"It is the product of an orchestrated drive that began five years ago in Brooklyn, N.Y., in the office of a little known lawyer, David Yerushalmi, a 56-year-old Hasidic Jew.... Yerushalmi has come to exercise a striking influence over American public discourse.... Working with a cadre of conservative public-policy institutes and former military and intelligence officials, Yerushalmi has written privately financed reports, filed lawsuits against the government, and drafted the model legislation that recently swept through the country - all with the effect of casting Sharia as one of the greatest threats to American freedom since the Cold War. The message has caught on"
But if you say Zionist Jews drive the agenda in this country somehow you are an anti-Semite.
And somehow HATE SPEECH is OKAY if your are of a certain supremacist religion.
"Organized effort paints Islamic law as threat to US freedoms" by Andrea Elliot, New York Times / July 31, 2011
NASHVILLE - Tennessee’s latest woes include high unemployment, continuing foreclosures, and a battle over collective-bargaining rights for teachers. But when a Republican representative took the Statehouse floor during a recent hearing, he warned of a new threat to his constituents’ way of life: Islamic law.
The representative, a former fighter pilot named Rick Womick, said he had been studying the Koran. He declared that Sharia, the Islamic code that guides Muslim beliefs and actions, is not just an expression of faith but a political and legal system that seeks world domination....
Oh, like the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion?
Hoax or not everything sure is following the script.
Similar warnings are being issued across the country as Republican presidential candidates, elected officials, and activists mobilize against what they describe as the menace of Islamic law in the United States.
Since last year, more than two dozen states have considered measures to restrict judges from consulting Sharia, or foreign laws more generally. The statutes have been enacted in three states so far.
Voters in Oklahoma overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment last November that bans the use of Islamic law in court. And in June, Tennessee passed an antiterrorism law that, in its original iteration, would have empowered the attorney general to designate Islamic groups suspected of terror activity as “Sharia organizations.’’
In the United States, Sharia, like Jewish law, most commonly surfaces in court through divorce and custody proceedings or in commercial litigation. Often these cases involve contracts that failed to be resolved in a religious setting.
Related: It Couldn't Happen Here
A Tale of Two Jails
They have their own vigilante militia and are given preferential treatment in prison?
Sharia can also figure in cases involving foreign laws, for example in tort claims against businesses in Muslim countries. It then falls to the American judge to examine the religious issues at hand before making a ruling based on federal or state law.
A confluence of factors has fueled the anti-Sharia movement, most notably the controversy over the proposed Islamic center near ground zero in New York, concerns about home-grown terrorism, and the rise of the Tea Party. But the campaign’s air of grass-roots spontaneity, which has been carefully promoted by advocates, shrouds its more deliberate origins.
An AGENDA-PUSHING CAMPAIGN of HATE!
In fact, it is the product of an orchestrated drive that began five years ago in Brooklyn, N.Y., in the office of a little known lawyer, David Yerushalmi, a 56-year-old Hasidic Jew with a history of controversial statements about race, immigration, and Islam. Despite his lack of formal training in Islamic law, Yerushalmi has come to exercise a striking influence over American public discourse about Sharia.
Working with a cadre of conservative public-policy institutes and former military and intelligence officials, Yerushalmi has written privately financed reports, filed lawsuits against the government, and drafted the model legislation that recently swept through the country - all with the effect of casting Sharia as one of the greatest threats to American freedom since the Cold War.
The message has caught on. Among those now echoing Mr. Yerushalmi’s views are prominent Washington figures like R. James Woolsey, a former director of the C.I.A., and the Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann, who this month signed a pledge to reject Islamic law, likening it to “totalitarian control.”
Wasn't former CIA spook Woolsey also a member of PNAC?
Yet, for all its fervor, the movement is arguably directed at a problem more imagined than real.
Yes, thanks for waiting until HALF of the HATE PROMOTION before mentioning it is PURE PROPAGANDA!
Even its leaders concede that American Muslims are not coalescing en masse to advance Islamic law.
Instead, they say, Muslims could eventually gain the kind of foothold seen in Europe, where multicultural policies have allowed for what critics contend is an overaccommodation of Islamic law....
Un-flipping-real.
For Mr. Yerushalmi, the statutes themselves are a secondary concern. “If this thing passed in every state without any friction, it would have not served its purpose,” he said in one of several extensive interviews. “The purpose was heuristic — to get people asking this question, ‘What is Shariah?’ ”
The frequency of such cases is unknown. A recent report by the Center for Security Policy, a research institute based in Washington for which Mr. Yerushalmi is general counsel, identified 50 state appellate cases, mostly over the last three decades.
That is like LESS than TWO a YEAR!!!
The report offers these cases as proof that the United States is vulnerable to the encroachment of Islamic law. But....
