutional rights is somehow unconstitutional.

America has an established tradition of allowing people of faith to make agreements and resolve disputes within the parameters of their religion, as long as any resulting contract complies with the US constitution. That is exactly what ALAC is designed to do—as is explicitly stated in the legislation.

CAIR documents have dishonestly portrayed ALAC. For instance, a letter sent by CAIR to the Oklahoma legislature in the spring of 2013 referred to the American Bar Association as being opposed to “such legislation.” This is an important point because it is not true. If you actually examine the American Bar Association literature on this, they were not referring to American Laws for American Courts legislation. In fact, the resolution they passed did not oppose American Laws for American Courts legislation.

CAIR has also created a phantom argument to scare state elected officials into thinking that standing up for individual, fundamental constitutional rights will somehow negatively impact the business community of a state or inhibit commerce in some way. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Not only does ALAC expressly apply to individuals, not businesses, but there has been no negative impact on business or commerce in any of the several states that have passed ALAC since 2010.

The reality of ALAC legislation can be summed up in three points:

1. American Laws for American Courts does not target a religion or religious community.

2. American Laws for American Courts is not explicitly aimed at Shariah.

3. American Laws for American Courts is targeted at safeguarding individual, fundamental constitutional rights and does not impact business or commerce in any way, shape or form. It has had no impact whatsoever on the business or commerce of the several states in which it has already passed.

Since we have taken the time to address the issues CAIR has raised with regard to ALAC, now we will take the time to address the myriad concerns thousands of freedom-loving Americans have about CAIR itself. These concerns are especially relevant given CAIR’s opposition to protecting the individual, fundamental constitutional rights of Americans:

Read the rest at Center for Security Policy

“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.”

Broken Immigration System Allowed Boston Bombers into US

Legacy_INS_-_Front__78327.1281402469.1280.1280Act For America:

They shouldn’t have even been here. Michael Cutler, a 30 year veteran of the Immigration and Naturalization Service explains the broken immigration system that failed to scrutinize the Boston Terror Attack suspects’ student visas and citizenship applications. Michael Cutler will be a featured speaker at ACT! for America’s National Conference & Legislative Briefing held June 19-21 in Washington DC.

Bad Moon Rising: The Sharia Law Bans

-1968136017Center For Security Policy:

Against the backdrop of the ten-year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a heightened interest in the role of Islam in American society and the subsequent clash of civilizations remains.  Specifically, public concern continues to grow across the country about the use of Sharia Law, or Islamic Law, within American courts.  As a result, well over a dozen state legislatures have introduced or passed legislation that prohibits or limits the use of Sharia Law or foreign law in state courts.  These bills have taken two distinct forms: Sharia-specific and facially-neutral bills.  Regardless of classification, these legislative efforts have triggered a number of constitutional concerns, with critics arguing that the bills violate the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.  Critics argue that the laws have a sectarian purpose and an effect of advancing one religion at the expense of another and thus fail the Supreme Court’s jurisprudential test.  Moreover, these critics argue that the laws burden the practice of religious faith. Indeed, this debate has undeniably opened a Pandora’s Box of constitutional concerns. Meanwhile, the bills’ proponents vigorously reject the accusation that the bills are hostile to Muslims or religious freedoms.  They argue that the bills are designed to proactively safeguard the secular constitutional role of government by prohibiting religious influence, specifically that of Sharia Law.

BBC Documentary: Sharia Courts Putting Women at Risk

Pro-jihad demonstration in the UK. (Photo: © Reuters)

Pro-jihad demonstration in the UK. (Photo: © Reuters)

A BBC documentary with undercover footage inside Britain’s Islamic courts reveals the shocking discrimination some women are suffering. Sharia courts are putting women at risk of violence from abusive husbands, the Crown Prosecution Service has warned.

Secret filming that was done in some of the 85 councils operating in mosques and houses across the country has revealed that the courts, which are run by Sharia councils, rule in favor of men by giving them access to children even though they have been found to be abusive.

Sharia law has no formal place in any of Britain’s legal systems. However, the investigation found that courts in London were making rulings on domestic and marital issues according to Sharia law which appeared at odds with English family law. Although they are not legally binding, those who were subject to the rulings felt they had to follow them as a matter of religious belief, or because they felt under pressure from family and community to do so.

