Obama – Muslim Brotherhood Allegiance

Editor’s Note – As we here at SUA have witnessed, with more and more evidence coming to light, this administration is working “against” our American values. He has made our allies enemies and our enemies friends. They are not our friends. They hope to take our Nation over.

The Muslim Brotherhood is working to take over the world,  under the “Caliphate.” It is looking more and more like Obama is helping them, and it clear that he has aligned America with his Islamic friends.

Smoking-gun document said to prove Obama-Muslim Brotherhood ties

By, Garth Kant – World Net Daily

WASHINGTON – The White House isn’t commenting on the exposure of a secret presidential directive, but critics tell WND it confirms what they feared: The Obama administration has an official policy of backing so-called “moderate Islamists,” including the jihadist group the Muslim Brotherhood.

A source familiar with the document told the Washington Times the “policy of backing the Muslim Brotherhood is outlined in a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11.”

The governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates officially consider the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, but the presidential directive reportedly shows the White House considers the group a “moderate” alternative to ISIS and al-Qaida.

Critics blasted that notion.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who has written extensively on the subject, told WND the Muslim Brotherhood “is not moderate” and “there is no such thing as a moderate Islamist.”

andrew mccarthy

The identical response was given to WND by Iran specialist Clare Lopez of the Center for Security Policy.

“The Muslim Brotherhood is a jihadist organization, from the day of its founding and remains so to this day,” she said.

Whether violent or not, she said, all jihadists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, seek the same two things: “Islamic governance and enforcement of Islamic law, or Shariah.”

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who tried to launch an inquiry three years ago into Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the federal government, told WND, “It confirms the questions I originally asked of the inspector generals of five agencies.”

“The recent discovery of an Obama administration document evidencing support for the Muslim Brotherhood is unsurprising,” she said. “It merely confirms the consistent position of the White House’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood since Obama’s election.”

Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration, and president of the Center for Security Policy, said PSD-11 was part of a series of mistakes that “were the consequences of embracing, legitimating, funding and even arming the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“They will prove to be among President Obama’s worst security policy legacies — and that’s saying something!”

Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan went a step further than saying there are no moderate Islamists; he stated there is not even a moderate Islam.

A tweet from a supporter quoted Farrakhan as saying, “What is moderate Islam? There is no such thing,” during a speech at Shiloh Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., on June 1.

McCarthy is a New York Times bestselling author, Fox News analyst, contributing editor at National Review and a former adviser to the deputy secretary of defense. As chief assistant U.S. attorney in New York, he successfully prosecuted the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing.

In his 2010 bestseller, “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America,” McCarthy described an internal Muslim Brotherhood memorandum that revealed the groups’ grand plan to destroy the West from within by having its component organizations collude with credulous Western governments and how it had found the ideal partner in Obama.

farrakhan

McCarthy told WND, “The Muslim Brotherhood is not moderate — not in its theoretical orientation and, as we’ve seen in Egypt, not in practice when it has a chance to govern.

“And it is simply a fact that many of the world’s most violent and influential jihadists got their start in the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a gateway to violent jihadism — not in all cases, but in many.”

McCarthy has described non-violent jihad as just as great a threat as violent jihad, because they are both means to overthrow Western governments and install strict Islamic law, or Shariah.

He drolly observed: “Obviously, we prefer non-violent Islamists to violent Islamists. We’d also rather have pneumonia than cancer … that doesn’t make pneumonia desirable.”

In a recent article in which he described the government’s “cognitive dissonance in seeking out ‘moderate Islamists,’” McCarthy stressed, “If you want to say that some Islamists are not violent, that is certainly true. But that does not make them moderate.”

McCarthy explained in greater detail to WND how “non-violent” does not mean “moderate” when it comes to Islamists.

“‘Islamist’ is the term we apply to those who believe in Islamic supremacism, which is essentially the imposition of classical Shariah (which recognizes no separation between spiritual and political life).”

He called it “a system that rejects individual liberty and is deeply discriminatory against women, non-Muslims and homosexuals.”

“Consequently, it is not ‘moderate.’ A person with extreme, anti-Western views is not a moderate, regardless of whether he is willing to commit acts of terrorism to impose his views on society.”

Clare Lopez

Lopez, who honed her analytical acumen during 20 years of service as a CIA field operative, and who served as an instructor for military intelligence and Special Forces students, described the difference between violent and non-violent Islamic extremism as merely a difference in timing and tactics.

