Newt Gingrich: Elites “Desperate” to Avoid Discussion on Sharia-Adherent Islamists
“When an orchestrated assault is launched on the right to ask questions in an effort to stop members of Congress from even inquiring about a topic — you know the fix is in.”
Newt Gingrich, writing in an op-ed for Politico yesterday, says that the recent assault on the five Republican members of Congress who called for an investigation into the possible of infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood is an example of “the fear our elites have about discussing and understanding radical Islamists.”
Gingrich continues, “The underlying driving force behind this desperate desire to stop unpleasant questions is the elite’s fear that an honest discussion of radical Islamism will spin out of control. They fear if Americans fully understood how serious radical Islamists are, they would demand a more confrontational strategy.”
Click here to read the rest of this excellent article.
American Spectator Article: Is Huma Abedin the new Alger Hiss?
It is well-known by now that the the Republican Establishment in Washington, D.C. is going after Rep. Michele Bachmann for being a leader in the fight against sharia-adherent Islam.
Indeed, Jeffrey Lord, writing in the American Spectator, observes that Republicans John McCain, John Boehner, and others are acting like Washington Establishment Democrats of the 1940s during the Alger Hiss episode in the ongoing controversy regarding Rep. Bachmann’s call for an investigation into the possible Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the federal government.
More importantly, Lord wonders why the Republican Establishment is pursuing a losing strategy in the war against Islamic radicalism.
Read the full article here.
AFLC Advisory Board Member Andrew C. McCarthy: Is It Time for Defenders of Liberty to Abandon the GOP?
In AFLC Advisory Board Member Andrew C. McCarthy’s latest article, he questions whether the Republican Party “remains a worthy home for defenders of liberty.” Indeed, as he points out, the Republican establishment has been complicit in President Obama’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood. Further, McCarthy notes that the ongoing controversy over Islamist influence in America — specifically, Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s recent call for an investigation into the Muslim Brotherhood’s infiltration of the federal government — will probably determine whether America’s “gradual surrender” to the threat of civilization jihad can be reversed.
McCarthy then dives into a history of Islamist supremacism, which he argues is the driving ideology behind the Islamist threat to America. This account is worth detailing in full (see below); however, you can read the full article here.
A little history, to measure how far we’ve veered. When we tried Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his cohorts in 1995, the overarching charge was that all 12 defendants, plus dozens of unindicted coconspirators, conspired to wage a war of urban terrorism against the United States. Beyond the Trade Center attack, this campaign included a more ambitious plot to bomb New York City landmarks (e.g., Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, UN complex, FBI’s lower Manhattan headquarters, some U.S. military installations, etc.), as well as sundry schemes to kidnap or assassinate current and former government officials, murder the president of Egypt, and the like.
Here is the crucial part that you need to understand: The Blind Sheikh and his subordinates were not merely “violent extremists,” seized by some sort of psychological problem. They were Islamic supremacists. Yes, their methods were barbaric; but that does not mean they were insane or irrational. Indeed, had that been the case, they would have been not guilty by reason of mental incapacity.
To the contrary, we proved that their actions were rationally motivated by Islamic supremacist ideology, an easily knowable interpretation of Islam, drawn directly from Muslim scripture, that commands its adherents to coerce societies into adopting sharia. Sharia is Islam’s totalitarian framework for how societies are to be ruled. It is not just a set of spiritual guidelines; it is a comprehensive social and legal system, said to be Allah’s gift and directive to mankind. It governs all human activity — not just prayer and worship, but financial, social, familial, political, military, and even hygienic activity.