Read more at The Clarion Project

The 1996 Arbitration Act in the UK has led to the increasing legitimacy of Sharia courts. Over time, as rulings of these courts conflict with British law, attempts have been made to amend the Act to protect women’s rights. The most recent attempt is the Equality Bill proposed by Baroness Caroline Cox on n June 7, 2011Mind the Gap: The Equality Bill and Sharia Arbitration in the United Kingdom (http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu)

We must learn from what is happening in Europe due to Islamization. Familiarize yourself with the American Laws for American Courts legislation making it’s way through the states. Let your representatives know you support it.

Also see:

ACT! for America Launches National Free Speech Campaign

freedomOfSpeech

On September 25, 1789, Congress passed the Bill of Rights, anchored by the very important First Amendment. Today, our cherished right of freedom of speech is under assault. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) wants to criminalize speech that “denigrates” Islam. Muslim Brotherhood connected organizations and their politically correct enablers regularly engage in name calling and character assassination to silence those who dare speak out about the threat of radical Islam.

This is why, on September 25, 2013, 224 years after the passage of the Bill of Rights, patriots across America will host events and educate the public about how freedom of speech is under attack – and what we all can do to protect it.

Free_Speech_Day

 

WHEN: SEPTEMBER 25, 2013

 

WHAT: HIGHLIGHTING AMERICA’S COMMITMENT TO FREE SPEECH AND THE ONGOING EFFORTS BY THE OIC AND THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TO STRIP US OF THAT FREEDOM.

signup

  1. Commit to host the event on September 25, 2013.
  2. You must hold the event in an indoor location where a video can be shown and access can be controlled (versus an outdoor venue), such as:
    - Meeting in your home
    – In a church, synagogue or other house of worship
    – In an American Legion, VFW, or similar hall
    – A public library
    – A hotel meeting room
  3. You also have the option during the day on September 25th to hold up signs and hand out printed materials at public venues, such as street corners.
  4. You will be provided instructions and materials to use at your indoor event and at outdoor public venues (if you choose that additional option).
  5. Commit to this being an educational event, not a confrontational event. Our goal is to help people understand how their free speech rights are under assault, not to get into confrontations with those who disagree with us.
  6. Put the word out and get RSVP’s for the indoor event so you will know how many to expect, to ensure your venue is adequate.

ACT! for America will announce how many “Freedom of Speech Day” events will take place and will advertise exact locations of each venue for those hosts who confirm to us that they want us to.

 

In this series of national webcasst, ACT! for America documents the growing worldwide clamor for suppression of speech perceived as “offensive” to Islam, and what ACT! for America is doing to combat this increasingly serious threat to the First Amendment:

Part One with Brigitte Gabriel and Guy Rodgers:

 

Part Two with Deborah Weiss:

 

Part Three with Guy Rodgers:

 

 Sign ACT! for America’s letter opposing this threat to free speech!

An Open Letter to Members of the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, and the State Legislatures 

Oppose the Implementation of UN Resolution 16/18:
A Threat to Free Speech

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an organization of 56 Muslim states and the Palestinian Authority, has been trying for more than a decade to win UN-wide support of a resolution that calls on nations to prohibit speech that allegedly “defames” religion.

However, the evidence is clear that the OIC is concerned primarily about any speech it views as being critical of Islam, what it calls “Islamophobia.”

In the past, the United States has opposed such resolutions, correctly asserting that they are contrary to our First Amendment right of free speech.

In 2011, at the U.S.’s request, the OIC drafted a new resolution that would supposedly balance America’s constitutional protection of free speech with OIC concerns about “Islamophobia.” This resolution passed, with U.S. backing.

This new resolution, UN Resolution 16/18, no longer uses language such as “defamation,” but instead uses European-style hate speech language that has been used to criminalize speech critical of Islam in countries such as Austria and the Netherlands.

The OIC is now aggressively working to implement its definition of the resolution. Its position is clearly spelled out in a February 18, 2013, article in the Saudi Gazette entitled “OIC gears up to get denigration of religions criminalized.”

Given that the OIC is now pushing for nations to criminalize speech that it views as “Islamophobic,” we, the undersigned, call on our legislators to pass resolutions opposing the implementation of UN Resolution 16/18 as both unnecessary and a threat to America’s constitutional protection of free speech.

How Should We Treat American Jihadists?

pic_giant_022313_AAA

It is not possible to wage an effective war against an international terror network while simultaneously foreclosing the possibility that American traitors will be killed in military operations.

