Hysterical Blindness

"Who's the Justiciar here?" Theodoric of York consults the Writ of Common Wisdom.

There exists today in our Grand and Holy Homeland a secret party of seditionists who stealthily undermine secular authority by seeking to govern themselves according to religious law. While eagerly exploiting the freedoms and material conveniences of our contemporary culture, they remain wedded to a pre-medieval worldview.  

Shockingly, they have wrested concessions from distracted or intimidated policy-makers. Whether through ignorance or opportunism, those officials are now effectively abetting the establishment of small but expanding theocratic islands inhabited by people who are subject to stern and exacting codes governing every aspect of life -- including diet, recreation, social activities, sex and other marital matters, and mandatory religious worship.

Most insidiously, this tiny but aggressive sect demands that its adherents submit to the authority of religious leaders, rather than civil courts, in dealing with disputes -- and this subversive arrangement has actually been upheld by the Obama administration! Thanks to a very capable lobbying effort on Capitol Hill, an organization rooted in this movement managed to secure a special exemption last year when the Obamacare measure was enacted. 

These official favors were granted despite the fact that the organization is directly tied to a group seeking to bring every element of America's culture into subjection to God's law, as understood by the group's adherents. Statements by prominent figures in the movement make it plain that they consider themselves to be soldiers in a divinely guided "army" with an all-encompassing social mandate.

Obviously this is yet another instance in which the Obama administration is quietly abetting the establishment of Sharia law -- or at least, it might be, were such a campaign actually underway, which it isn't. As it happens, the commendably insular and admirably government-aversive religious group described above the Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries (HCSM), which was created for the purpose of helping fellow Christians obtain health coverage outside of government-controlled health insurance organizations. 

 HCSM, a project of Samaritan Ministries International, claims as many as 100,000 members who pool resources in a "need sharing" system to help reimburse each other's medical expenses (up to $100,000). Some conditions -- such as those resulting from drug and alcohol abuse -- aren't covered. Nor are abortions or care for unwed mothers (who can find help from other faith-centered crisis pregnancy organizations). 

The group also champions the laudable work of independent physicians such as the heroic Dr. Stansilov Burzynski, who has been persecuted by the Regime-aligned health care establishment for his innovative and promising cancer therapy.

James Lansberry, vice president of Samaritan Ministries, reports that this system has managed to meet the needs of its subscribers, a fact in which he sees the hand of Providence at work.


Samaritan Ministries (SMI), a tax-exempt charity, describes itself as a covenant-defined community of Christian believers dedicated to following the Bible's commandments "to make every effort to live at peace and to resolve disputes with each other or within the church."

"A member who chooses to violate this command of scripture and his covenant with his SMI brethren, and takes a dispute to court, destroys our fellowship and has chosen to be as if he had never been a Samaritan Ministries member and to not have his needs shared with the membership," the organization explains to interested prospects. "Therefore, in becoming a member or reaffirming  your membership, you agree that any claim or dispute you have with, or against SMI, its employees, directors, members and associate members, that is related to SMI and its ministries in any way, shall be settled by Biblically based mediation and, if necessary, legally binding arbitration. And SMI agrees similarly with respect to any matter SMI might have with you."


Sarah Posner of American Prospect points out that arrangements of this kind -- "contractual agreements to submit to dispute resolution outside of the courts, with choice-of-law provisions" -- are "quite common in religious settings." They are used by many Christian educational and charitable groups. Similar arbitration arrangements are used by various Jewish congregations. Yet in recent days the discovery of nearly identical mechanisms for private dispute-settlement among Muslims has triggered another mass convulsion among people who like to pretend that we live in the shadow of an incipient Caliphate. 


In 2002, a leadership dispute in the Islamic Education Center (ICE) in Tampa resulted in the ouster of three of the organization's trustees. The  ICE is governed by a "constitution" drawn up in 1993 by a Muslim scholar known as an A'lim. Under the provisions of that document's "Organizational Framework," the A'lim has veto power over the board of trustees, who agree to accept that scholar's guidance "to insure adherence to Islamic laws." This includes arbitration of disputes involving personnel and financial matters. In this case, the leadership dispute boils down to the question of controlling $2.2 million the ICE received from the Florida state government after it purchased some property from the mosque to use in a road construction project.

