Frank Gaffney: Obama Seeks to ‘Shred What Is Left of the Constitution’ by Nullifying Senate’s Role in Treaty-Making

AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Sept. 14, 2016:

“I think we are at a turning point nationally, where a choice is going to be made to reject the course that we’ve been on,” said Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, on Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily.

“It’s not entirely clear to me that we know what the other choice is going to be,” he said, continuing:

But we’re going to see, I think, the American people saying, “You know, another Obama term – or perhaps more, and worse, than what we’ve been served up over the past eight years – is unacceptable to us. We can’t, perhaps, even survive it, as a nation.”

Gaffney said this gave him hope, and made him “feel better than I have about our country for some time, in that the public seems to be getting that choice, and it seems to me – this is maybe anecdotal or just entirely subjective – but I think they’re beginning to say, ‘Enough; we don’t want more of the same.’”

SiriusXM host Alex Marlow built on Gaffney’s comment about how Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy could be even worse than Obama’s, saying the Clintons think about “what the Clintons want, and not what’s best for the American people.”

“Again, you have an agenda, of which the Clintons have been a part for a long time, whether it’s a sort of trans-nationalism, whether it’s leftism,” said Gaffney. He added:

As you know, I’ve been particularly concerned about, with respect to Hillary most especially, has been her deep sympathy for Islamic supremacism. I don’t know how else to describe it. What we’ve seen her do, reflexively, throughout her time as secretary of state and in the period since, has been to espouse, and embrace, and empower, to fund, and in some cases, even to arm people who seek to impose this doctrine they call sharia on the rest of us.

“This is the sort of thing I think the American people are going to choose to say, ‘No more. We can’t afford that. We don’t want any part of it,’” he predicted, drawing further encouragement from news Marlow broke during the show about Donald Trump gaining five points in two days on the L.A. Times tracking poll. Gaffney called that “a trend in the right direction for our country.”

Marlow asked Gaffney about reports that President Obama would veto the bill allowing 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia for damages – a bill which passed the House unanimously last week.

Gaffney replied:

The argument is being made, of course, is that you’ve got considerations that will extend beyond the immediate question of whether the Saudis deserve to be sued, for what, I think, is unmistakably the participation of, not just their nationals in actually causing the attacks of 9/11, but in helping arrange those attacks. By the way, the Iranians are also implicated in a similar way, and should be subject to a similar suit.

But you’ve got people making the argument, “Oh, my gosh, we’re going to be ending up opening a true Pandora’s box to Americans being sued for a host of other reasons.” I come down on taking the Saudis to court, myself. I have to tell you, and I think the American people are there, and that’s why you see this overwhelming, probably veto-overriding, majority in the Congress.

He noted President Obama’s stated reason for vetoing the bill is that “we’re going to be subjecting our own people, our government, our personnel, to similar kinds of actions by other governments.”

However, Gaffney thought “at some level, at least, this is about protecting the Saudis.”

“Successive presidents, let’s be honest, Republican as well as Democrats, have been doing it for decades,” he pointed out. Elaborating, he said:

And it has enabled the double game that is – well, unfortunately, really, 9/11 is a prime example of it. They were able to lend, at the level of the Saudi ambassador to the United States – a deep personal friend of the George W. and George H.W. families – to engage in active material support for terrorism, as did his wife. And on and on. These are the sorts of things that, I think, would out, if there were a proper litigation that held them accountable.

“I think they should be held accountable, but I think the U.S. government doesn’t want to go there, quite apart from this other pretext that they’re concerned about being sued ourselves,” Gaffney said.

Marlow also asked for Gaffney’s take on the situation in North Korea, which just conducted its fifth illegal nuclear bomb test. Gaffney said there were “two critically important points” to be made:

One is that the North Koreans are a threat to the United States not just to our friends, and allies, and forces in their immediate area, but now increasingly to the continental United States itself. And that’s because they have been allowed, in part, enabled by a deal that Bill Clinton signed with them, back in 1994 – which was a fraud, not as great a fraud as the one Obama signed with the Iranians, but basically of a piece with it, and it set the stage for what we’re seeing now.

Nuclear weapons? Yes. Miniaturizing of those nuclear weapons? Yes. And placing them on longer and longer-range ballistic missiles, including, it appears, quite possibly, on missiles that are now sending into orbit satellites – which are circling, among other places, the United States, and could be platforms for delivering those nuclear weapons.

And perhaps the most dangerous so far imaginable, and that is an electro-magnetic pulse attack. These weapons seem to be optimized for that purpose. We’ve learned that they have a super EMP design that they got from old Soviet Union.

So these are very serious problems. That’s Point One. Point Two is, Alex, as you know, the President of the United States is in his last days, and determined to shred what is left of the Constitution of the United States. In the foreign policy area, where that is manifesting itself is in connection with doing things that eliminate, essentially, one of the most important checks and balances in our government, and that is the role that the United States Senate plays as a quality-control mechanism on treaty-making arrangements that the Executive Branch might engage in.

We’ve seen this flouted with the Iran deal, we’ve seen it flouted most recently with this so-called Paris climate change accord. Next up is a treaty the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty, that the president would like to get the United Nations Security Council to do some kind of blessing of, that would then supplant the rejection of that treaty by an actual majority of the United States Senate, back in 1999.

Gaffney concluded:

The reason all this matters is that you’ve got the North Koreans testing nuclear weapons at will. I believe the Russians and Chinese are doing the same, albeit in a less obvious way. Everybody on the planet, in other words, that threatens us is using this kind of capability to modernize the threat they pose to us. And it’s real, and it’s growing. And the President of the United States is hoping to bind his successor never to be able to modernize – or, I’m afraid, even maintain our nuclear deterrent.

LISTEN:

Khizr Khan No Constitutional ‘Expert’; Passed Bar at Age 60

Khizr Khan, father of fallen US Army Capt. Humayun S. M. Khan waves as he stands near the podium before speaking during the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia , Thursday, July 28, 2016. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)

Khizr Khan, father of fallen US Army Capt. Humayun S. M. Khan waves as he stands near the podium before speaking during the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia , Thursday, July 28, 2016. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)

Breitbart, by Paul Sperry, Aug. 12, 2016:

Khizr Khan, the Gold Star father who lectured Donald Trump about the Constitution at the Democratic National Convention last month, has been touted by the media as a constitutional expert, on par with a Supreme Court Justice. However, far from being a constitutional expert or even a seasoned attorney, the 66-year-old Pakistani immigrant only recently obtained a license to practice law.

On August 1, Chris Matthews of MSNBC likened Khan to Justice Anthony Kennedy (emphasis added):

MATTHEWS: When you pulled out that Constitution the other night and said,
Here, read it, basically, to Trump, did that remind you of the fact you had
to learn it?

K. KHAN: Of course. Of course. Read it page to page. I – that was not
the plan, to pull out the Constitution.

MATTHEWS: You have it there?

K. KHAN: What I – what I…

MATTHEWS: Where`d you get that, by the way?