By Andrew C. McCarthy:

If a plane full of 200 American citizens is hijacked by foreign jihadists, the law does not tell us whether the president should shoot down the plane or let it be plowed into a skyscraper and kill 3,000 American citizens. It is the kind of excruciating decision that war makes necessary. Legal niceties do not tell us how to resolve it.

That is the problem with our debate over the treatment of U.S. nationals who join the enemy’s forces in wartime — most urgently, over the targeted killing of our fellow citizens. We want the legal answer. But the legal answer is not going to help us. Under the Constitution, Americans who join the enemy may lawfully be treated like the enemy, which includes being attacked with lethal force. That, however, tells us only the outer limits of what is permissible. It does not tell us what we need to know: What should we do?

The government’s war powers must be boundless, at least in theory. We must be able to marshal all our might to repel any conceivable existential threat. Yet the Constitution, the sole legitimate source of the government’s power to levy war, is, quintessentially, the citizen’s protection against aggression by that same government. Thus, the tension between government’s war powers and the citizen’s fundamental rights is a conundrum. It simply cannot be resolved with finality.

Neither side of our debate is satisfied with that. We want fixed rules. But fixed rules work only if they answer every conceivable hypothetical. So the debate lurches inexorably to worst-case scenarios.

Read more at National Review

 Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the executive director of the Philadelphia Freedom Center. He is the author, most recently, of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, which is published by Encounter Books.

See also:

Report: Majority of Convicted Terrorists in U.S. Are American Citizens (dailybeast.com)

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2190907262001/report-al-qaeda-still-thriving-inside-us?intcmp=related?playlist_id=922779230001

How Much for a Piece of the First Amendment?

Muslim Mob Protest the anti-Islam film in Germany: (Photo Reuters)

by: Karen Lugo

The United States faces mounting pressure from the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation to comply with demands for “legislation against incitement to religious hatred, violence, discrimination on the basis of religion, in particular for Muslims.”

The response to both marauding rioters and fatwa-driven heads of Islamic states must be a confident and unequivocal defense of First Amendment guarantees as enshrined in the Bill of Rights and confirmed by America’s highest Court.

Just a year and a half ago the Supreme Court considered whether there should be a special free speech “funeral exception” to protect military families from demonstrators shouting epithets such as, “Thank God for dead soldiers” as these families bury their fallen daughters and sons. The near-unanimous ruling affirmed the full spectrum of public debate, including speech as “distasteful” as the Phelps cult’s hateful jeers. This decision, denying the Snyder family compensation for emotional pain, was a bitter pill for many to swallow, but the Court properly refused to react to pain “by punishing the speaker.”

The current talk of caving in to murderous Islamists and censoring the latest speaker, or filmmaker, is in direct violation of the same First Amendment free speech protections that applied to the funeral demonstrators. If it is safe to presume that military families who are confronted with vile demonstrators will not react violently, why the desperation to placate the offended party when thuggery is part of the equation?

Some commentators rationalize that Islamists, according to arbitrary blasphemy protestations, can be expected to “act out.” They therefore claim that the Brandenburg rule, as it excludes expressions “likely to incite or produce imminent lawless action” from the zone of protected speech, should apply to speakers who offend Muslims. This generalized approach, however, ignores the instruction provided by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg when it clarified the standard as akin to “preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.” The Court was careful not to convey a vague and easily manipulated “likely to incite” standard.

Also lost in this desperate attempt to tamp down the tantrums is the absurd premise that legal culpability for a bad act can be shifted to a third party. For example, if the threatened riots had resulted from Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris’s suggestion about an “everybody draw Mohammed day,” she would have been in the impossible position of defending against the legally contorted charge that she may or may not reasonably have known that she was saying something sufficiently offensive to incite mob mania. The potential for upping-the-ante if feigned offenses can be leveraged into crimes would only be limited by Islamist inventiveness.

Unseemly haste to placate the violent mobs on their terms reveals just how desperate leaders are to put off a reckoning until another day. What we forestall along with the inevitable confrontation, nevertheless, is the audacity that accrues to the thugs as American pundits and politicians focus on censoring the filmmaker.

One of the hard lessons from the pre-school sandbox is that bullies thrive on weakness. Yet Obama hopes to escape this truth as his administration desperately pressures Youtube to ban the video, and spends $70,000 of taxpayers’ money to run public service disclaimers in Urdu. Youtube has responded that the clip is not in violation of community terms of use — although Youtube did comply with censorship requests from Libya and Egypt. Pakistanis reacted to the Obama administration’s public relations entreaties with a national day of rampage, killing at least twenty.