Three years ago a lawsuit was filed by the Mosque's former trustees, who wanted to move the dispute into Florida's civil court system.  In January, shortly before the trial was to begin, one of the parties requested an emergency injunction to enforce the arbiter's previous decision. 

This came as a surprise to Tampa Circuit Court Judge Richard Nielsen, who has observed that "Prior to the motion the court was not aware of any arbitration pending between the parties." 


On March 3, Judge Nielsen -- in what should be perceived as that rarest of things, an act of judicial restraint -- ruled that he would not intrude in a dispute that falls within the jurisdiction of an existing, written, contract-based private arbitration agreement. Unfortunately, this meant it was necessary for Nielsen to write the following words: "This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic law."


That phrase, predictably, caused the fever swamp to boil over.



"To all of the naysayers on the left who say that Sharia can never come to the U.S., here is the latest example of how it is slowly and stealthily creeping into our judicial system--in this case, courtesy of a foolish, non-Muslim judge (known as a useful idiot in Lenin's days)," sneered Erik Stakelbeck of CBN News, a preening blowhard who is no part of a journalist but plays one on cable TV. Variants of this soundbite quickly proliferated like mushrooms that had fed on the stuff Stakelbeck and his ilk have been diligently shoveling for the past several years. 


In fact, rather than opening the door to Sharia, Judge Nielsen was trying to nail it firmly shut. The constitutional religious freedom guarantees are intended to protect religious associations from government control; in this case Nielsen was dealing with an intramural dispute among faithful Muslims  who had freely chosen to submit to the rulings of a Muslim scholar. This doesn't change simply because there's a great deal of money at stake, and one side -- in this case, ironically, the incumbent trustees of the Mosque -- decides it might get a better deal from non-Muslims than it apparently got from the A'lin.


Nielsen knows very little about the Muslim religion and doesn't appear interested to learn much more. However, testimony from Islamic authorities in the pre-trial hearing demonstrated that "under ecclesiastical law, pursuant to the Qur'an, Islamic brothers should attempt to resolve a dispute among themselves," wrote the Judge in a supplemental ruling issued March 22. "If Islamic brothers are unable to do so, they can agree to present the dispute to the greater community of Islamic brothers within the mosque or the Muslim community for resolution. If that is not done or does not result in a resolution of the dispute, the dispute is to be presented to an Islamic judge for determination, and that is or can be an A'lim."


This arrangement shouldn't appear at all peculiar to Christians who are even superficially familiar with the New Testament (see particularly Matthew 18:15-17). Indeed, this is quite probably a procedure Muhammad borrowed directly from Christian teachings when he created his religion.
 

"From the outset of learning of the purported arbitration award, the court's concern has been whether there were ecclesiastical principles for dispute resolution involved that would compel the court to adopt the arbitration decision without consulting state law," explains Judge Nielsen. "Decisional case law both in Florida and the United States Supreme Court tells us that ecclesiastical law controls certain relations between members of a religious organization, whether a church, synagogue, temple or mosque."

Jacobins "Baptize" (drown) Christians who refused to worship the State.

 The likeliest alternative to that position, of course, would be one permitting the State to arbitrate all disputes that arise within religious associations -- including those involving finances, governance, discipline, and standards of conduct. This would create all kinds of opportunities for officious busybodies of the sort who seethe over the impudence of groups like Samaritan Ministries who dare to carve out little pockets of autonomy in defiance of the Leviathan State. 

There is nothing in Judge Nielsen's preliminary decision that would in any way facilitate the establishment of a Caliphate. However, if he were to break ICE to the saddle of the state, his actions would potentially be of great use to social engineers looking to destroy any institutional resistance to State control over all aspects of life.

Every association that settles its disputes through private contract derogates from the power of the State -- which is something to be encouraged and celebrated. Yet this is lost on the kind of people who can't see the facts through the fog of their own hyperventilation. Compulsive mosque-baiting is a difficult habit for some people to overcome. But if people do it long enough, they go blind.