K. KHAN: Well, look – look at its condition.

MATTHEWS: It’s all marked up.

K. KHAN: It’s marked up because I read it. And this 14th Amendment, equal
protection of law, is my favorite part of the Bill of Rights.

MATTHEWS: That means that your children…

K. KHAN: Exactly.

MATTHEWS: … get all the rights of somebody who`s been here 20
generations.

K. KHAN: Exactly. And I did not realize up until I was in the cab to the convention that I had this in my pocket. We talked – I was to say that when you read the Constitution, look for the word liberty and equal protection of law. So I`m putting my coat on, and I touched this, and here it is. So I said, If I pull it like this, it will be this. So I had to place it in this form so when I pull it, it comes like this. We practiced.

MATTHEWS: You`re like Justice Kennedy because Justice Kennedy, Anthony  Kennedy, who Ronald Reagan appointed, is the swing vote, you know, and he uses the liberty clause and the equal protection clause for all of his recent big decisions.

But the hype is more about Khan’s use as a political pawn than his actual qualifications.

A résumé posted on his website (removed from the Internet last week) lists court admission and bar membership for New York state only.

A spokeswoman for the New York State Office of Court Administration in Albany, N.Y., said that Khan was admitted to the New York bar on June 22, 2010, which means he became eligible to practice law just six years ago — at the age of 60. He is not listed as a member of any other state bar.

No citations appear in court databases for Khan as attorney of record, based on a search of federal and state court filings through PACER and Lexis.

Nor does Khan appear to have published academic papers or law journal articles about constitutional law. In contrast, Khan’s academic papers touting Sharia law have been cited in dozens of Islamic law articles and have been used in college syllabi for Islamic law courses as recently as 2013.

Sharia law, the barbaric legal code enforced by Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the former Taliban government of Afghanistan, is at odds with most of the individual freedoms and rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Other media outlets, such as the Washington Post, have been keen to point out that Khan is a “a Harvard-trained lawyer.”

While Khan did graduate from Harvard in 1986, he did not obtain a typical law degree, but instead earned an LL. M. — a one-year international program tailored to foreign students. He has a similar degree from the University of Missouri-Kansas City. The LL. M. coursework is separate from the three-year law program required to earn a Juris Doctor, or J.D., which is the formal law degree that most licensed attorneys obtain.

“It is most often pursued by students who obtained a law degree in another country,” explained Harvard Law School spokeswoman Michelle Deakin in an interview.

In fact, 97% of students enrolled in the graduate program that accepted Khan are foreign nationals.

Like others applying to the program, Khan submitted a law degree from another country — Pakistan. He received his basic training at the University Law College of Punjab University in Lahore, Pakistan. The LL.B., or “bachelor of laws,” which Khan earned there is a two-year program no longer offered in the United States.

Furthermore, University Law College is a small college where courses are taught by professors trained in British as well as Sharia law, the brutally oppressive Islamic legal code that Khan, a devout Muslim, has said supersedes “all other juridical works.” In fact, Khan is a world-renowned expert on Sharia, not the Constitution.

Khan’s alma mater is run by vice chancellor Mujahid Kamran, an anti-Semitic 9/11 denier who in 2013 published a book that blames the Saudi-sponsored 9/11 attacks by al-Qaida on “Zionists,” and trashes the U.S. as a complete dictatorship. His book, 9/11 and the New World Order, was published by the University of Punjab.

In September 2012, Karmran posted on his website excerpts from his forthcoming book, claiming: “Currently 95% of the U.S. media is owned by only six corporations, whose top echelons are dominated by Zionists allied with the banking cabal. With the US military and intelligence apparatus in their control, with their ownership of the media, and with their control of academia, it is easy for them to direct assassinations and false flag operations, such as the murder of JFK and 9/11.”

Added Kamran: “9/11 was an inside job. It was not carried out by Osama Bin Laden or the al Qaeda.”

In September 2013, while promoting his 9/11 book on campus, Kamran was quoted in the Pakistani press saying “that the cabal [of Zionists] wanted to establish a global government and install microchips in every human being in order to control them.” He also claimed “that Nato airplanes had flown the families of Al Qaeda leaders including Aiman Al Zawahri and some members of the Bin Laden family to Central Asia to destabilise the region,” and “that Nato was sponsoring terrorist and suicide attacks in Pakistan.”

The media have also implied that Khan practiced law while working at the law firm of Hogan & Hartson in Washington. Instead, he managed information technology services, or IT, for litigators during his 1998-2007 employment at the Hogan & Hartson firm (now Hogan Lovells), a predominantly Democrat shop with ties to the Clinton Foundation. His job apparently involved pre-wiring the projectors, monitors and laptops, and video conferencing equipment for lawyers making graphic presentations in court. He also helped lawyers search and managed electronically stored records.

After leaving Hogan & Hartson, Khan opened what he described on his business website as a “law office” in New York to, among other things, represent clients seeking E2 and EB5 immigration visas — a practice that Trump’s proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration would throw into jeopardy.

Khan and his wife lost their son when his Iraq post came under attack in 2004. U.S. Army Capt. Humayan Khan was posthumously awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star.

Democrats are now actively recruiting Khan to run for political office and appear in Clinton campaign ads attacking Trump and his policies. They hope to exploit the media-manufactured narrative that it took a Muslim immigrant-turned-“Harvard-trained lawyer” to school Donald Trump on the U.S. Constitution and put him in his place.

Khan did not return phone calls or emails seeking comment.

Paul Sperry is a former Hoover Institution media fellow and author of Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.

Also see:

Prof. John Banzhaf: ‘Virtually All Constitutional Scholars Agree’ Muslim Immigration Ban Would Be Legal

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Breitbart, by John Hayward, August 2, 2016:

George Washington University Law School Professor John Banzhaf was a guest on Tuesday’s Breitbart News Daily, where he discussed the constitutionality of Donald Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim immigration with SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon.

Bannon asked if Democratic National Convention speaker Khizr Khan was correct to assert that Trump’s idea violated the Constitution, a point he made by waving a pocket copy of the document and asking if Trump has ever read it.

Banzhaf said it was the view of “virtually all constitutional professors who have written on the topic” that Khan was wrong.

“First of all, it is legal under current law for the president – by himself, without even getting the consent of Congress – under current law, Title VIII, Section 1182, to prohibit – well, I’ll read it.” He read, “‘Any aliens, or any class of aliens, into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the U.S.’” Therefore, he said, “He doesn’t have to provide any reason for doing it. If Congress joins him, it makes it even stronger, more likely to be constitutional.”

“We’ve done this for over a hundred years,” Banzhaf noted. “We had something called the Chinese Exclusion Act, which is excluding, obviously, people on the basis of race.”

“Reason Number One why it is constitutional is something called the Plenary Power Doctrine. What this says, in simple terms, is that the ordinary constitutional protections, primarily equal protection, do not apply to people who are not U.S. citizens, and who are trying to enter the country,” he said. “This has been true for over a hundred years. Our Supreme Court has, time after time, turned away objections to restrictions based upon race, national origin, political belief, even under free speech grounds.”