In Great Britain a debate over historian Tom Holland’s documentary Islam: The Untold Story scheduled for two days after the Cairo and Benghazi attacks was canceled. France recognized Charlie Hebdo‘s right to publish risqué cartoons of Mohammed but did shut down twenty embassies in Muslim countries for fear of riots.

As constitutional law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh writes, caving in to bullies only accelerates the rate and scale of their ambitions. After performing a straightforward cause-and-effect analysis, Volokh concluded that it would “actually be safer — not just better for First Amendment principles, but actually safer for Americans — to hold the line now, and make clear that American speech is protected.”

Read more at Radical Islam

Karen Lugo is Co-Director, Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

American Laws for American Courts in GOP Platform (video)

The Republican National Convention adopted an amendment in the spirit of American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation to their platform

Related articles:

 

GOP Platform Addresses Sharia Encroachment

By Andrew Bostom:

Reports  (at “Live”  wire , repeated at Salon)  are quoting Kansas Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach to the effect that  the GOP platform has adopted an amendment which addresses Sharia encroachment.  Kobach stated,

We  see it from the top where the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly quoted  foreign law in interpreting our U.S. constitution and it’s actually coming in at  the bottom as well, it’s being raised as an argument in courts around the  country. We actually put a provision affecting Kansas statute this year and I  think it’s important for us to say foreign sources of law should not be used as  part of common law decisions or statutory interpretations by judges in the lower  state courts as well.

…I’m  not aware of any court that’s accepted the argument, but in cases involving  either spousal abuse or assault or other crimes against persons, sometimes  defenses are raised that are based in Sharia law

Despite  the predictable sneering and distressing ignorance which frames these reports by  two agitprop  “journalists,”  and Kobach’s own noble, if incomplete assessment of the profundity of the  problem, this is very welcome news.

Kobach  referred to Kansas’s recently passed law-a version of American Laws for American  Courts (ALAC) legislation-which should remind us all that the earliest of these  laws (now also passed in Tennessee, Arizona, and Louisiana) have been in effect  for several years without being challenged, let alone overturned. David  Yerushalmi recently provided a very clear, didactic example of the need for  ALAC-style laws, which corrects Kobach’s assessment about courts not having  accepted Sharia-based arguments.

Yersuhlami  described in brief an appellate court decision from Maryland, cited in a Center for Security  Policy Study, where

…the  court enforced a Pakistani Sharia court’s judgment of custody  in favor of the father even though the mother had argued that she was not  provided due process because had she gone to Pakistan to contest the case, she could have been subject to capital  punishment for having a new relationship with a man not sanctioned by sharia.

The  salient facts of the case,  and appellate court ruling, were summarized by  Yerushalmi as follows:

The  Maryland appellate court ruled that since the woman could not prove she’d be  executed had she gone to Pakistan to litigate custody in the Pakistan Sharia  Court, which is a national-state court in Pakistan, her failure to go to  Pakistan and take the risk of execution precluded her from making the void as  against public policy argument. ALAC  would have provided the Maryland appellate court the legislative clarity to have  reversed the lower court’s outrageous  decision.

Here  are the Maryland appellate court’s own words, cited by Yerushalmi:

Additionally,  appellant [the mother] asserts that the Pakistani custody orders were founded on  principles of law repugnant to Maryland public policy because the Pakistani  courts allegedly “penalized the mother for not appearing without considering the  affect of her admission to adultery on her ability to return to Pakistan.” In  this regard, appellant points out that if convicted under Pakistani criminal law, her penalty could be public whipping or death  by stoning. Although Dr. Malik [the expert] opined that appellant would be arrested for adultery if she returned to  Pakistan for the custody proceedings, he also conceded that punishment for  adultery was extremely unlikely and that proving the crime was extremely  difficult. Given this testimony, the circuit court was not clearly erroneous in  not considering the effect of whether appellant’s admission to adultery [under  sharia] was “repugnant” to Maryland public policy in its failure to find that  the Pakistani courts punished her for not appearing.”}

Let  me summarize for the (hope against hope) edification of  the “Live”  wire , and Salon,  agitprop journalists, the liberty-crushing, dehumanizing nature of Sharia:  open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order;  rejection of bedrock Western liberties-including freedom of conscience and  speech-enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of  non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient  chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as  amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol  consumption.