--more--"
Cutting room floor clips that did not even make my printed paper:
The more tangible effect of the movement, opponents say, is the spread of an alarmist messag about Islam — the same kind of rhetoric that appears to have influenced Anders Behring Breivik, the suspect in the deadly dual attacks in Norway on July 22.
See: Norway's 911
The anti-Shariah campaign, they say, appears to be an end in itself, aimed at keeping Muslims on the margins of American life.
“The fact is there is no Shariah takeover in America,” said Salam Al-Marayati, the president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, one of several Muslim organizations that have begun a counteroffensive. “It’s purely a political wedge to create fear and hysteria.”
Pushed by a (rhymes with) YOU-KNOW-WHO!
Anti-Shariah organizers are pressing ahead with plans to introduce versions of Mr. Yerushalmi’s legislation in half a dozen new states, while reviving measures that were tabled in others....
While proponents of the legislation have seized on aspects of Shariah that are unfavorable to women, Mr. Yerushalmi’s focus is broader. His interest in Islamic law began with the Sept. 11 attacks, he said, when he was living in Ma’ale Adumim, a large Jewish settlement in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
He's a dual national Zionist zettler, America!!
WhenTF are youy all going to WAKE UP to these PARASITES?
At the time, Mr. Yerushalmi, a native of South Florida, divided his energies between a commercial litigation practice in the United States and a conservative research institute based in Jerusalem, where he worked to promote free-market reform in Israel.
After moving to Brooklyn the following year, Mr. Yerushalmi said he began studying Arabic and Shariah under two Islamic scholars, whom he declined to name.
Pfffft!
Then I DOUBT THEY EVEN EXIST!
He said his research made clear that militants had not “perverted” Islamic law, but were following an authoritative doctrine that sought global hegemony — a mission, he says, that is shared by Muslims around the world. To illustrate that point, Mr. Yerushalmi cites studies in which large percentages of Muslims overseas say they support Islamic rule.
Remember what I said about Israeli accusations at others actually being what they themselves are guilty? And here it is again.
In interviews, Islamic scholars disputed Mr. Yerushalmi’s claims. Although Islam, like some other faiths, aspires to be the world’s reigning religion, they said, the method for carrying out that goal, or even its relevance in everyday life, remains a far more complex subject than Mr. Yerushalmi suggests.
“Even in Muslim-majority countries, there is a huge debate about what it means to apply Islamic law in the modern world,” said Andrew F. March, an associate professor specializing in Islamic law at Yale University. The deeper flaw in Mr. Yerushalmi’s argument, Mr. March said, is that he characterizes the majority of Muslims who practice some version of Shariah — whether through prayer, charitable giving or other common rituals — as automatic adherents to Islam’s medieval rules of war and political domination.
It would be like me saying all Jews are assholes because of a supremacist sliver that is ruining things for everyone.
It is not the first time Mr. Yerushalmi has engaged in polemics. In a 2006 essay, he wrote that “most of the fundamental differences between the races are genetic,” and asked why “people find it so difficult to confront the facts that some races perform better in sports, some better in mathematical problem-solving, some better in language, some better in Western societies and some better in tribal ones?”
Oh, is he ever a RACIST SUPREMACIST!!!!
He has also railed against what he sees as a politically correct culture that avoids open discussion of why “the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote.”
On its Web site, the Anti-Defamation League, a prominent Jewish civil rights organization, describes Mr. Yerushalmi as having a record of “anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black bigotry.”
He must be REALLY BAD if the ADL disses him!
And yet HE IS WRITING YOUR LAWS, Americans!!
His legal clients have also drawn notoriety, among them Pamela Geller, an incendiary blogger who helped drive the fight against the Islamic community center and mosque near ground zero.
And who the Norway nut referred to in his manifesto about 12 times.
A stout man who wears antique wire-rimmed glasses and a thick, white-streaked beard, Mr. Yerushalmi has a seemingly inexhaustible appetite for the arguments his work provokes. “It’s an absurdity to claim that I have ever uttered or taken a position on the side of racism or bigotry or misogyny,” he said.
Great, a DELUSIONAL PROPAGANDIST that LOVES HIS JOB!
When pressed for evidence that American Muslims endorse the fundamentalist view of Shariah he warns against, Mr. Yerushalmi argues that the problem lies with America’s Muslim institutions and their link to Islamist groups overseas. As a primary example, he and others cite a memorandum that surfaced in the federal prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a Muslim charity based in Texas whose leaders were convicted in 2008 of sending funds to Hamas.
FLASHBACKS:
"Hamas backers are jailed in Texas; Two get 65 years for funneling millions to group" by Danny Robbins, Associated Press | May 28, 2009
DALLAS - Two founding members of what was once the largest US Muslim charity were each sentenced to 65 years in prison yesterday for funneling millions of dollars to the Palestinian militant group Hamas....