He continued:

So, on that ground, very clearly it’s constitutional. The other is, even if we just look within the United States at people who are already here, what the courts have said is that you can distinguish on the basis of factors like race or religion, if it serves a compelling state interest, and if it is only one of several factors.

Elaborating, Banzhaf stated:

That’s the reason why, for example, we have affirmative action. Colleges can discriminate on the basis of race because we want to have diversity. Well, preventing terrorism is at least as important as having diversity in the classroom, and so as long as race is used as only one factor – or, in this case, religion is used as only one factor – we can apply different standards even in the U.S., for example in secondary searches on airplanes.

Banzhaf said it was a problem for the U.S. that “a lot of people haven’t read the Constitution,” but they “kinda think anything which they don’t like, any proposal which they don’t like, is both unconstitutional and un-American.”

He pointed to the current controversy regarding the Muslim immigration ban, which he again noted was a perfect mirror image of affirmative action, and rattled off a list of prominent politicians who have no doubts about the constitutionality of the latter: “Governor Jeb Bush, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, Rep. Peter King, a woman named Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, and one of our most Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer.”

He further noted that effective anti-terrorism programs involve this sort of allegedly unconstitutional discrimination based on race and religion, but support for such initiatives has not harmed the political fortunes of such figures as the NYPD’s Ray Kelly, who has been touted as a potential secretary of Homeland Security.

“A lot of people have supported the basic idea that, particularly to protect against terrorism, we can, to some extent, distinguish on the basis of factors like religion,” Banzhaf said, adding:

So, for example, rather than treating all passengers exactly the same – same risk, 6-year-old child, 98-year-old Asian woman, no greater risk than a young Arabic or Muslim male, which makes no sense at all – we could provide more secondary screening to people who are, for example, young Muslim males or young Arabic males. That only makes sense, with regard to people coming into the country.

“I’m not saying whether it’s a good idea or a bad idea, but it would be constitutional, as we said, to bar all Muslims trying to come in.” He then suggested:

Another compromise proposal might be, because we can’t vet them very well when they’re coming in as refugees, we don’t have the paperwork and so on, we could say, “Okay, where there are doubts, we’re going to let you in, but we’re going to ask you to wear an ankle tracer.”

Banzhaf offered further details of how such a program would work and analyzed its constitutionality:

We do that for people who are arrested for drunk driving and so on. It makes it a lot easier to track them – and, as you know, from our Paris experience and for others, one of the big problems is, there are a lot of people out there. The authorities are worried about them. There are lots of red flags, but they can’t track them 24 hours a day. Therefore, they don’t  do anything.

If you have ankle bracelets, one guy can sit in a room with a hundred television screens, track their movements – either in real-time or retroactively if something happens. If they wander near airports, or nuclear facilities, or some place which is suspicious, then the authorities can do something.

Would it work? I don’t know. Would it be constitutional? Almost certainly yes.

Banzhaf allowed that he has not followed everything Trump has said about his proposal to temporarily ban Muslim immigration. “Quite frankly, I get the impression that his plan is not too clear or precisely spelled out,” he said.

He summarized:

But the basic idea of limiting, or even preventing, the importation of non-citizens into the U.S. to become citizens, based upon factors like religion, or race, or nationality, I think virtually all constitutional scholars would say they may not like it, but we can’t say it’s unconstitutional, particularly given this Plenary Power Doctrine, the equal protection clause does not apply to foreigners seeking admission to the U.S. That’s been the law for over a hundred years.

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

LISTEN:

Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban Should Touch Off a Badly Needed Discussion

falls church mosqueNational Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy — December 8, 2015:

Donald Trump’s rhetorical excesses aside, he has a way of pushing us into important debates, particularly on immigration. He has done it again with his bracing proposal to force “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

I have no idea what Mr. Trump knows about either immigration law or Islam. But it should be obvious to any objective person that Muslim immigration to the West is a vexing challenge.

Some Muslims come to the United States to practice their religion peacefully, and assimilate into the Western tradition of tolerance of other people’s liberties, including religious liberty — a tradition alien to the theocratic societies in which they grew up. Others come here to champion sharia, Islam’s authoritarian societal framework and legal code, resisting assimilation into our pluralistic society.

Since we want to both honor religious liberty and preserve the Constitution that enshrines and protects it, we have a dilemma.

The assumption that is central to this dilemma — the one that Trump has stumbled on and that Washington refuses to examine — is that Islam is merely a religion. If that’s true, then it is likely that religious liberty will trump constitutional and national-security concerns. How, after all, can a mere religion be a threat to a constitutional system dedicated to religious liberty?

But Islam is no mere religion.

As understood by the mainstream of Muslim-majority countries that are the source of immigration to America and the West, Islam is a comprehensive ideological system that governs all human affairs, from political, economic, and military matters to interpersonal relations and even hygiene. It is beyond dispute that Islam has religious tenets — the oneness of Allah, the belief that Mohammed is the final prophet, the obligation of ritual prayer. Yet these make up only a fraction of what is overwhelmingly a political ideology.

Our constitutional principle of religious liberty is derived from the Western concept that the spiritual realm should be separate from civic and political life. The concept flows from the New Testament injunction to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.

Crucially, the interpretation of Islam that is mainstream in most Muslim-majority countries does not accept a division between mosque and state. In fact, to invoke “mosque” as the equivalent of “church” in referring to a division between spiritual and political life is itself a misleading projection of Western principles onto Islamic society. A mosque is not merely a house of worship. It does not separate politics from religion any more than Islam as a whole does. There is a reason why many of the fiery political protests that turn riotous in the Middle East occur on Fridays — the Muslim Sabbath, on which people pour out of the mosques with ears still burning from the imam’s sermon.

The lack of separation between spiritual and civic life is not the only problem with Islam. Sharia is counter-constitutional in its most basic elements — beginning with the elementary belief that people do not have a right to govern themselves freely. Islam, instead, requires adherence to sharia and rejection of all law that contradicts it. So we start with fundamental incompatibility, before we ever get to other aspects of sharia: its systematic discrimination against non-Muslims and women; its denial of religious liberty, free speech, economic freedom, privacy rights, due process, and protection from cruel and unusual punishments; and its endorsement of violent jihad in furtherance of protecting and expanding the territory it governs.

Let’s bear in mind that permitting immigration is a discretionary national act. There is no right to immigrate to the United States, and the United States has no obligation to accept immigrants from any country, including Muslim-majority countries. We could lawfully cut off all immigration, period, if we wanted to. Plus, it has always been a basic tenet of legal immigration to promote fidelity to the Constitution and assimilation into American society — principles to which classical sharia is antithetical.

So why isn’t that the end of the matter? Why is Trump being vilified? Why isn’t he being hailed for speaking truth and refusing to bow to political correctness?

Because Islam is more complex in practice than in theory.