I  would also point out how the two agitpropjournalists  steadfastly ignore: ominous polling data from US  Muslims; jihad funding trial  revelations and the content of more banal Muslim litigation  proceedings; mosque  surveillance reports; analyses  of Islamic education institutions and their Muslim schoolchildren’s textbooks;  the issuance of obscurantist “fatwas” (Islamic legal rulings) by the respected,  mainstream Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America; and an open declaration by  one of America’s largest mainstream Muslim organizations, the Islamic Circle of  North America (ICNA), in its 2010 ICNA Member’s  Hand Book, which calls for the (re-)creation of a global Muslim Caliphate,  and the imposition of Sharia in America.

Notwithstanding  the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America’s (AMJA’s) mainstream acceptance,  including uncritical  endorsement of its seventh annual American conference in Houston (October  15-18, 2010) to train American imams, AMJA  has issued rulings which sanction the killing of apostates (here),  “blasphemers” (including non-Muslims guilty of this “crime”; here),  or adulterers (by stoning to death, here),  and condone  marital rape. Even more ominously, another Arabic-language fatwa from AMJA’s Dr.  Salah Al-Sawy leaves open the possibility for offensive jihad against America  and the West, as soon as Muslims are strong enough to do so. When asked whether  “the Islamic missionary effort in the West … [was] to the point where it could  take advantage of offensive jihad,” Al-Sawy ruled:

The  Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at  this time. With our current capabilities, we are aspiring toward defensive  jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence at this stage.  But there is a different discussion for each situation. Allah Almighty knows  best.

Just  six months ago (3/14/12), Translating  Jihad put what one might wish to deem as these circumscribed, “purely  Islamic” rulings, in a more disturbing-and entirely unacceptable, seditious  context. AMJA’s own  words make plain the organization’s long term commitment to superseding the  US legal code with its antithesis, a Sharia-based system.

Read more at American Thinker

Rejection of Truth: The Progressive Interpretation of “Un-Americanism”

David Yerushalmi

AFLC Blog:

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi is featured in a PBS report entitled “Shariah Controversy,” which highlights “the debate over banning U.S. courts from considering Islamic law in their decision-making.” As you know, Yerushalmi is the principal author of the American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) model legislation, which was enacted into law by several states and is pending in many others.  This legislation, crafted especially for states, is an effort to insulate state courts from the growing tendency to embrace constitutionally offensive foreign laws, including sharia.

Surprisingly, the PBS report is relatively balanced; but it includes an interesting quip from Rabbi David Saperstein, director and chief legal counsel for the leftwing Union for Reform Judaism’s Religious Action Center. Saperstein also delivered an invocation at the 2008 Democratic National Convention shortly before Barack Obama accepted the nomination as the Democrat presidential candidate. In the report, Saperstein claims that the efforts to enact ALAC legislation is “un-American at the deepest and most profound level.”

David Saperstein is very much like the ubiquitous reform rabbi who speaks as though he is giving a sermon and his sermons always sound like a diatribe from a humanist. Words like “un-American”, “deep”, “profound” are sure to be in tow. From an orthodox perspective, one must ask a “reform” Jew, “What about what you claim to be Jewish is in fact Jewish? Where in the world is the source for this nonsense that all peoples and cultures are of equal merit?” All of Judaism is about discerning between the holy and the profane. By reducing everything to the holy one has reduced everything to the profane.

Superficially articulate spokesmen like Saperstein rely upon the inability or unwillingness of most of their fellow travelers to think past three levels of argument. This allows the following syllogism:

  1. Only science, as in mathematical physics, provides Man with certain knowledge.
  2. No man/woman can know any absolute truth other than the certainty of science.
  3. All moral, political, and philosophical judgments (i.e., Reason, ethics, morality) are outside of mathematical physics; therefore, they are absolutely unknowable. They are mere beliefs; fully exchangeable opinion. No basis to distinguish a Judeo-Christian moral truth or political order from any other.

As Loewenberg has pointed out, based in part on the works of Klein, Voegelin, and Strauss, this is the destruction of Western thought or what has been understood as the natural tension between Reason (Athens) and Revelation (Jerusalem) in Western Philosophy.

Once you’ve arrived here, there are only two bases for political order. We have come to this understanding — the Founders did — from Hobbes and Locke. If all but science (not science as in theory but as in mathesis universalis) is but meaningless and fully interchangeable opinion (A=B, B=C, … X=X1, therefore on any given day, A=X1), a political society seeking to choose the right political order may be “required” to agree that A=T or tyranny in its active phase. That is, if there is no basis for truth, and there is only personal “taste” or unprovable opinion, the way for society to agree on order is by one opinion being enforced through power.