Some cried after the guilty verdicts were announced yesterday at the Earle Cabell Federal Building in Dallas. (Jim Mahoney/The Dallas Morning News/Associated Press).
The convictions followed a mistrial in which the government in 2007 failed to sway jurors that the now-defunct charity, based in the Dallas suburb of Richardson, was in fact aiding Hamas.
Translation: It was a railroad job!
The two Holy Land leaders were convicted on charges ranging from supporting a terrorist organization to tax fraud. The group wasn't accused of violence but of bankrolling Hamas-controlled schools and programs....
A judgment of $12.4 million was assessed against four of the defendants because they were convicted of money laundering. "These sentences should serve as a strong warning to anyone who knowingly provides financial support to terrorists under the guise of humanitarian relief," said David Kris, assistant attorney general for national security, in a statement.
Then ABOUT those BILLIONS we have given Iz-ray-HELL!!!!
Hamas was designated a terrorist organization by the United States in 1995, making it illegal to offer the group support. Hamas has taken credit for hundreds of suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians.
And the THOUSANDS of PALESTINIANS Israel has MURDERED?
As they stood before Solis, the defendants said they only fed the needy and gave aid to a volatile region, reiterating themes they made in mounting their defenses. Sentenced separately throughout the day, the men were both emotional and defiant as they addressed the judge.
"We are five innocent men," Odeh said, adding that the group's function had been "providing charity to all mankind."
Abu Baker said he was involved "because I cared, not at the behest of Hamas." But he was cut off by Solis, who told him: "You didn't tell the whole story. Palestinians were in a desperate situation, but that doesn't justify supporting Hamas."
And NOTHING justifies supporting that hellish little s***-stinking corpse of a state named Israel, either!
--more--"
"Holy Land supporters accuse government of preying on fear
by
November 24, 2008
The verdicts came down slowly and cast a pall over an already somber courtroom. "Guilty" was heard over and over again.
Most family members and friends of the five defendants in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial remained stoic Monday as justice was meted out, but one person sobbed: "My dad is not a criminal. He's a human!"
For the roughly 150 supporters at the Earle Cabell Federal Building in downtown Dallas, that may best summarize their take on the outcome of one of the nation's biggest and most important terrorism financing trials.
Supporters say the government's case was built on fear-mongering, and they stand by long-held assertions that Holy Land was a legitimate charity concerned only with providing relief to Palestinians living in poverty and hardship under the decades-long Israeli occupation.
Some supporters cried quietly after the verdicts were read.
Some looked in shock, disbelief registering on their faces. Tension filled the air. As people began to quietly file out of the courtroom, many supporters shouted words of encouragement to the defendants. Some of the defendants defiantly flashed victory signs.
Defense attorneys did not talk to The Dallas Morning News, but are already discussing appeals.
The subdued reaction to the verdicts was in cold contrast to the jubilation they felt 13 months ago as the first Holy Land trial ended mostly in a mistrial when a confused and beleaguered jury deadlocked after 19 days of deliberations. The second jury wrestled just eight days with the massive and complex case.
The journey for supporters has been far longer: Holy Land and its leadership had been investigated since the early 1990s. President George W. Bush announced that the foundation had been shut down in 2001. Indictments came in 2004.
John Wolf, a friend and member of the Hungry for Justice coalition, said he'd known the defendants for 12 years.
"I'm not surprised," he said of the verdicts. "I think the government had their do-over and they learned from their mistakes. It's hard to accept because I don't believe the gentlemen are guilty. These guys are the sweetest, clean-hearted people."
During the trial, defense attorneys accused the government of bending to Israeli pressure to prosecute the charity, and of relying on old evidence. But jurors agreed with the government's contention that at least $12 million raised in the U.S. had been illegally funneled to Hamas after that organization was banned as a terrorist group by the federal government in 1995.
In light of the crimes and the likely length of their sentences, which will come later, the judge ordered that all five defendants be immediately taken into custody. One, Ghassan Elashi, is already serving a 6 ½ -year sentence in federal prison for export law violations.
His daughter, an outspoken critic of the prosecution, read a statement calling the verdicts a low point for the United States of America.
"My dad is a law-abiding citizen," said Noor Elashi. "My dad was persecuted for his political beliefs and his humanitarian work in Palestine. ... He saved lives and now he's paying the price. I'm very proud of him."
Ms. Elashi, visibly angry, said she had not shed any tears over the verdicts because she knew that her father was being persecuted "because he saved lives." "I feel heartbroken that a group of my fellow Americans fell for the prosecution's fear-mongering," she said. "This is not over," she added.
Some supporters have said that the defendants, even if convicted, would be considered freedom fighters or folk heroes. Peter Margulies, a Roger Williams University law professor who studies terrorism financing cases, said the government has won the case, but has work to do for American Muslims.