In our non-Muslim country, there is no point in debating what the “true” Islam says or whether Muslims are at liberty to ignore or reform classical sharia. There may not be a true Islam. Even if there is one, what non-Muslims think or say about it is of little interest to Muslims. Our job, in any event, is to preserve the Constitution and protect our national security regardless of how Islam’s internal debates are ultimately resolved — if they ever are.

With that understanding, it is simply a fact that many Muslims accept our constitutional principles and do not seek to impose sharia on our society. They have varying rationales for taking this position: Some believe sharia mandates that immigrants accept their host country’s laws; some believe sharia’s troublesome elements are confined to the historical time and place where they arose and are no longer applicable; some think sharia can evolve; some simply ignore sharia altogether but deem themselves devout Muslims because they remain Islamic spiritually and — within the strictures of American law — culturally.

For those Muslims, Islam is, in effect, merely a religion, and as such it deserves our Constitution’s protections.

For other Muslims, however, Islam is a political program with a religious veneer. It does not merit the liberty protections our law accords to religion. It undermines our Constitution and threatens our security. Its anti-assimilationist dictates create a breeding ground for violent jihad.

If we continue mindlessly treating Islam as if it were merely a religion, if we continue ignoring the salient differences between constitutional and sharia principles — thoughtlessly assuming these antithetical systems are compatible — we will never have a sensible immigration policy.

I have no idea what, if anything, Donald Trump knows about sharia. I do know that it’s a system we must account for if we are going to succeed in welcoming pro-Western Muslims who will be a boon to our society while excluding Islamic supremacists who want to destroy it.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

51% of U.S. Muslims Want Sharia. What could possibly go wrong?

quran (3)

Frontpage, by Robert Spencer, Oct. 16, 2015:

Lost in the controversy over Ben Carson’s remarks on Sharia and a Muslim President was the fact that a recent poll bears out his concerns.

Investigative journalist Paul Sperry reported during the Carson brouhaha that “Muslims living in the U.S….just this June told Polling Co. they preferred having ‘the choice of being governed according to Shariah,’ or Islamic law.” He also noted “the 60% of Muslim-Americans under 30 who told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.”

Many key Muslim leaders in the U.S. have said the same thing. “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.” So said the cofounder and longtime Board chairman of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Omar Ahmad, back in 1998. He has since denied saying this, but the original reporter stands by her story.

Ahmed’s longtime colleague, Hamas-linked CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, said in 1993: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

Another prominent Muslim leader in the U.S., Siraj Wahhaj, said back in 2002: “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.”

Younger Muslims have expressed the same sentiments. “We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don’t lobby Congress or protest because we don’t recognize Congress. The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it. . . . Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah.” That was Muhammad Faheed, a young Muslim leader at a Muslim Students Association meeting at Queensborough Community College in 2003.

Some may object that none of these quotes are newer than twelve years old. One wonders, then, what transformation in Islam in the United States has taken place over the last twelve years to make it likely that these men have changed their views.

Others may suggest that these men don’t speak for the vast majority of Muslims. If that is so, however, then where is the Muslim group that equals the power and influence of Hamas-linked CAIR while eschewing jihad violence, Islamic supremacism, and any desire to impose Sharia in the United States now or in the future? Where is the Muslim student group that rivals the Muslim Students Association in the number of campuses on which it has chapters (the MSA has hundreds, all over the country) while rejecting all attachment to the aspects of Sharia that are incompatible with U.S. law, such as its denial of the freedom of speech and of the equality of rights of women and non-Muslims?

And there are others as well. Sperry quotes Muzammil Siddiqi, the chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America and the North American Islamic Trust: “As Muslims, we should participate in the system to safeguard our interests and try to bring gradual change, (but) we must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”

Sperry also quotes the Imam Zaid Shakir, co-founder of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, California, has said: “If we put a nationwide infrastructure in place and marshaled our resources, we’d take over this country in a very short time….What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims.”

Really, what did you expect? Islam has been supremacist, authoritarian, and expansionist since its inception. U.S. Muslims are not from some sect that rejects all that. Yet a considerable portion of U.S. domestic and foreign policy is based on the assumption that Islam in the U.S. will be different: that Muslims here believe differently from those elsewhere, and do not accept the doctrines of violence against and subjugation of unbelievers that have characterized Islam throughout its history.

But on what is that assumption based? Nothing but wishful thinking. And future generations of non-Muslims will pay the price.

Pentagon: Bible and U.S. Founding Documents Promote ‘Sexism’

By Raymond Ibrahim, April 14, 2015:

Here again we see why Western “elites,” including the highest echelons of the U.S. military, are clueless and incapable of acknowledging — much less responding to — Islam:

Modern sexism is rooted in the Bible, U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, according to a Pentagon-approved seminar.

In a presentation prepared by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI), a Department of Defense joint services school based in Florida, the Bible, U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, along with Great Man theory, are to blame for “historical influences that allow sexism to continue,” The Daily Caller reported.

“Quotes from the Bible can be misinterpreted as having a sexist influence when brought out of context and not fully understood,” the course says. “In 1776, ‘We the people…’ only included white men: Slaves and women were not included until later in history.”

The course also cites the Declaration of Independence as a historical cause of sexism for referring to only “all men” being created equal.

[…]

“While there is no DoD Policy that requires persons to take these online courses,” the spokesman told The Daily Caller, 2,075 Department of Defense personnel have taken the “Sexism” course since 2011.

Meanwhile, to even hint that Islam’s core texts promote sexism — if not downright misogny — can get one fired.  Yet the Koran declares that women are inferior to men, that men have authority over them and are permitted to beat them, that polygamy is permissible — each man can have four wives — that females only inherit half of males’ inheritance, that female testimony in an Islamic court of law is equivalent to half a man’s.

And every day, in every Muslim country, every woman experiences these very real, “non-abstract” distinctions.

Islamic prophet Muhammad himself likened females to dogs and other animals — “for all are ridden” —  and said that women are deficient in intelligence and make up the majority of hell’s denizens.

Yet, it’s the Bible, U.S. Constitution, and Declaration of Independence that women need fear, says the Pentagon.

Obama’s Anti-Cop Jihad

obama-glareBy: William Michael
misterchambers

The Protests were Organized for one Specific Purpose – Dead Cops

In December 2012, a respected Egyptian news magazine named six Obama administration officials who were in fact agents of the international terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood. They claimed that these individuals had helped change the White House “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

One of these alleged agents was Imam Mohamed Magid, a Koranic scholar from Sudan. In the Obama administration, Magid was appointed to the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violence and Extremism working group in 2011. He is on the FBI’s Sikh, Muslim, and Arab advisory board (yes, we have one of those). He has trained and advised personnel affiliated with the FBI and other federal agencies.

Under Obama’s dictates since he entered the Oval Office, the United States government decided to publicly announce a softer approach to countering Islamic terrorism and the ideology behind jihad (i.e., war in the name of Islam). Imam Mohamed Magid has been a centerpiece in Obama’s show of tolerance (of violence) and diversity (of means of death), so much so that he and his organization have been “cited … as the primary means of outreach to the American Muslim community.”