The other approach to political order is through “procedure” or “process”. This has been AFLC Advisory Board Member and bestselling author Andrew C. McCarthy’s contribution to the contemporary discussion. Because there can be no truth, there can only be valid elections or “due process”. Thus, a “fair” election is one where you vote and merely count the votes accurately. The result on that day at that place becomes the truth for that time and that place. But, that truth is entirely relative and temporal and there is no basis to invest it with any lasting constitutional claim of truth.

Thus, the living constitution of the progressives, the Progressive Truth of Time-History-Progress itself, this then is the only transcendence available to man. If that rings of Hegel, there is a reason for that.

It follows, then, that there can be no moral truth or superiority to a Judeo-Christian value of the individual over the collective because there can be no truth other than progress. This “progress” is what “Rabbi” Saperstein means when he refers to what is “American” at the “most profound level”. For the Progressive, ”profundity”  is the deep truth that there is no truth.

Now, we see the perfect storm — or opportunity — for the Left to join the sharia faithful in their destruction of the Judeo-Christian West. For the Progressive, the hatred of a Judeo-Christian moral or political truth is of necessity the last barrier to the syllogism noted above.  For  the Sharia-Muslim faithful, Judaism simply and Christianity in political society operate to literally deny the truth of the Koran and the “Law”.  As long as the value and the integrity of the individual reigns supreme over the collectiveUmma, the Ulema will not be able to argue that A=T, as in the tyranny of sharia.

It is this anti-philosophic “goal” of the destruction of Western philosophy which so neatly allies Progressives and the Sharia Faithful.  Their allied raison d’etre is the destruction of Western political order based upon the Judeo-Christian tension between Reason and Revelation, where both give way but neither concedes nor demands a totalitarian dominance in matters political.  And, at the core of this tension and recognition (i.e., “tolerance” proper) between Reason and Revelation is the respect we accord the individual over the collective.

Related article:

CAIR Targets AFLC Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi in Ramadan Fundraising Pitch (AFLC Blog)

Setting the Record Straight on American Laws for American Courts Legislation

The reason American Laws for American Courts legislation is needed is because in  most states there is no statute that articulates public policy on the issue of  foreign laws in state courts. Up to now, judges have been left to “make law” in  these cases. It is the proper role of the legislative branch to set public  policy in such cases, which is what American Laws for American Courts has now  accomplished in Kansas.

By Rep. Peggy Mast

Recently my American Laws for American Courts legislation that Governor  Brownback signed into law in May has come under unfounded criticism and  fraudulent attacks from poorly researched articles that have contained numerous  inaccuracies.

Critics have mischaracterized the law we passed in Kansas to protect the  individual constitutional rights of our citizens against foreign laws and  foreign legal doctrines to such an extent that I am left wondering whether these  critics have actually read the law they have been attacking.

In particular, some incorrectly tie our new American Laws for American Courts  law in Kansas to the infamous and counterproductive anti-Shariah constitutional  amendment passed in Oklahoma back in 2010, which has been struck down in federal  court.

My bill was closely modeled on the model “American Laws for American Courts”  legislation promoted by the American Public Policy Alliance (APPA) (http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?page_id=38).

Unlike the Oklahoma amendment, this legislation has never been challenged in  court since being signed into law more than two years ago in Louisiana and  Tennessee and is, as APPA legal scholar Stephen Gele says, “perfectly  constitutional.”

For instance, Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman’s research was  so sloppy that he completely mischaracterized American Laws for American Courts  as forbidding “courts from applying Islamic Shariah law in any case.”

This is simply wrong.

Other critics have also stated that American Laws for American Courts  prohibits state courts from basing decisions on any foreign laws or other legal  codes.

Once again, this is simply wrong.

One of the particular critics of ALAC lists as one of his accomplishments:  “obtaining the dismissal of a lawsuit filed in the US in favor of a parallel  proceeding in Germany.”  He was actually fighting on behalf of foreign  jurisdiction when the foreign jurisdiction would not guarantee US constitutional  rights.  How objective is that?

It is true that American Laws for American Courts was crafted to protect  Americans’ constitutional rights against the infiltration of foreign law. As  such it is NOT a blanket ban on any foreign law or foreign legal doctrine,  including Shariah.