“ISIS, al-Qaida and Boko Haram for example, tend to stage violent attacks in an effort to destroy the will to resist among the enemy and also to punish the enemy, or infidel, for refusing to accept or implement or follow Islam faithfully.”

“On the other hand, ” she said, “the Muslim Brotherhood tends to take a longer-term approach that works patiently to infiltrate and subvert a target government, whether infidel or ‘unfaithful Muslim,’ from within.”

Lopez insisted it doesn’t make sense to work with any Islamist groups, “when all are jihadis and all want to destroy our civilization & subjugate us to Shariah.”

Bachmann referred to the Muslim Brotherhood document seized in an FBI raid on suspected terrorists “delineating their plan to destroy the ‘miserable house of the U.S. from within civilization through jihad.’”

McCarthy told WND the Obama administration did not originate the problem of Islamist infiltration of the U.S. government, but it has greatly exacerbated that problem.

“Obama officials have intentionally sought to ally with Islamic supremacists, even those connected to terrorist organizations, on the harebrained theory that these Islamists will promote stability — i.e., they will work with us against jihadist organizations like al-Qaida, even though they share al-Qaida’s Shariah ideology and hostility toward the West.”

Gaffney told WND that “such a policy shift was the predictable consequence of having individuals associated with the Brotherhood holding positions of influence in the Obama administration and/or serving as advisers to several of its senior members, including the President, himself.”

arab-spring-obama

He said examples of such individuals could be found in a course on his center’s website, along with a detailed treatment of the policy repercussions of such penetration.

The problem of increasing Islamist influence in America has been compounded, critics say, by the Obama administration’s policy of admitting tens of thousands of poorly vetted Muslims from countries where Islamism is prevalent.

“All the while,” said Bachmann, “knowing many of the Muslims would prefer living in Muslim societies dominated by Islamic Shariah law, a governance system known for its incompatibility with the U.S. Constitution.”

Making the problem even worse, she said, was how former secretary of state “Hillary Clinton embraced members of the Muslim Brotherhood by issuing visas to enter the U.S. to members of the Muslim Brotherhood and to other terrorist organizations, even though the U.S. Government listed them with terrorist affiliations.”

Bachmann was one of five Republican Congress members who stirred bipartisan controversy in 2012 by raising concern about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the nation’s capital.

She also publicly questioned the role of Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, because of her and her family’s extensive documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

McCarthy told WND that Abdedin’s role in State Department policy still should be explored in light of her considerable Islamist connections.

“Her role should not be overstated — Hillary Clinton, like President Obama, has a record of sympathizing with Islamists, and Ms. Abedin’s influence on U.S. policy is more an effect than a cause of her boss’s predilections.”

“Still,” he added, “the State Department has aggressively pushed Obama’s policy of empowering the Muslim Brotherhood. It would be foolish to assume that the implementation of that policy was unconnected to the installation of pro-Islamists in high-ranking policy positions.”

Gaffney told WND: “It is deeply regrettable that the sorts of serious and legitimate questions about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of key agencies posed by Reps. Bachmann, Franks, Gohmert, Rooney and Westmoreland in June of 2012 were never the subject of investigations — either before or subsequently — by the Inspectors General of the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.”

“Had they been,” he speculated, “we might have averted myriad disasters, including, but not limited to: the debacle in Libya (inter alia the murderous attack on our facilities in Benghazi); the installation of a Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt; our arming al Qaida and Islamic State forces in Syria; turning a blind eye to the increasing Islamic supremacism of a putative NATO ally, Turkey; undermining our ally, Israel; abandoning Iraq; releasing five top Taliban commanders in exchange for a deserter, etc.”

How should the U.S. deal with Islamism?

McCarthy told WND the better approach would be “to accept that the challenge we face is Islamic supremacist ideology, which fuels both the terrorist threat and the broader Shariah-based challenge to our liberties, particularly free speech.”

“Our foreign policy should be based strictly on American interests. Foreign policy often involves having to sort out bad actors from worse actors, and any involvement with bad actors ought to be limited to what the protection of our interests requires — it is not our job to remake Islamic societies.”

He suggested, “We should resist alliances with Islamists, deal with them only to the extent our interests require it, ditch the notion that they are an asset rather than a liability in confronting violent jihadists, and — where we can do so usefully — promote pro-Western Muslims who reject Shariah supremacism.”