"Going forward ... the government must be more pro-active about furnishing guidance to Muslim-Americans who merely wish to fulfill their religious obligations," he said. That may be too little, too late for some.
Mohammed Wafa Yaish, Holy Land's former accountant and a witness of the trial, said after the verdicts were read that he is angry that the prosecution brought up the Taliban and al-Qaeda during the trial. "What does giving charity to the Palestinians in the refugee camps have to do with this?" he said. "They scared the jurors. Fear is the No. 1 government tactic."
--MORE--"
Appropriately enough back to the protocols:
The 1991 document outlined a strategy for the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States that involved “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”
Why should the Muslims bother? Our governments are doing a pretty good job on their own.
Critics emphasize a page listing 29 Muslim American groups as “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” Skeptics point out that on the same page, the author wrote, imagine if “they all march according to one plan,” which suggests they were not working in tandem.
Nevertheless, a study by the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center to be released next week found that only a minority of American Muslims say that domestic Islamic groups represent them. It also concludes that American Muslims have as much confidence in the judicial system as members of other faiths and are more likely than the other groups to say that elections in the United States are “honest.”
If Muslims think our elections are honest they are not as on the ball as I thought.
“There’s a conflation between the idea of Islam being a universalist, proselytizing religion and reducing it to a totalitarian movement,” said Mohammad Fadel, an associate professor specializing in Islamic law at the University of Toronto. “All good propaganda is based on half-truths.”
I guess that's why newspapers are such shit now. They don't even give you half-truths; they give you no truths.
The movement took root in January 2006 when Mr. Yerushalmi started the Society of Americans for National Existence, a nonprofit organization that became his vehicle for opposing Shariah. On the group’s Web site, he proposed a law that would make observing Islamic law, which he likened to sedition, a felony punishable by 20 years in prison....
Why don't we make it 40 for practicing Judaism?
The project, Mapping Shariah, led Mr. Yerushalmi to Frank Gaffney, a hawkish policy analyst and commentator who is the president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington.
Another PNAC signer, who the Norway nut referred to hundreds of times.
Well connected in neoconservative circles, Mr. Gaffney has been known to take polarizing positions (he once argued that President Obama might secretly be Muslim).
And he's advising Mad Michelle Bachmann now.
Mr. Gaffney would emerge as Mr. Yerushalmi’s primary link to a network of former and current government officials, security analysts and grass-roots political organizations.
Together, they set out to “engender a national debate about the nature of Shariah and the need to protect our Constitution and country from it,” Mr. Gaffney wrote in an e-mail to The New York Times.
The center contributed an unspecified amount to Mr. Yerushalmi’s study, which cost roughly $400,000 and involved surreptitiously sending researchers into 100 mosques.
That means they SENT SPIES!
The study, which said that 82 percent of the mosques’ imams recommended texts that promote violence, has drawn sharp rebuke from Muslim leaders, who question its premise and findings.
Oh, I QUESTION the WHOLE DAMN THING!
Mr. Yerushalmi also took aim at the industry of Islamic finance — specifically American banks offering funds that invest only in companies deemed permissible under Shariah, which would exclude, for example, those that deal in alcohol, pork or gambling....
Also see: The World's Best Banking System
Yeah, the ZIONIST JEWS don't like the idea of NO USURY!
Maybe YOU Americans ought to GIVE MUSLIM BANKING a CHANCE!
With the advent of the Tea Party, Mr. Yerushalmi saw an opening....
Mr. Gaffney swiftly drummed up interest in the law, holding conference calls with activists and tapping a network of Tea Party and Christian groups as well as ACT for America, which has 170,000 members and describes itself as “opposed to the authoritarian values of radical Islam.” The group emerged as a “force multiplier,” Mr. Gaffney said, fanning out across the country to promote the law....
Also last fall, Mr. Gaffney’s organization released “Shariah: The Threat to America,” a 172-page report whose lead author was Mr. Yerushalmi and whose signatories included Mr. Woolsey and other former intelligence officials.
Mr. Yerushalmi’s legislation has drawn opposition from the American Civil Liberties Union as well as from Catholic bishops and Jewish groups. Mr. Yerushalmi said he did not believe that court cases involving Jewish or canon law would be affected by the statutes because they are unlikely to involve violations of constitutional rights.
Yeah, there seems to be a special set of rules for Jews in AmeriKa's courts.
Related: Mun Murder Cover-Up Complete
Business lobbyists have also expressed concern about the possible effect of the statutes, as corporations often favor foreign laws in contracts or tort disputes. This is perhaps the only constituency that has had an influence. The three state statutes that have passed — most recently in Arizona — make corporations exempt....
So ONLY BIG BUSINESS can stand against Zionism and its agenda?
--more--"
Yup, all agenda-pushing fiction.