American Laws for American Courts protects Americans from the application of  foreign laws when the application of a foreign law would result in the  violation of a right guaranteed by the constitution of the state or of the  United States, including but not limited to due process, freedom of  religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically  defined by the constitution of the state.

There is no mention of Shariah in the legislation simply because the  legislation was not designed to target Shariah.

So why are Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as HAMAS-tied CAIR and the  Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) so vehemently opposed to American Laws  for American Courts?

Because they know that out of all the foreign laws and foreign legal  doctrines that have shown up in US court cases, legal systems based on Shariah  are the ones which most commonly run afoul of US constitutional rights. Now that  states are taking action to prevent these occurrences, pro-Shariah forces are  howling mad.

But they can’t challenge American Laws for American Courts in court because  all the law does is reinforce US constitutional rights. What could be  unconstitutional about that?

This brings us to another point that the critics have failed to uncover:  Shariah law can and has appeared in court cases in the United States-and has  even been upheld by activist judges in US state courts in clear violation of  individual constitutional rights.

Last year, the Center for Security Policy conducted a preliminary survey of  state court cases in which one or both parties to a dispute attempted to invoke  Shariah law. The Center published the results in a study entitled Shariah  Law and American State Courts.

The study details 50 sample cases in which parties invoked Shariah, including  15 trial court cases and 12 appellate court cases in which Shariah was actually  applied. Importantly, frequently, Shariah manifested itself not as Shariah, but  as Pakistani law, Saudi law, Egyptian law or some other foreign law that is  based on Shariah.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Representative Peggy Mast is a Republican member of the Kansas House of  Representatives, representing the 76th district. She has served since 1997 and  is currently the Assistant Majority Leader.

 

Related articles:

Eileen Toplansky Smackdown of New Jersey State Bar For Whitewashing Sharia Law

By Eileen F. Toplansky

Respect,  a “newsletter about law and diversity,” is a publication  of the New Jersey State Bar Foundation.  It is geared for middle- and high  school students.  The recent Spring 2012, Vol. 11, No. 3  article1 entitled “Fear Propels Religious Attacks” by Cheryl Baisden  is of particular interest, because while it purports to have a fair-minded  stance, the fact that CAIR, or the Council of American Islamic Relations, is  cited as a credible source sheds serious doubt about the objectivity of the  article.  In fact, CAIR  receives “financial support from foreign powers who have provided direct  support to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Hamas.  CAIR has raised funds for  terrorists under the guise of helping 9/11 victims. CAIR board members have  called for the overthrow of the United States and imposition of Islamic law.  CAIR has discouraged Muslim-Americans from cooperating with law enforcement and  at least 15 high-level CAIR staff members have been under federal investigation for ties to Islamic  terror.”

In  short, CAIR  “is an entity masquerading  as a ‘civil rights’ organization[.]”  It has numerous ties to extremist  Islamic organizations, and “on June 4, 2007, the New York Sun reported  that CAIR had been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged criminal  conspiracy to support both Hamas and  the Holy Land  Foundation for Relief and  Development (HLF).”  Moreover, CAIR has  ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.  That Ms. Baisden never explains CAIR’s  criminal and terrorist connections is inexcusable.  Thus, the young reader  of this newsletter is left ignorant of CAIR’s “dishonest and misleading  attacks against an initiative designed to preserve …  freedoms.”

In  writing about the imposition of sharia law into the American justice system, Ms.  Baisden claims that “[i]n the past few years, … several states have passed or  are considering legislation that would restrict the way followers of one  specific religion practice their faith.”  This is a disingenuous  statement.  In fact, American Laws for  American Courts (ALAC) emphasizes that “[n]o U.S. citizen or resident should be  denied the liberties, rights and privileges guaranteed in [the United   States]  constitutional republic.  American Laws for American Courts is needed  especially to protect women and children, identified by international  human rights organizations as the primary victims of discriminatory  foreign laws.”

Furthermore,  “America has unique values of liberty which do not exist in foreign legal  systems, particularly sharia law.  Included among, but not limited to those  values and rights are: Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the  Press, Due Process, the Right t

In  2010, when Oklahoma attempted to pass the Oklahoma International Law Amendment, State  Question 755, Brigitte  Gabriel, founder, president, and CEO of ACT! For America and Lauren Losawher  maintained that “[s]ince the introduction of State Question 755, a proposed ban  on Oklahoma courts from deciding cases using international or sharia law, local  and national media have mocked concerns about Islamic sharia law impacting American courts as foolish,  misplaced or a waste of time.”