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talks with her deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, during the Open Government Partnership event in New York September 20, 2011. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talks with her deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, during the Open Government Partnership event in New York September 20, 2011. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Lopez indirectly referred to the Obama administration’s refusal to use the words “Islamic extremists” by counseling that the U.S. should “name the enemy” as “all who fight or support jihad to impose Shariah.”

“Declare war against that enemy. Study the enemy. Know the enemy. Then deploy a whole-of-government approach to defeating that enemy utterly.”

Lopez also pointed out the existence of the presidential directive effectively making it the policy of the administration to support “moderate Islamists” was actually made public a year ago by Gulf News, a publication not widely known in the U.S.

The story detailed a wide range of Obama administration contacts and meetings with Muslim Brotherhood members, including the late U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, who was killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi under the murkiest of circumstances.

Gulf News had reported attempts were under way to obtain State Department records documenting its dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood using a Freedom of Information, or FOIA, request.

The Washington Times reported, “Efforts to force the administration to release the directive or portions of it under the Freedom of Information Act have been unsuccessful.”

Jill Farrell, spokeswoman for the watchdog group Judicial Watch, told WND the presidential directive can not be obtained by FOIA.

“The White House itself is not subject to FOIA,” she said, “however, we have been actively making FOIA requests to the State Department and others in the federal alphabet soup that might possibly uncover communications with the White House, as we did with our Benghazi inquiry that blew the lid off with the (Deputy National Security Adviser) Ben Rhodes ‘not a failure of policy’ email.”

Gaffney – Obama's "Wrecking Operation of the U.S. Military"

The Univited: Gaffney on Obama Adminstration’s “Wrecking Operation of the U.S. Military”

By Michael Patrick Leahy – Breitbart

On Saturday, Frank Gaffney, the Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy, told Breitbart’s Uninvited panel at CPAC that the Obama administration’s policy of unilateral de-nuclearization has “profoundly hurt our nation’s national security.”

Very few people are paying much attention to this,” Gaffney said. Yet “this is the single most essential national security decision in our lifetime that no one knows is being made.”

In an exclusive interview, Gaffney told Breitbart News on Friday, “I was very gratified that your team at Brietbart gave us an opportunity to do talk about this important issue. The point was it wasn’t on the agenda at CPAC.”

Unilaterally reducing our nuclear arsenal is not the only national security weakness of the current administration, according to Gaffney. “The Obama administration is engaged in a wrecking operation to create conditions under which the American military is riven with problems even worse than during the Carter administration hollowing out,” he said.

Gaffney described two simultaneous developments. Just as the world is becoming more dangerous, the Obama administration is in the process of breaking “the only military we have. It’s hard to say [they’ve completely] broken it yet, but it’s a creeping problem. This mortar episode in Nevada is probably a symptom. It’s the kind of thing you will see lots and lots of in the future,” he predicted.

The reason there has been so little opposition to the Obama administration’s gutting of our national security and defense capabilities, Gaffney believes, is that the American people are largely unaware of it. “I simply do not believe the American people, if they were aware of what is happening, would support it,” he said. “It does demand attention. We’re not going to get any corrective action on the Hill without more public debate about this. The most consequential decision of our time is not getting  the kind of attention it deserves.”

Dangerous recent developments are an example of “the world of hurt” we find ourselves in, Gaffney said. “We’ve had in the space of the past couple of weeks a government with some capability to execute the threat, North Korea, threaten a nuclear attack on the United States and even that hasn’t captured much attention.”

On a broader theme, Gaffney tied our national security weakness to the rise of Islamism. “The meta issue of the day is the rising tide of Islamism and its implications for our friends in places like Israel and for us its really worrying and being exacerbated by the Obama administration’s embrace of these guys. This is the contemporary manifestation of Reagan’s statement about every generation facing an existential threat to freedom.”

“It’s not exclusively reducing the stock–meaning the numbers of weapons in our arsenal–that’s a problem. It’s also the Presidents adoption–with essentially no debate–as a matter of state policy of this idea we’re going to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Before he came to office, it was pretty much dismissed as a lunatic idea.” That was the case, said Gaffney, until President Obama “unilaterally declared that’s our policy.”

In addition, Gaffney noted that the Obama administration has not been a good steward of the nuclear arsenal it inherited. “It’s the condition of what’s left [in our nuclear arsenal] and our ability to support what’s left that’s worrying,” he added.