Here are two salient facts. Once you grasp them, you’ll know everything you need to know to understand the rest of the dispute:
(a) Not all Islamic supremacists (or “Islamists”) are violent, but the goal of all Islamic supremacists is the same: to coerce the acceptance of sharia. The methods of pursuing that goal vary: sometimes terrorism is used, sometimes non-violent avenues are exploited — meaning, Islamic supremacists co-opt legal processes, the media, educational institutions, and/or government agencies. But regardless of what methods an Islamic supremacist uses, his goal never changes: He aims to implement sharia. In Islamic supremacist ideology, sharia is regarded as the mandatory, non-negotiable foundation that must be laid before a society can be Islamized. Sharia is not “moderate”; therefore, you are not a “moderate” if you want it, no matter what method you use to implement it. For example, if you are an Islamic supremacist and you want to repeal the First Amendment in order to prohibit speech that casts Islam in a negative light, you are not a “moderate” — even if you wouldn’t blow up buildings to press your point.
(b) Islamic supremacism is not a fringe interpretation of Islam. It is probably still the minority interpretation in North America. Nevertheless, it is the predominant interpretation of Islam in the Middle East. Poll after poll shows us that upwards of two-thirds of Muslims in countries like Egypt and Pakistan want their governments to adopt and strictly enforce sharia. This is why the Islamic supremacist parties in the “Arab Spring” countries are currently enjoying such success in elections.
AFLC Making an Impact: Free Speech Victory Resonates Across the Nation and Beyond
AFLC’s legal victory on Friday has garnered media attention across the nation. Here is a roundup of notable news articles covering Friday’s ruling on the web:
AFDI First Amendment Victory: Pro-Israel Ads Must Run Attacking Jihad
Right Side News – July 20, 2012
Judge Rules Against MTA in Favor of Pro-Israel Ads
Algemeiner – July 20, 2012
Judge: MTA Violated First Amendment By Rejecting The Word “Savages” In Pro Israel Ads
Gothamist – July 20, 2012
Pamela Geller wins fight to post anti-Islam signs
Newsday – July 20, 2012
Pamela Geller Wins Preliminary Ruling to Call Enemies Of Israel ‘Savages’
Al-Resalah – July 21, 2012
Judge Backs Blogger Over Anti-Islam Bus Ads
NBC New York – July 20, 2012
Anti-Islam Bus Ad Defended By Judge
Gather.com – July 23, 2012
Judge backs blogger over anti-Islam NYC bus ads
Wall Street Journal – July 20, 2012
Protecting Speech, Even When It’s Unpopular
New York Times (blog) – July 23, 2012
NYC’s Islamophobic and anti-Arab ‘savages’ bus ads to go ahead
Al-Bawaba – July 21, 2012
Judge says MTA refusal to run bus ad calling Israel foes ‘savages’ violates First Amendment
New York Daily News – July 21, 2012
Judge Allows NYC Bus Ad Calling Israel’s Foes ‘Savages’
Christian Post – July 21, 2012
MTA Violated Rights of Group, Judge Says
New York Times – July 20, 2012
Judge says MTA wrongly blocked bus ads critical of Israel’s enemies
SILive.com – July 20, 2012
US judge: Pro-Israel group can call jihadists ‘savages’ in bus ad
Haaretz – July 21, 2012
Court Rejects MTA’s Ban Against ‘Demeaning’ Transit Ads
Wall Street Journal (blog) – July 20, 2012
New York bus system can’t bar pro-Israel, ‘defeat Jihad’ ads
Reuters – July 20, 2012
NY court: MTA violated pro-Israel group’s rights
Ynetnews – July 20, 2012
Judge: MTA policy violated 1st Amendment
Newsday – July 20, 2012
Federal Judge: MTA Wrong In Rejecting Pro-Israeli Group’s Ads
NY1 – July 20, 2012
Judge raps anti-Islam ad ban
Investor’s Business Daily – July 20, 2012
Court Enjoins MTA’s Rejection of Ad’s ‘Core Political Speech’
New York Law Journal (registration) – July 20, 2012
Clinton Aide’s Family Ties to Muslim Brotherhood Has Security Implications
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and her four Republican colleagues are under fire for raising questions about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s longtime top aide, Huma Abedin, and her family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Although Rep. Bachmann is catching flak by the Left as well as some Senior Republicans, it is worth noting that the request for certainty regarding whether proper security checks have been run is not outrageous; indeed, the “adjudicatory guidelines” specifically detail the problems of family members in foreign countries.