Gabriel,  international terrorism analyst, argues that “[s]haria law, in short, is a  comprehensive, theo-political law system used in many Islamic countries  including Iran that is based on precepts contained in the Quran and the hadith  (the sayings and traditions of Mohammed). Under sharia law, women have few  rights compared to men, freedom of speech is severely curtailed and freedom of  religion is limited or nonexistent.”

Yet,  the closest that Cheryl Baisden comes to explaining sharia law is to write that  “[f]or followers of just about any religion there are certain rules that apply  to their faith, from kosher laws among Jewish people to the disapproval of  divorce among Catholics.  In the same way, sharia is the law that governs  certain aspects of everyday life for Muslims.”  What is most disturbing  about Baisden’s piece is that the whole point of this newsletter is to educate.   Thus, this missed opportunity to do genuine research permits the  falsehoods, disinformation, and shameless obfuscation of Islamic law, all under  the rubric of muddied multiculturalism.

John  Swails, who was the director of the Center for Israel and Middle East Studies at  Oral Roberts  University, stated that supporters of sharia law will “tell you it  provides religious freedom, but that’s true only if you’re a  Muslim.”

One  in favor of sharia-imposed justice is Saad Mohammed, director of Islamic  information for the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City.  He opposed  State Question 755 and stated that “[s]haria law coincides with about 80% of the United  States Constitution.”

One  needs to seriously consider the 20% that does not comply with the United States  Constitution and its protection of freedoms!  In fact, this incredible and  chilling YouTube  video from Andrew Bostom succinctly elucidates what sharia law is all about and  the status of the infidel under this Islamic law.

Yet  in February 2012, CAIR produced a 38-page legislative lobbying kit to help  Muslims lobby against “American Laws for American Courts” legislation.  It  is available at this  site.

This  report is ably  refuted by Islam Watch’s “CAIR’s Sharia Fog Machine,” which demonstrates how  “CAIR’s legislative strategy is to portray themselves as merely correcting the  misunderstanding caused by widespread ‘Islamophobic’ fear that sharia will  ultimately prevail over American law.  This is a red herring to trivialize  the concern over sharia law.  The question is not whether all American  rulings will someday be based on sharia law, but whether any rulings would be  based on it.”

Another  executive director of CAIR, Muneer Awad, stated, “[w]e take a stand in  opposition to the proposed amendment. It’s ridiculous that anyone would suggest  it would happen. Our Constitution would not allow any religious law to supersede  the existing laws.”

Oh,  really?  Let’s turn to a 2011 study that reflects a very different  picture.

In  2011, the Center For Security Policy released an in-depth  study entitled “Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of  State Appellate Court Cases.”  The “study evaluates 50 appellate court  cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between sharia (Islamic law) and  American state law.  The analysis finds that sharia has been applied or  formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution  and state public policy.” The 600-plus-page document carefully documents  situations where “stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and  children … were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal  protection and due process.  These families came to America for freedom  from the discriminatory and cruel  laws of sharia.  When [American] courts apply sharia law in the lives  of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the  principles on which America was founded.”

But  in Baisden’s piece, she quotes Mark Stern, a religion law expert at the American  Jewish Committee, who states that “sharia law is not going to govern, except  voluntarily, the rights and responsibilities of Muslim citizens of the United  States.”  Clearly, these documented cases reflect a different outcome, as  “increasingly, foreign laws and legal doctrines that would restrict  or deny American liberties are finding their way into U.S. court cases,  thanks largely to the rulings of transnationalist judges.”

Frank  Gaffney and Brigitte Gabriel have composed ten  questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations concerning their  propaganda campaign attacking legislation designed to protect the constitutional  rights of all Americans, including Muslims.  Does CAIR dispute that Article  VI of the U.S. Constitution makes it the supreme law of the land, and therefore  that all other laws, including sharia, must be subordinated to it where there is  a conflict?  What rights does CAIR wish to have violated by or subordinated  to foreign law?  Does it favor unequal treatment for and/or brutalizing of  women, homosexuals, apostates, Jews, and others in accordance with sharia?   Is CAIR seeking the imposition of all foreign laws, even where they  violate the U.S. Constitution, or just sharia?  These are reasonable  questions that should have found their way into the Respect newsletter  so students and an informed educator could analyze them.

There is much more to this fantastic article! ——->>   American Thinker