One tragic fact is plain to see: There are too many Americans who simply fear Muslims more than they love or understand freedom.

Thank you so much for your generosity in helping to keep Pro Libertate on-line. If you can help, it will be very much appreciated. God bless!

Dum spiro, pugno!

They Call That Scam "Sharia"

"I'll break your back, and make you humble!"

Tennessee state senator Bill Ketron insists that his proposed anti-Sharia measure (formally known as the "Material Support to Designated Entities Act") is not intended to criminalize the peaceful practice of the Muslim religion. Instead, it would permit the prosecution of those who offer tangible support to entities identified by the state attorney general as "Sharia organizations" devoted to promoting Islamic rule through violence. Such an act would be a felony punishable by a fine of unspecified size and a prison term of up to 15 years.


If enacted and applied with a degree of intellectual honesty, Ketron's measure would require Tennessee law enforcement to shut down every military base and recruiting office in the state, as well as rounding up all resident veterans of "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Promoting Sharia law in Iraq through the use of criminal violence has been the official policy of the United States Government since the new Iraqi constitution was finished in late 2004. 

As U.S. Army Reserve Maj. Stephen Coughlin -- described as the Pentagon's leading expert on Sharia law -- pointed out in a recent deposition: "Article 2 of the Iraqi Constitution states that `Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation.[...] No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.'" That constitution was not produced by Iraqis themselves; it was drafted by a committee created by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S-created cabal of social engineers and war profiteers that supervised the occupation and "reconstruction" of Iraq from 2003 until 2005. 

During the past decade, only one formerly secular country fell under the rule of sharia law: Iraq. This wasn't done by al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, or any of the other Islamist groups that torment the dreams of people suffering from toxic levels of exposure to the War Party's propaganda; it was done by the government afflicting the United States of America.

"Let's see: What freedoms can I trample today...?"

Though his qualifications as an imam are sketchy at best, Tennessee State Senator Ketron  presumes to define "Sharia" as "a legal-political-military doctrinal system combined with certain religious beliefs" that "requires all its adherents to actively and passively support the replacement of America's constitutional republic...." Jihad and sharia, Ketron insists, are "inextricably linked," and the "imposition of sharia on non-sharia adherent states is to be brought about both by criminal and violent means ... and by lawful and non-violent means...." 

This means that even those who peacefully and lawfully practice the tenets of sharia can be considered criminal subversives: 

 

"The knowing adherence to sharia and to foreign sharia authorities constitutes a conspiracy to further the legal, political, and military doctrine and system which embraces the law of jihad.... The knowing adherence to sharia and to foreign sharia authorities is prima facie evidence of an act in support of the overthrow of the United States government and the government of this state through the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions by the likely use of imminent criminal violence...."

Once again, if applied with the kind of consistency required by the principle of equal justice under the law, Ketron's measure would dictate the prosecution of military personnel who participated in the patently unconstitutional Iraq war. In addition to deploying U.S. servicemen to kill and die on behalf of sharia, that war -- and the vile policies that sprouted from it -- fortified the "leader principle" at lethal expense to whatever was left of our republican institutions.

Every crime contains at least two components -- the malign intent (mens rea), and the guilty act (actus reus). Perhaps Ketron and his comrades will insist that Iraq war veterans are exempt from the anti-Sharia act because most of them didn't knowingly adhere to the doctrine they were propagating at gunpoint. This would mean that in their case mens rea was absent, despite the violent, criminal acts that were committed. However, in the case of peaceful Muslims, mere belief in their religious code would be construed as both criminal intent, and a guilty act.

Anti-Christian persecution rages in sharia-dominated Iraq

Tennessee's Muslim population, while quite small, is growing -- a trend that has been exploited by compulsive Mosque-baiters seeking to capitalize on fears of "creeping sharia." 

Most of the growth consists of refugees driven from their homes in Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, and other countries that have experienced the healing touch of the Empire's armed benevolence. Ending armed entanglements in, and covert subversion of, Muslim countries would do a great deal to stop the exodus of refugees, and reduce the possibility of cultural conflicts here at home. Ketron doesn't appear interested in solutions that might actually work; like any aspiring Grand Inquisitor, he's much more interested in tearing windows into men's souls.