To explain: for the security clearance regulations relating to clearing someone with a parent living abroad and involved in matters that might be exploited to compromise the government employee seeking the clearance, see this page for State Department clearances in general. In addition, here is the page for the adjudicatory guidelines (the important link); look at the foreign influence section.
And, is it possible that the State Department clearance folks might have overlooked these ties? To answer, one must ask whether the national security apparatus of the entire federal government has ever overlooked obvious ties to bad guys. Apparently not.
As Rep. Bachmann noted, “For us to raise issues about a highly based U.S. government official with known immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations is not a question of singling out Ms. Abedin. In fact, these questions are raised by the U.S. government of anyone seeking a security clearance.”
Diana West, writing in WorldNetDaily, wonders if such reports are true, and, if so, do they have security implications.
Rep. Michele Bachmann Calls for Investigation of Muslim Brotherhood Infiltration of U.S. Government
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) continues to lead Congress in the fight against “civilizational jihad”.
Last month, Rep. Bachmann sent a letter to the Inspector General of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence requesting federal investigations into whether the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the U.S. government. In this letter, Rep. Bachmann cited The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within, the groundbreaking documentary produced by AFLC ally The Center for Security Policy (CSP), and hosted by CSP Founder and President Frank Gaffney (who also serves on AFLC’s Advisory Board).
Not surprisingly, the letter set off a firestorm by the Left, led by Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison, who demanded in a reply letter that Rep. Bachmann substantiate her legitimate inquiries as to whether the federal government is being influenced by “civilizational jihad.” Of particular note is that Rep. Ellison’s letter largely focuses on discrediting Frank Gaffney. Unfortunately for the Congressman, Mr. Gaffney’s foreign policy credentials — from serving as the Reagan-nominated Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy to serving as Chairman of the prestigious High Level Group, NATO’s senior politico-military committee — are not taken lightly in the security policy community.
That being so, just last Friday Rep. Bachmann responded to Ellison’s letter with a 16-page, 59-footnote letter defending her calls for an investigation:
The purpose of these letters was to request a multi-department investigation into potential Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into the United States Government.
We find this is not only necessary, but beyond timely, considering that departments and agencies o f the U.S. Government (including but not limited to, those departments to which these Inspector General letters were sent) have in the past and continue to be advised by organizations and individuals that the U.S. Government itself has identified in federal court as fronts for the international Muslim Brotherhood. That such a widespread assessment has not been performed is troubling and is the basis for genuine concern given the stark contrast between what the U.S. Government says about these Muslim Brotherhood front groups and their continued association with these groups.
In her closing paragraphs, Rep. Bachmann stresses the grave responsibility to investigate such an ominous threat to American national security:
As members of Congress, we are charged to oversee and hold accountable all government agencies – a charge given to us by the Constitution on behalf of the citizens of the United States. To do anything less is to subvert the oaths we took as members to protect and defend the Constitution. For us to fail to demand action on the part of the Inspectors General on this matter is to fail to uphold the oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
We will keep you informed about this story as it develops.
WorldNetDaily: Outrage Over Mob Attack in Michigan
WorldNetDaily, a leading conservative news network, has published an exclusive article detailing the recent Muslim stoning of Christians at the 2012 Arab International Festival held in Dearborn, Michigan. The article claims that the Muslims’ violence, which was captured on video, was “[r]eminiscent of a rock-throwing ‘intifada’ scene from the Middle East” and that the Muslims “hurled a dizzying barrage of objects at the Christians standing passively with their signs, causing some injuries.”
As announced, the Christians have retained AFLC for legal representation. AFLC is already making preparations for a civil rights lawsuit against the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office, which stood by idly as the Muslims attacked the Christians.