It’s now known that Magid has a remarkable connection to the murderer of two NYPD officers this December.

***

Unlike his approach toward American Muslims, who apparently (at least based on policy since 2009) need the White House to reassure them that they are not “violent extremists,” Barack Hussein Obama’s attitude toward police officers has been hostile from the beginning. Multiple instances mar the six year old administration’s relationship with law enforcement.

The anti-police stance of the administration has been toxically mixed with anti-gun propaganda, and the blatant fanning of racial tensions that have resulted in violence, murder, and even city-wide chaos.

The first example came in July 2009, when Harvard Professor Henry Louis ‘Skip’ Gates was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct by the Cambridge Police department. Sgt. James Crowley saw Gates trying to break into a home, and, not realizing it was actually his own home, arrested Gates. The charges were later dropped by the police, but not before Obama said on national television that the police “acted stupidly,” and further insinuated that the arrest was racially motivated. To make everyone feel better, Obama later held a “beer summit” at the White House, hosting Gates and Crowley in what was presented as some great healing moment. (No word on whether pork or all beef hot dogs were served.)

In 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder, while noting that the number of officers killed in the line of duty jumped 13% that year, blamed the increase on illegal gun ownership. In 2013, Holder went on the record saying that he had to tell his son how to protect himself from the police, because, you guessed it, he’s black. Holder said this talk was family tradition.

For his part, Obama came out in support of the 2011 anti-cop and anarchist movement, Occupy Wall Street, who were not only occupying Wall Street, but terrorizing downtown Manhattan.

Then came the February 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida. Martin was shot by George Zimmerman, as he was being violently assaulted and threatened with death while on neighborhood patrol. In what has become a national tradition, Al Sharpton and Eric Holder descended to prey upon the citizens of a small community, calling for “justice.”

In fact, mob justice is what they were looking for.

The next stop for the Obama, Holder, and Sharpton anti-police racial mob circus was Ferguson, Missouri, following the death of Michael Brown by the gun of a police officer who he was attacking and threatening. The case is familiar and fresh enough in everyone’s minds not have to rehash in any detail. Once again, Obama and the administration issued thinly veiled attacks on the police and insinuated that the officers and the department were racially motivated haters.

The caustic and raw social tumult that ensued led to widespread looting, riots, arson (even by allegedly “peaceful” protestors), and even the murder of a friend one of the trial witnesses.

Obama’s, Holder’s, and Sharpton’s carnival of hate then went prime time, this time to the Big Apple. If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere. And, with a little help from the all-too-willing Mayor Bill DeBlasio, in the Staten Island death of Eric Garner, which was caused not by bullets but by a lung condition, the carnival got what they were looking for all along: the blood of police officers.

On December 20, 2014, five days before Christmas, Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu were assassinated by Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley in their patrol car in Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn. After weeks of anti-police protests, which explicitly shouted for “dead cops,” Brinsley had bragged to pedestrians just prior to the shooting that he was going to satiate the protestors with their pound of flesh.

***

At this time, you may be asking what Mohamed Magid, the alleged Muslim Brotherhood agent, has to do with the assassination of two NYPD officers. This will be clear to you soon enough. But first it is necessary to understand that the supposedly grassroots protests, in Ferguson and in New York, were anything but organic.

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton at NoisyRoom.net has documented the nefarious players behind the protests, and has an incredible list of organizations involved in the protests. One of the most prominent organizing groups is ANSWER, which stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. ANSWER is often found alongside Occupy Wall Street. A little digging into ANSWER’s coalition partners and speakers reveal their roots; groups such as the Muslim Students Association, Free Palestinian Alliance, National Council of Arab Americans, the Nicaragua Network, and Korea Truth Commission (you got me ?).

Furthermore, ANSWER is described by DiscoverThe Networks as “a principal player in all anti-war and pro-Palestinian demonstrations… ANSWER was formed a few days after 9/11 as a ‘new anti-racism, anti-war, peace and justice’ group and led its first protest just weeks later against the impending US-led attack on Afghanistan.”

To be blunt about it, ANSWER is a pro-jihad front organization that was fully behind Hamas in this summer’s Gaza war. Hamas, it’s noted, is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood – the same Muslim Brotherhood that the Egyptian magazine claimed Mohamed Magid was a member of.

***

Isn’t it odd that a Muslim Brotherhood front group would lead protests in New York City over the accidental death of a black man in the course of an arrest? Last time I was there, Staten Island wasn’t a center of Israeli-Palestinian debate, and there are no public pictures of Eric Garner smoking hookah or riding camels in Giza. On the contrary, Garner was dealing single cigarettes, and tobacco is decisively haram (forbidden) according to Islamic sharia law.

Puzzling, perhaps, but the Facebook page of Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley Muhammad ties the story’s loose ends together. According to his own biography on Facebook, Brinsely-Muhammad “Worked at: Islamic Society of North America.” The Islamic Society of North America, aka ISNA, is headquartered in Plainfield, Indiana. Hmm.

Killer's Facebook page: Obama and Magid are caught red-handed

Who is the President of ISNA, where the cop killer said he worked? That would be Imam Mohamed Magid, Obama’s advisor to DHS and the National Security Council.

Obama himself addressed ISNA’s annual convention in 2013. You can read about one of ISNA’s greatest influences, Pakistani radical Abul A’la Maududi, here.

Here are a few other facts to consider when contemplating that the Obama and Holder-inspired cop killer was, according to himself, employed at the organization of one of Obama’s most trusted security advisors, the Islamic Society of North America.

  • ISNA President and Obama advisor Imam Mohamed Magid was a lecturer at Howard University, teaching courses on the Koran.
  • The Trayvon Martin case only caught on after it was plucked from relative obscurity from a student at Howard University. This student, Kevin Cunningham, began a petition on the website change.org. Said Cunningham, a lawyer, “that’s how I think about life, is to be a social engineer.”
  • Cop killer Brinsley-Muhammad, who additionally may have attended a Brooklyn mosque associated with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, martyred himself by suicide in a subway station before being apprehended by police. He’s no longer with us to answer any questions.
  • In light of Obama’s recent embrace of Communist Cuba, it is worth noting that one of Castro’s last acts as a revolutionary leader was to order the targeted killing of Cuba’s police officers. Why? Police keep law and order on the streets, and because they’re uniformed, they’re easy targets for revolutionaries who thrive off anarchy.

Obama’s six yearlong anti-cop jihad has serious consequences. In 2014, there was an increase of 56% in police killed by guns – 50 officers, compared to 32 in 2013. Since the assassinations in New York, many infractions are going unpunished, as police are reluctant to engage with the community, fearing targeting by assassins and mobs. This is a very tenuous and delicate situation.

It might be worth mentioning, to the next person you bump into who still has a functioning brain, that Obama’s trusted advisor, Imam Mohamed Magid, had the NYPD cop killer as an employee of his nationwide Islamic organization. This, according to his own Facebook bio.