Among the onerous provisions of Sharia law are restrictions on the sale and consumption of wine and other alcoholic beverages. One possible reason why Sen. Ketron is so anxious to arrest the tide of Sharia-inspired fanaticism may be the difficulty he has experienced in trying to enact legislation permitting non-Muslim residents to purchase wine at grocery stores.
 
In a letter to a constituent, Ketron lamented that the influence of religious fanatics who consider wine to be haram (unclean) made it impossible for his measure to his measure to find traction: "I am currently trying to pass legislation that allows wine to be in the grocery stores again, and the liquor lobbyist has threatened ... to `unleash the preachers' across the state." In fact, at least one of Tennessee's subdivisions, Moore County, seems to be in danger of succumbing to sharia, insofar as alcohol prohibition is concerned.


Oh, wait -- the fanatics responsible for this are Baptist preachers, not Muslim imams, and the problem (as Ketron acknowledged) isn't that Tennessee has fallen under the shadow of the Crescent, but rather that it's being strangled by the "Bible Belt." That comparison, I must admit, is a little unfair, since in at least some Muslim countries Sharia-based restrictions on the sale and consumption of liquor don't apply to non-Muslims.


Within the constituency to which Ketron is pandering we almost certainly will find more than a few people who were thrilled to the marrow by the recent town meeting confrontation between Rep. Allen West (R. Florida) and Nezar Hamze, executive director for the South Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Rep. West, who was cashiered from the military for abusing a detainee in Iraq, presents himself as an authority on the iniquity of Muslims. The source of his expertise is the experience he obtained by killing so many of them who were defending their homes against a foreign army that had invaded their country.

Mr. Hamze, who -- unlike West -- has actually read the Koran, brought a copy of it to the town meeting and asked West to show him where that book sanctions violence against innocent people. Rather than offering an honest answer, West recited a litany of crimes committed by people professing the Muslim faith since the Seventh Century. 

Apparently, Hamze and those who share his religion -- whether or not they have ever committed or countenanced a crime as individuals -- are collectively guilty for the atrocities to which West alluded. However, we Christians bear no similar moral burden for criminal acts committed in the name of the Cross.

I suspect that West, his pose as a Christian statesman/warrior notwithstanding, knows as little about the Bible as he does about the Koran. At the very least, his copy of the Holy Book apparently doesn't contain the eighteenth chapter of the Book of Ezekiel, in which the Author informs us: "The soul who sins, he shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be on him." 

Beneath the sanctimony and hypocrisy displayed by West in that exchange, we confront, once again, a dreadful irony: Unlike West the "war hero," CAIR representative Hamze has never shed blood on behalf of sharia. 

Allen West's pugnacious ignorance has made him a matinee idol to the same people who are being conditioned to view British welfare parasite Andy "Anjem" Choudary as the second coming of the Sudanese Mahdi. 

Choudary, who heads up a tiny knot of nitwits calling themselves "Islam4UK," is on the speed-dial of every cable TV producer looking for a savagely bearded Muslim caricature to spice up an otherwise drab interview segment. He has performed his Stone Age Muslim Barbarian shtick on ABC's This Week with Christiane Amapour, CNN's Parker/Spitzer program, and numerous other TV shows. 

This Thursday (March 3), Choudary is planning to hold a demonstration in Washington for the supposed purpose of inciting American Muslims to rise up on behalf of sharia.

Choudary touts himself as a voice of "authentic" Islam, and those who peddle anti-Muslim alarmism eagerly validate that title. Despite having no clerical credentials or any verifiable expertise in the tenets of his religion, Choudary claims to be a "sharia law judge."

No burqas here: Andy Choudary in party-animal mode.

While studying to become a lawyer, Andy (his real given name) Choudary was a boozing, porn-consuming party animal who somehow persuaded dozens of women to sleep with him -- offenses that, according to his own pronouncements, would earn him a "lashing."