As we have indicated, whether you agree or disagree with the Christians’ message, no citizen should be stoned in a city street in America for exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech. The fact that law enforcement officers were present and purposefully allowed the Muslim mob to silence the Christian speakers through violence is simply appalling.
Read the full WordNetDaily exclusive here.
AFLC Client Pamela Geller: Stoning of Christians “egregious enforcement of the sharia and Islamic supremacist violence”.
AFLC client and bestselling author Pamela Geller weighed in on our recent announcement that the Christians stoned by Muslims at this year’s Arab Festival in Dearborn, Michigan have asked AFLC to take their case:
As I predicted, the Muslims stoning and pelting the peaceful Christian street preachers at the Dearborn Arab Festival was a gross civil rights violation. Particularly because the cops stood there and did nothing.
The American Freedom Law Center, Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi, are taking the case. Atlas readers are quite familiar with their work. They have handled all of my legal cases. The $10,000,000 lawsuit filed against me by the Muslim lawyer for Rifqa Bary parents (we won), the lawsuit against NYC (for refusing to run my Ground Zero mosque bus ads — we won), the Dearborn lawsuit (for refusing to run my “Leaving Islam?” bus ads — we won and we are still fighting). We are currently embroiled in a lawsuit against the NYC TA for refusing to run my pro-Israel subway ads. We will win that, too. I expect Muise and Yerushalmi to win this egregious enforcement of the sharia and Islamic supremacist violence.
Increasingly, the civil rights legal organizations like ACLU are yesterday’s men, going the way of the horse and buggy as they abandoned their mission and became tools (or battering rams) of the left and the stealth jihadists. They are done. Over. AFLC assumes the true mantle. I predict that the AFLC will be world-historical and will go down in history as the pre-eminent civil rights organization in the age of jihad.
Read more here.
AFLC Advisory Board Member Joseph Schmitz: Supreme Court Ruling Means Obamacare Is Dead
Earlier this week, former Inspector General of the Department of Defense and current AFLC Advisory Board Member Joseph E. Schmitz wrote an insightful article for Newsmax detailing how the recent Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare has effectively repealed the controversial law and instead instituted a massive new tax on the middle class. Here is the full article:
The Supreme Court has struck down “Obamacare” qua “Obamacare” as unconstitutional. In its place, the Supreme Court has, in effect, enacted a new “tax” on the middle class. It is now up to the Congress and the American people to clean up the surviving unconstitutional debacle.
According to the chief justice, “The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause.” On the other hand, the chief justice found that, “Such legislation is within Congress’ power to tax.”
Moreover, the chief justice explained, “As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to order states to regulate according to its instructions.”
What survived the court’s four interrelated Affordable Care Act opinions is thus not “Obamacare,” at least not the way its namesake and the Congress that enacted it envisioned it.
The chief justice announced in an opinion joined by four other justices (Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan): “No one would doubt that this law imposed a tax, and was within Congress’ power to tax.” Of course, President Obama himself has publicly disclaimed that “his” law is a tax.
Five Supreme Court justices agreed that the “individual mandate” centerpiece of Obamacare is not within the constitutional power of Congress under the Commerce Clause; five justices instead deemed it a constitutional “tax” (although not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act). Moreover, according to 1 of the 4 inter-related Supreme Court opinions, “Seven members of the court agree that the Medicaid Expansion, as enacted by Congress, is unconstitutional.” Within hours, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, announced that, “What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States. And that is, I will act to repeal Obamacare.”
With all due respect, Gov. Romney, the Supreme Court has already repealed Obamacare by converting it into a new tax on the middle class.
A decade before our forefathers signed the Declaration of Independence, Sir William Blackstone published his famous treatise, “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” In that treatise, Blackstone explained that it is an essential element of all man-made laws that they be prescribed by the lawmaker and, “it is incumbent on the promulgators to do it in the most public and perspicuous manner; not like Caligula, who (according to Dio Cassius) wrote his laws in a very small character, and hung them up upon high pillars, the more effectually to ensnare the people.”