The circumstantial evidence presented above points to a deliberate plan by the administration and the Muslim Brotherhood to stoke violence that led to cop killings. These are revolutionary tactics, creating conditions that lead to chaos, anarchy, and eventually the total dissolution of societal trust. After that occurs, people beg for order, in whatever form it offers itself.

Is 2015 the year of the American Spring? In the New Year, several detailed reports will be published that point to deliberate, witting, and eager cooperation between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood aimed at precisely this end.

The Guarantee Clause: Congress’ Duty to Oppose Theocracy in the United States

082411_koran-constitution-lgBy Robert M. Petrusak:

[Editor’s note: New Gingrich has called for a Federal ban on Sharia law in America.]

Theocracy is inherently oppressive and contrary to America’s core values. It regards God as the sovereign and source of law. It therefore places the coercive power of the state–including interpretation and enforcement of law–in the hands of believers. It excludes non-believers from the body politic and brings them suffering. In total contrast, the Declaration of Independence regards God not as a source of coercive power, but as a guarantor of inalienable rights including liberty and equality. The Declaration states that government derives its sovereign authority or “just powers” not from God, but “from the consent of the governed.” This concept of popular sovereignty is reflected not only in the preamble of the Constitution, but also in the “Guarantee Clause” of Article IV, Section 4 which obligates the federal government to preserve a republican form of government in every state. The Constitution also precludes theocracy through the First Amendment’s ban on laws respecting establishments of religion or prohibiting “free exercise” of religious beliefs.

Political Islam or “Islamism” is theocratic. It may be defined as a belief that Islam should control society and politics, not simply personal religious life. Accordingly to the eminent scholar Bernard Lewis, the ideal Islamic polity recognizes God as sole sovereign and law-giver and assigns believers the task of spreading His revelation until the entire world accepts it. This is to be achieved by extending the authority and membership of the community that follows God’s law, the Shariah, which deals with the acquisition and exercise of power and the duties of ruler and subject. [1] Accordingly, Shariah is not simply a prescription for exercising personal belief through activity such as prayer and diet. It is a system of laws that affects the conduct of both believers and non- believers in Islamic theocracies. More ominously, expansion of the community that regards God as sovereign suggests contraction and disempowerment of the community which does not.

Political Islam therefore challenges the United States Constitution, particularly its embrace of liberty, equality, and popular sovereignty. There is concern that this challenge includes not only violent terrorism but an ideological struggle against non-Islamic courts and legal systems and the principle that the people, not God, are the source of political and legal authority .There is similarly concern that Islamists seek to establish “functionally Islamic governments” in every nation [2] and that toward this end, they will create divisive alternative communities by insinuating Islamic rules of conduct for the temporal world into courts and other institutions. There is even concern that Islamism will limit traditional free speech through application of its restrictions on defamation of religion or blasphemy. [3]

Such concerns have resulted in “anti-shariah legislation” in various states and subsequent court battles over whether such laws violate the constitutional rights of Muslims. However, such concerns raise issues of national importance because efforts to make public institutions Shariah-compliant may violate not only the First Amendment’s provisions on religion or free speech but also the Fourteenth Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution. The former guarantees due process and equal protection; the latter proclaims the supremacy of federal statutes, treaties and constitutional provisions. Moreover, Article IV, Section 4 creates an affirmative federal obligation to guarantee a non-theocratic, “Republican Form of Government” in every state.

The very essence of republican government is the belief that sovereignty rests with the people. [4]. Our Constitution is derived exclusively from the people and alterable only by them through elected representatives. Similarly, elected representatives and elected or duly-appointed judges, not religious leaders, enact and interpret our statutory law. [5] These principles of popular sovereignty support the Article IV guarantee of republican government and are related to the concept of equality. Thus, the guarantee clause would be invoked in the struggle against slavery and in the post-Civil War struggle to include freed slaves in the body politic. [6] In this regard, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection evolved from our concept of republican government, [7] and a state that denies this fundamental right similarly violates Article IV, Section 4. The introduction into American courts, of laws or legal principles derived from a sovereign God or religious texts cannot be tolerated and the federal government has a clear responsibility to keep theocracy out of state courts and other public institutions.

Read more at Right Side News

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

Jacksonville City Council Could “Kill the Human Rights Controversy”

City_council_meeting_pic-630x286by Randy McDaniels:

Mayor Alvin Brown’s nomination of Parvez Ahmed, former National Chairman of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) for a second term on the Human Rights Commission has the City Council and its citizens divided on the issue.

Parvez Ahmed

Parvez Ahmed

The 2010 Jacksonville City Council had an opportunity to “Kill the Controversy” surrounding Parvez Ahmed dead in its tracks.  That Council received Information from Former Muslims United, which if properly acted upon would have answered any question about the suitability of Parvez Ahmed to sit on a Human Rights body and done so in a manner which would have reasonably appealed to the sensibilities of those on both sides of this nomination.

In 2009, Former Muslims United (FMU) sent a “Pledge for Religious Freedom” to approximately (46) Florida Mosques, Islamic Centers, and other recognized Islamic leaders to include Parvez Ahmed.  The letter cites authoritative Islamic Law or SHARIA from (8) renowned sources to include (3) Islamic legal bodies within North America, and all call for capital punishment for those who commit apostasy or treason by leaving the nation of Islam.

Note:  Since Sharia governs all aspects of the nation of Islam, it is not really a religious legal code, but in fact a political system.  Political Islam or Sharia, governs not only religion, but all aspects of Islamic life to include social, economic, political, military, and legal matters…many of which address those outside the faith of Islam irrespective of their personal rights or beliefs.

The full “Pledge for Religious Freedom” which can be viewed at the bottom of this article, finishes with a request for leaders in the Islamic community to sign a pledge in affirmation of basic Human Rights:

To support the civil rights of former Muslims, also known as apostates from Islam, I sign “The Muslim Pledge for Religious Freedom and Safety from Harm for Former Muslims”:

I renounce, repudiate and oppose any physical intimidation, or worldly and corporal punishment, of apostates from Islam, in whatever way that punishment may be determined or carried out by myself or any other Muslim including the family of the apostate, community, Mosque leaders, Shariah court or judge, and Muslim government or regime.

 _______________________________

Signed By

 The authoritative Islamic laws (Sharia) cited, not only violate the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cherished by all Americans who recognize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, but they also violate the right to Freedom of Religion guaranteed under 1st  Amendment.

More problematic than his refusal to sign the “Pledge of Religious Freedom” is the fact CAIR members whom Parvez Ahmed worked with for years, held and currently hold leadership positions on leading Islamic legal bodies in North America, such as the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), which have placed their seal of approval on the “Reliance of the Traveller”, the only official English/Arabic Translation of SHARIA, which sanctions the killing of apostates and is sourced in the Pledge.