Andy was expelled from the legal profession in 2002. He's been a failure as a husband and father, and at present he is a welfare-devouring loser. He has no standing as a cleric, and I doubt his influence extends far beyond his tax-fattened shadow. Yet somehow we're supposed to see him as a threat?

Choudary is a sideshow caricature right out of professional "wrestling"; he's like the Iron Sheik, minus the subtlety. Like any good "Heel," Andy the self-appointed imam knows how to work an interview to build "heat" for his chosen angle, which is why trend-sucking idiots like Sean Hannity insist on giving him exposure. But the inescapable fact is this: Choudary and the handful of subsidized mouth-breathers he gathers around him are about as representative of Islam as Fred Phelps and his little troupe of in-bred, hate-intoxicated losers are typical of Evangelical Christianity.

For some reason, I fail to be terrified.

  Unless somebody discovers how to weaponize stupidity, Andy Choudary will never pose a genuine threat to anybody. Yet the herd-poisoners who compose the War Party's media auxiliary are turning Choudary into the face of jihad. 

By the end of the week, millions of people will  know his name, execrate him on cue, and be satisfied that they're well-informed and commendably patriotic. Not even a bare handful of them are familiar with Mohammed Junaid Babar, an actual Muslim terrorist who helped plan and coordinate the July 7, 2005 terrorist attacks in London, in which four coordinated suicide bombings murdered scores of people, and mutilated hundreds more. Despite his crimes and his professed hatred for America, Babar has been freed from prison after serving no more than two years behind bars -- thanks to the intervention of the federal government.


Babar, who helped set up the camps in Pakistan where the 7/7 plot was organized, was imprisoned in June 2004. Final sentencing was deferred, however, because of what the Federal Government calls his "exceptional cooperation" with law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Babar's "cooperation" began more than a year before London experienced a shock comparable to 9/11; according to the London Daily Mail, Babar had identified the ringleader of the 7/7 attacks no later than August 2004. Yet the massacre took place anyway -- and Babar was released from federal prison after serving only four and a half years of a possible 70-year sentence.


"People get four and a half years for burglary," observes Graham Foulkes, a British magistrate judge whose 22-year-old son, David, was among the victims of the terrorist plot Babar helped organize. "They can get more for some road traffic offenses. So for an international terrorist who's directly linked to the death of my son and dozens and dozens of people to get that sentence is just outrageous." 

The outrage is compounded by the fact that Babar was actually behind bars for only a fraction of that time. At his parole hearing it was mentioned that Babar "has been out on bail for a considerable period of time, over the last year and a half or so...." In fact, as Foulkes points out, prior to being paroled, Babar was allowed to wander the streets of America for at least two years, during which time he married and began a family.

Not a "stealth jihadist": U.S.-supported terrorist Babar in Pakistan.

Babar, a U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent, went to Pakistan following 9/11. His travels (including visits to London, where he communed with members of the radical al-Muhajiroun group) were carefully monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies. 

There is reason to believe that his "cooperation" actually began no later than 2003. This would mean that he was organizing Pakistani terrorist training camps under the supervision of U.S. intelligence -- and that his "arrest" was actually a case of an asset being "brought in from the cold."

In testimony before a British court in 2007, Babar described how he and his al-Muhajiroun comrades (who may have included fellow controlled asset Andy Choudary, who joined the group sometime after 2002) would repeatedly watch videos of the 9/11 attacks and how everyone present "was in praise of those who carried it out."



During Babar's parole hearing, federal officials blithely dismissed those utterances -- as well as Babar's central role in organizing and facilitating mass murder in London. According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Brendan McGuire, "the government draws a distinction between Mr. Babar's views [regarding terrorism as a "holy war" against America] and Mr. Babar's intent on acting on that view." 


This lenience is remarkable, considering the fact that the same U.S. Government just won a 25-year prison sentence against 21-year-old Virginia resident Zachary Chesser for offering "material support" for terrorism. Chesser, who converted to Islam in 2008, posted incendiary comments on Muslim-themed websites, including links to documents about jihad and what was described as a death threat directed at the creators of South Park in retaliation for depicting Mohammed. 