The problem with Obamacare, as enacted, was that it was Caligula-esque in its manner of prescription and promulgation. As admitted by the speaker of the House of Representatives prior to its enactment, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” According to Blackstone, that manner of prescription and promulgation is “even more unreasonable” than Emperor Caligula.
The problem with the Supreme Court’s newly deemed tax on the middle class is that it is equally anti-transparent and unaccountable. The solution is for the legitimate lawmakers under our Constitution, the Congress, to repeal what is left of Obamacare after five justices of the Supreme Court converted it into a new tax on the middle class. While they’re at it, members of Congress should also propose and send a constitutional amendment to the States for ratification, clarifying that the tax power belongs to Congress, not to the Supreme Court (and not to the president), so this type of unaccountable and anti-transparent tax never happens again.
Any congressional solution to the lingering vestiges of Obamacare should be consistent with the text, structure, and the preamble of the original Bill of Rights itself, which suggest that the founders intended courts to utilize the 10th Amendment as a rule of construction to construe ambiguities in the Constitution, including ambiguities in the Commerce Clause and the tax powers of Congress, against Congress and in favor of reserving power “to the States respective, or to the people.”
Likewise, whenever any federal court or agency is forced to “legislate” by construing statutory ambiguities, they should utilize the final provision of the Bill of Rights — “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States Respectively, or to the people” — as an interpretive rule to construe ambiguities against the proffering party, i.e., against Congress.
As the Supreme Court explained in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), which decision the recent opinions of the court cited no fewer than 20 times in finding parts of Obamacare unconstitutional, “The question is not what power the federal government ought to have but what powers in fact have been given by the [States and] the people,” quoting United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 63 (1936).
If the “Obamacare” constitutional debacle is not remedied through transparent and fully-accountable actions by the Congress, it could well result in the same type of public indictment that was lodged against the tyrannical king of England in the Declaration of Independence, only this time it would be against all three branches of the federal government: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”
With “Obamacare” struck down as unconstitutional — at least struck down in the form that its namesake and the Congress that enacted it had envisioned it — just how long the Supreme Court’s new tax on the middle class continues to live is now up to the Congress and the American people.
Obamacare is dead; long live “We the People” and our Constitution.
An Independence Day Message from AFLC
On July 4, 1776, the greatest nation in the history of mankind was born—a nation that understood that God was the source of true freedom and that there were certain “inalienable” rights that no man or government could either grant or deny—the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The brave men who signed our Declaration of Independence knew full well that liberty comes at a price. In fact, when they signed the Declaration, they understood that they were signing their death warrant because it was an act of treason to the king.
Today, we are again faced with a serious challenge to our freedom—a challenge from secular progressives on the left who reject the belief that America is a great nation and the truth that authentic rights come from God. In short, they do not “trust” in God, as our national motto proudly proclaims. Instead, they seek to remove any reference to God from government and the public square. They want to create new “rights” ordained by man—rights that are contrary to God’s law. And in the process, they want to suppress our right to speak and act in accord with our deeply-held religious beliefs and convictions.
Similar to when those patriots signed our Declaration of Independence in 1776, today we live in a pivotal time. Consequently, we must ask, “Are we willing, as our Founders were, to fight for our God-given rights, or are we going to let secular tyranny reign over our lives?” As Thomas Paine observed, “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country.” Thus, the choice is clear: will you be a “summer soldier” and a “sunshine patriot” or will you join us in this critical fight to protect and preserve our freedoms from the tyranny of the left?
We can assure you that the American Freedom Law Center is committed to fighting for our faith and freedoms, just as those early patriots were willing to fight for this great Nation. Our answer to the challenges we face today is as Patrick Henry stated, “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”
May God bless you and may God continue to bless America.
Posted in Uncategorized