Additionally, CAIR’s Co-founder Nihad Awad, and CAIR National Board Members Muzzamil Siddiqi and Jamal Badawi sit on the Shura Council of North America, which is tasked with overseeing the implementation of Sharia law and guiding the work of the Muslim Brotherhood inside the United States.  CAIR boldly honored the founder of (IIIT) Jamal Barzinji with a lifetime achievement award in September of 2012, which suggest CAIR continues to support Sharia and Muslim Brotherhood.

The Shura concept of democracy is quite different than western concepts of democracy in that a literal translation of “rule of the people” cannot occur within Islam, because all sovereignty belongs to ALLAH, meaning Sharia not the U.S. Constitution shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.

This view is also supported by leading 20th century Muslim thinkers like Sayyid Qutb (Shepard 1996:110, Hoffmann 2007:297) and Abu al-Ala al-Mawdudi (1969:215). They base their argument on Quranic verses 6:57, 12:40, and 12:67, all of which contain the phrase “in al-hukm illā li-llāh” meaning that the decision or power is God’s alone (Fatwa no. 98134 (n.d.) at IslamQA.com).

An example, which goes to the heart of why it is paramount to determine the mindset of Parvez Ahmed is (Fatwa no. 22239 (n.d.) at IslamQA.com.), which states that legislative systems which rule on matters already decided by divine intervention – such as abolishing polygamy or outlawing capital punishment – “go against the laws of the Creator” and this “constitutes disbelief (kufr)”.  Those who issue Fatwa’s, look to authoritative Islamic legal text such as the “Reliance of the Traveller” in order to support their legal opinions.

By signing a document which directly renounces Sharia or “Goes against the laws of the Creator” a Sharia Adherent Muslim would render himself an enemy of the Islamic State (Apostate) unless he was under threat of death or extreme duress, at such times it is permissible deceive and/or lie even about such grave matters as religous belief, which is normally forbidden.

Holy Deception (Taqiyya) and Permissible lying are basic tenants of the Islamic legal and religious code, which make lying and deception obligatory on all Muslims if the action is obligatory.  The Hijrah (migration) to settle enemy lands for eventual Islamic conquest and Jihad – Islamic warfare against non-Muslim to establish the religion are obligatory actions.  Jihad can take many forms to include information warfare (propaganda, dawah/outreach, as well as financial warfare (Sharia Compliant Finance (SCF)), however Jihad Qital or violent Jihad is the most revered.

Note:  CAIR advertises they are Zakat eligible on their website.  Meaning, CAIR can collect money for the (8) categories of Islamic giving which includes JIHAD.  However, CAIR boast all of their giving goes for Zakat Fi-Sabilillah or entirely for the purpose of Jihad and has since Parvez Ahmed held the position of National Chairman.

The specific language crafted in the “Pledge for Religious Freedom” strips the ability a political Islamist to wordsmith in order to give a misleading impression of tolerance and moderation where such moderation may not truly exist.

For example:  Under Islamic Legal definitions, non-Muslims are sub-human and guilty of sin (not Innocent) since they are not Muslim.  Terrorism is understood as the UNJUST killing of a Muslim only (The killing of an apostate, homosexual, and Kufr are all justified).

In light of these Islamic Understandings, consider the following statement:

“In my religion we are forbidden from killing any innocent human being and I unequivocally denounce terrorism in any form it may take.”

If this statement was made by a Sharia adherent Muslim, did it violate any tenants of Islamic law?  Understanding Sharia, does this statement in anyway condemn the killing of non-Muslims, homosexuals, or apostates which are contrary to western notions of basic Human Rights?  The answer to both of these questions is no and this statment is in no way moderate.

The vast majority of Jacksonville residents have never heard an honest discussion regarding the numerous concerns surrounding this appointment.  Unfortunately, what they have seen is members of the Council, the Florida Times Union, NAACP, ACLU and even the local Democrat Party jump on the race bait bandwagon with accusations of fear mongering, Islamophobia and outright Racism.

Those opposed to this appointment have cited the fact CAIR was labeled a Co-conspirator in the largest successfully prosecuted terrorism finance trial in U.S. history (US vs. HLF, 2008), as well as evidence which clearly demonstrates the organization which Parvez Ahmed held a leadership position in for over (10) years was created to support HAMAS with funds, media and manpower.

In addition, Parvez Ahmed has gone on record, making direct statements in support of convicted terrorist, terrorist groups HAMAS and Hezbollah, as well as writing numerous articles which appear to support the stated goals of the Muslim Brotherhood in furtherance of their “Civilization Jihad” inside America to include a recent article which suggested criminalizing free speech if it offends Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, or Muslims in accordance with Sharia Slander Law which are being pushed by the OIC at the U.N. via resolution 16/18.

In a rational world, these facts would be more than enough to disqualify this nomination and those courageous councilmen and women who changed their position based on the facts should not have been crucified in the media but commended.

With “Honor Killings” on the rise and a segment of the American population living in fear of persecution and threat death for nothing more than trying to exercise their 1st Amendment rights, the City Council would be derelict in their duty if they did not utilize ever tool available to ensure the Constitutional freedoms of every citizen are protected.

The “Pledge for Religious Freedom” provides an excellent tool to “KILL the Controversy” surrounding Parvez Ahmed’s suitability to hold a seat on a Human Rights Commission and ensue the rights of former Muslims are protected. 

The real question is will City Council take advantage of this Freedom Document?

Read more at The Watchdog Wire

 

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:

 

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)

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Introduced in Mississippi and Kentucky, advancing in Florida & South Dakota, dying in Virginia

 

February 13th, 2012 by Bill Raftery at Gavel to Gavel:

The two weeks since my last update in this area have been particularly busy. Of note:

  • Mississippi’s introduction of HB 2 and Kentucky’s HB 386 brings to 22 (versus 24 states in 2011) the number of states to have a bill banning the use of international law/sharia by state courts in 2012
  • South Dakota has heavily modified their bills and achieved committee approval with a single sentence statute: “No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.”
  • Virginia’s bans, while initially appearing to be advancing, were deferred into the 2013 legislative session.

Full roster of 36 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.