Chesser expressed remorse in a letter to the court. In announcing the sentence, however, District Judge Liam O'Grady was unimpressed by the young man's act of contrition, denouncing him as "an extraordinarily energized traitor to your country." This imprecation was hurled in the face of a foolish young man who had not actually done anything to harm anybody. 

Chesser's problem is that he never performed a patriotic service comparable to that offered by prized intelligence asset Babar, whose hands incarnadined with the blood of at least 52 innocent people, or the military heroes who brought the blessings of sharia rule to Iraq.


Video Extra: Babar trained terrorists "with the full knowledge of the American secret service":




 Your donations are vital to help keep Pro Libertate on-line. Thanks so much, and God bless!

Dum spiro, pugno!

Of Motes, Beams, and Holy Wars

 In his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison famously denounced the proposal that Virginians -- or, for that matter, Americans anywhere else -- be compelled to pay so much as "three pence" to support the establishment of religion.

A lawsuit filed in late 2008 by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Iraq War veteran Kevin J. Murray accuses the federal government (particularly Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors) of violating Madison's "three pence" standard by indirectly financing "Sharia-Compliant" investments by way of the American International Group (AIG).

By the time it was nationalized in September 2008, AIG was practically worthless, as its former CEO Maurice Greenberg admitted. It was useful only as a way to facilitate a "backdoor bailout" of Goldman Sachs. Once AIG was nationalized -- an action that was unconstitutional on its face, in addition to being a world-historic crime -- some of the wealth plundered from taxpayers ended up being used to fund and promote "Sharia-compliant" financial services in Muslim markets.

PBUH: Sharia's champion in Iraq.

"As a Christian, a federal taxpayer, and a former U.S. Marine veteran of the war against Islamic terrorism, Plaintiff objects to and is harmed by the appropriation of disbursement of public funds to AIG and being forced as a taxpayer to contribute to the propagation of Islamic beliefs and practices predicated upon Shariah law," insisted the original version of the lawsuit, which named former Treasury Secretary (and former Goldman CEO) Henry Paulson as a plaintiff.


Murray "objects to and is harmed by the United States government's policy and practice of approving, endorsing, promoting, funding, and supporting Sharia-compliant finance," asserts the lawsuit. "The government's endorsement of Islamic law sends a message to Plaintiff, who is a non-adherent to Islam, that he is an outsider, not a full member of the political community, and an accompanying message to those who are adherents to Islam that they are insiders, favored members of the political community," continues the brief, which was written by someone who is a stranger to concision.

The specific amount extorted from Murray to subsidize AIG's "Sharia-compliant" investments may be infinitesimal, but under Madison's "three pence" standard, it's the principle that matters, not the size of the injury.


 A demand for summary judgment filed by the More Center earlier this year invoked the Supreme Court's 1947 ruling in Everson v. Board of Education that "No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion."

Warbots gag on these...

 Murray's contention that no American should be forced to subsidize Sharia in any form is incontestably correct, as is his objection to the utterly unconstitutional federal takeover of AIG. However, it's difficult to see how he has standing to sue, given that he volunteered his services to establish Sharia law in Iraq and Afghanistan -- a fact proudly detailed in his lawsuit.
 
"From March 2003 to October 2003, Plaintiff was deployed overseas in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom," recounts the lawsuit. "During this time, Plaintiff served as a Marine infantryman and was tasked with providing security for vital refueling and arming points throughout the initial combat phase of the war. These duties consisted of countless and stressful hours devoted to convoy security, manning perimeter defensive positions, and conducting combat patrols in hostile enemy territory in numerous locations throughout southern Iraq." 

Thanks to Murray's efforts, and those offered by hundreds of thousands of other Americans in uniform -- not to mention an estimated $3 trillion stolen from American taxpayers -- Sharia law is now firmly established in Iraq and Afghanistan.


This fact is acknowledged by Stephen C. Coughlin, an attorney and Major in the U.S. Army Reserve who is, according to his bio, "often cited as the Pentagon's leading expert on the nexus between Islamic law and jihad."