 
Bill Provisions Status
Alaska HB 88 Prohibits a court, arbitrator, mediator, administrative agency, or enforcement authority from applying a foreign law if application of the foreign law would violate an individual’s right guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Alaska or the United States Constitution. Approved by House State Affairs Committee 3/17/11. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Carried over from 2011 session.
Alabama SB 33 (Constitutional Amendment) Enacts American and Alabama Laws for Alabama Courts Amendment. Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Alabama SB 40 (Constitutional Amendment) Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” In Senate Judiciary Committee.
Alabama SB 84 (Constitutional Amendment) Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Florida HB 1209 Provides “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations or tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides the term does not include the common law and statute laws of England as described or any laws of the Native American tribes in the state. Declares “Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.” Approved by House Judiciary Committee, Civil Justice Subcommittee 1/31/12.
Florida SB 1360 Provides “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations or tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides the term does not include the common law and statute laws of England as described or any laws of the Native American tribes in the state. Declares “Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.” Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 1/25/12.
Georgia HB 45 Provides “the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” In House Committee on Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session.
Georgia HB 242 Declares “‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” In House Committee on Judiciary Non-Civil. Carried over from 2011 session.
Georgia SB 51 Provides that no court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States In Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session.
Indiana HB 1166 Provides that a court may not apply, enforce, or grant comity, res judicata, claim preclusion, or issue preclusion to a foreign law, ruling, or judgment if doing so would violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement: (1) that provides for the choice of foreign laws in its interpretation; or (2) that provides for the choice of venue or forum; and that would result in a violation of a fundamental liberty, right, or privilege guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Indiana is void and unenforceable. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party. Provides that a court may not require or authorize any court to: (1) adjudicate or prohibit a religious organization from adjudicating ecclesiastical matters; or (2) determine or interpret the doctrine of a religious organization. In House Committee on Judiciary.
Indiana SB 36 Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States Constitution. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement calling for the application of foreign law is not enforceable and is void if the provision cannot be modified, unless the contract explicitly states that it will be enforced in accordance with foreign law. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions to transfer a case to another jurisdiction if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party. In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Indiana SB 90 Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States Constitution. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement between natural persons calling for the application of foreign law is not enforceable and is void if the provision cannot be modified. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions to transfer a case to another jurisdiction if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party. In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Iowa HB 489 Defines “foreign law, legal code, or system” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including but not limited to international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code, or system against a person in this state is whether the decision rendered violated any right of the person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the Constitution of the United States, or any statute enacted or decision issued under the constitution of the state of Iowa or the United States.” In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
Iowa HB 575 Enacts “Iowa Freedom and Sovereignty Act.” Defines “Foreign law” as “any law enacted by a jurisdiction or a governmental or quasi-governmental body other than the federal government or a state of the United States. “Foreign law” includes a religious law, legal code, accord, or ruling promulgated or made by an international organization, tribunal, or formal or informal administrative body.” Provides “any foreign law or other law that is in conflict with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of the State of Iowa shall not have force or effect in this state…It is the public policy of this state that the only factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other person acting under authority of this state’s laws shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law that affects a sovereign citizen of this state is whether the decision violates the sovereign citizen’s rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Iowa.” In House State Government Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
Iowa HJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides the state courts “when exercising judicial power, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the United States Code, federal regulations, established common law, the Iowa Code, the Iowa administrative code, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not use the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including but not limited to cases of first impression.” In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
Kansas HB 2087 Defines “foreign law,” “legal code” or “system” means any law, legal code or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides “Any court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States and Kansas constitutions.” Approved by full House 3/30/11. In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session.
Kentucky HB 386 Establishes legislative intent that the rights of an individual afforded under the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and the United States take precedence over the application of any foreign law in any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. Strictly construe waivers of constitutional rights Provides exceptions for corporate entities Prohibits choice of venue outside of the Commonwealth or United States to preserve the constitutional rights of the person against whom enforcement is sought. In House (no committee).
Michigan HB 4769 Defines “foreign law,” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.” In House Committee on Judiciary.
Michigan SB 701 Defines “foreign law,” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.” In Senate Committee on Government Operations.
Mississippi HB 2 Provides “”Foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system
established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states
or territories of the United States…A court, arbitrator,
administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement
authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a
right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United
States.”
In House Judiciary A Committee.
Missouri HB 1512 Provides court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Missouri constitutions, 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 this state. In House (no committee).
Missouri SB 676 Mandates that any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling shall be unenforceable if based on a foreign law that does not grant the parties the same rights as the parties have under the United States and Missouri constitutions. In Senate (no committee).
Nebraska LB 647 Declares a court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decisions the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Nebraska. In Senate Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
New Hampshire HB 1422 Declares that no New Hampshire court shall enforce foreign law or a state law enforcing foreign law if such enforcement violates an individual’s or corporation’s rights under the New Hampshire constitution or the United States Constitution. In House Committee on Judiciary.
New Jersey AB 919 Provides that a foreign law may only be recognized by a court in New Jersey if it does not violate any right guaranteed by the Constitution of this State or of the United States of America. In Assembly Judiciary Committee.
New Mexico SJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides “The courts provided for in this article, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States constitution, the constitution of New Mexico, statutes of the United States and federal regulations adopted pursuant thereto, established common law, New Mexico statutes and state regulations adopted pursuant thereto and, if necessary, the law of another state of the United States, provided that the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not consider or apply a rule of comity to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, international law, laws promulgated by foreign governments or national laws of foreign countries if the consideration or application of the foreign precepts or laws would violate the public policy of the state of New Mexico or reduce or impair the rights of any resident of the state of New Mexico existing under New Mexico statutes or common law governing child custody, rights of married persons, property rights, protection from domestic violence or any criminal law. The courts shall not consider or apply Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts, including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.” In Senate Rules Committee.
North Carolina HB 640 Declares “it to be the public policy of this State to protect its citizens from the application of foreign law that would result in the violation of a right of a natural person guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution or the United States Constitution. The public policies expressed in this section shall apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of a constitutional right resulting from the application of the foreign law.” In House Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee C. Carried over from 2011 session.
Oklahoma HB 1552 Provides any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, rule, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions. Approved by full House 3/17/11. In Senate Rules Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
Pennsylvania HB 2029 Provides a tribunal shall not consider a foreign legal code or system which does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Pennsylvania. In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
South Carolina HB 3490 Provides “As used in this section, the term “foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.” In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
South Carolina SB 444 Provides “As used in this section, the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories….A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.” In Senate Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
South Dakota HB 1253 “”No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.” Approved by House Judiciary Committee 2/10/12.
South Dakota SB 136 ORIGINAL: Provides any ruling or decision that makes use of international or foreign law is void and unenforceable if the court bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the constitutions of the United States and South Dakota, including due process of law, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically provided by the constitution of this state. Foreign law, legal code, or system is any foreign law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Specifies the term foreign law does not include any tribal laws of the Native American tribes in the state. AS AMENDED: “No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.” Approved as amended by Senate Judiciary Committee 2/10/12.
Virginia HB 631 Provides that court decisions and contracts and other agreements will be void as violative of the public policy of the Commonwealth where such decisions or contracts are based on foreign law, i.e., law applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States, where the application of such foreign law would violate a person’s rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of Virginia. Continued to 2013 by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/10/12.
Virginia HB 825 Prohibits any Virginia court or administrative agency from applying the law of any jurisdiction outside of the United States and its territories unless the application is required by the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, or any federal or state law. Approved by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/3/12. Continued to 2013 by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/10/12.
West Virginia HB 3220 Provides “”foreign law, legal code or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code or system against a natural person in this state is whether the decision rendered either violated or would violate any right of the natural person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of West Virginia or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those Constitutions.” In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011

 Related articles:

Shariah & American Laws for American Courts

Appeals Court Blocks Oklahoma Ban on Sharia Law

American Laws for American Courts

CAIR falsely attacks ALAC – Virginia Action Alert!