"The direct subordination of the law of the land to Shari'ah is reflected in the national constitutions of many Islamic countries, including the Constitutions the United States Government had oversight in drafting -- both Afghanistan and Iraq," writes Maj. Coughlin:

"For example, Article 2 of the Iraqi Constitution states that `Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation.[...] No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.' The Constitution of Afghanistan makes the association as well in Article 2 [Religions] where it states (1) The religion of the State of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam (2) Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law" -- the latter qualification effectively defining out of existence the "free exercise" clause immediately preceding it.

... but swallow these in a single gulp.

Maj. Coughlin's analysis is devastating to Murray's argument, which rests on the idea that he suffers a tangible and continuing injury by being forced to subsidize, in minuscule amounts, some peripheral business dealings by AIG.


How can it be an unendurable affront to be forced to surrender "three pence" to promote Sharia-compliant investments, when the Regime ruling us has spent three trillion (and counting) to impose Sharia law at gunpoint?

Ironically, Coughlin's cogent summary of Washington's role in promoting Sharia comes in a statement he filed as an "expert witness" on behalf of Murray's lawsuit.

Those seeking to define, by illustration, the expression "testimony against interest" need look no further.

Just weeks ago, Wadea Al Handal, chairman of Iraq's Ashur International Bank,  announced that he was awaiting approval from the country's Central Bank to offer "Islamic banking services."

"There is certainly clear interest in the Islamic market in Iraq but it is still a new idea for many," Handal told Reuters. "It's an education process ... we didn't really have much Islamic banking before."

What he meant, of course, is that there wasn't much of an Iraqi market for Islamic banking "before" Kevin Murray and his colleagues were sent to inflict a Sharia-centered government on that long-suffering country. Now, however, Handal has new opportunities to offer "lending services on a Sharia-compliant basis in order to tap growing interest in the market."

Washington remains deeply involved in taxpayer-subsidized "reconstruction" projects in Iraq designed to entrench and strengthen a government rooted in Sharia law. Why isn't the Thomas More Center suing to end that ongoing outrage? Why doesn't it file a suit seeking redress of damages inflicted on Murray as a result of deceiving him into risking his life in order to promote Islamic rule?
 

Yerushalmi in Israel with the late Jack Kemp.

One possible answer is suggested by the fact that David Yerushalmi, the Arizona-based attorney acting as co-lead counsel in the AIG case, is General Counsel to the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a Pentagon front group headed by febrile neo-con war hyena Frank Gaffney. Both Gaffney and his group energetically supported the war in Iraq, in which thousands of Americans (and tens of thousands of Iraqis) died to create a political order ruled by Sharia law.

Yerushalmi is one of the War Party's most energetic social networkers. He is a co-founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, an insta-demagogue group (just add flying spittle!)  working to drive the terminally credulous into a frenzy over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque. 

Yerushalmi considers it "morally reprehensible and intolerable" to forbid the torture of "terrorists," a term he uses as a functional synonym for "Muslim." He is the founder of a secretive vigilante group calling itself the Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE), which has set out to "map" every center of Islamic worship and culture in the United States on the assumption that each of them is involved in a plot to overthrow the government.

 The co-founder of SANE, which is headquartered in Yerushalmi's Arizona law office, is Dave Gaubatz, who served 12 years in the U.S. Air Force's Office of Special Operations. Three years ago Gaubatz made the remarkable -- and completely unverified -- claim that he "discovered" Saddam's WMD bunkers, which (he insists) were vacant after the illicit weapons had been shipped to Syria, Iran, and other likely targets of armed "liberation" by Washington.

Shortly after its creation, SANE's leadership enacted a resolution calling on Congress to enact legislation making it "a felony punishable by 20 years in prison" knowingly to "act in furtherance of, or to support the adherence to, Shar'ia."

If Yerushalmi were serious about that proposal, wouldn't he have to seek the imprisonment of his client -- as well as the elected and appointed officials who dispatched him (and hundreds of thousands of other Americans) to promote Islamist rule in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Thanks so much for your help in keeping Pro Libertate on-line; God bless! 
 

Please tune in each Saturday night (8:00 - 11:00 Mountain Time) for Pro Libertate Radio on the Liberty News Radio Network.  









Dum spiro, pugno!