“We’ve essentially been living off Ronald Reagan’s legacy, but there’s been very little done to enhance our nuclear capabilities ever since his administration. One of the very important issues is should we be modernizing our nuclear forces to make them safer, more reliable, and more effective than they are today,” Gaffney stated. “We’re confronting a world that’s very different than the world of Ronald Reagan but essentially are living off the nuclear forces his administration developed. None of these weapons have been tested in over 20 years. Many of them are decades beyond their design life. The platforms to deliver them are aging.”

The infrastructure to support our nuclear arsenal has diminished dramatically, in Gaffney’s view. “The underlying industrial base and technology base isn’t nearly what it used to be. You could count on one hand the number of people who have experience in designing and testing our nuclear weapons. This translates into uncertainty about the reliability of our nuclear weapons.”

According to Gaffney, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration, the situation has deteriorated with every successive president. “This did not start with the Obama administration. It was true of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and goes back to George H.W. Bush. But it’s gotten dramatically worse under Obama.”

Along with the decline in presidential attention to these critical national security issues, Gaffney criticized prominent former Defense and State Department officials, as well as one prominent former senator. “You do now have this well-funded aggressive agitation organization, and they’ve enlisted what I call the Four Horsemen–Former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, Former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, and former Senator Sam Nunn–all of whom should know better, and they’re touting this comprehensive test ban treaty. Most of these guys are part of the Global Zero initiative, a Ted Turner, George Soros, Warren Buffet-funded operation.”

This world view rests on three premises, according to Gaffney. The first premise is that you can eliminate nuclear weapons, “which you can’t,” he said. The second premise is that the world would be a safer place if you could eliminate nuclear weapons, “which it wouldn’t.” And the third premise is that others will follow the lead of the United States, which under the Obama administration is pursuing the goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. But, Gaffney maintains,  the mere fact that the United States is pursuing this goal “has profound results when nobody else in the world is doing the same and no one is following our lead.”

Mitt Romney, Gaffney noted,  did not raise the issue of national security in the 2012 Presidential campaign. “National security,” Gaffney said “was not something they wanted to talk about. It’s a reflection of the Republican Party that no longer has been thinking about these issues.”

%CODE%

Gaffney began his national security career as an aide to the late Henry “Scoop” Jackson, the Democratic senator from the state of Washington known for his strong support of American defense capabilities. According to Gaffney, Scoop Jackson Democrats focused on maintaining our country’s national security “don’t exist anymore as a species.”

Scoop Jackson would not recognize the modern Democratic Party, Gaffney said. “With his passing we’ve got a successor generation that is at best clueless about this stuff and at worst is seriously misguided. I think of this as a lost generation problem. They are clueless about some of the conditions that are developing around the world if you look at what the Muslim Brotherhood is involved in here.”

There are parallels, Gaffney believes, between the United States in 2013 and England in the 1930s. “Americans have mostly not been thinking seriously about national security since the end of the Cold War. That kind of inattentiveness has real costs. I see what Churchill used to call a gathering storm and we’re not paying attention; our leadership is largely averting its gaze and certainly not robustly taking to the American people the case that must be made.”

“As for the Democrats,” Gaffney continued, “people who are now the late baby boomer generation are still somewhat sensitive on these matters, at the very least. Younger and younger generations are further removed from hard experience with the world. The group I saw in evidence at CPAC–young people sporting “Stand With Rand” buttons–those folks are likely to be the cannon fodder for the next horrific conflict.”

“At some point,” Gaffney said, “we’re going to face a serious nuclear threat. The Chinese have invested in the construction of 3,000 miles of tunnels in which they are concealing their nuclear arsenal. That’s something the public has no knowledge of.”

Despite the numerous national security problems that have exacerbated under the Obama administration, Gaffney remains guardedly optimistic. “The solution,” he said “is to get a grip.” The public he said, should be “educated about this by their leaders, by the press, and by their education system.” While Gaffney acknowledge that none of these groups were doing so “at the moment, he cautioned that “the alternative is we wait and get attacked.”

“This is the danger of democratic societies that have come to take for granted their security. They become comfortable with the good life. “At some point,” however, Gaffney concluded, “there is a rude awakening.”

Center for Security Policy – Experts Reject Brennan for CIA

National Security Experts Warn: Reject Brennan

Press Release from the Center for Security Policy

For immediate release – Contact David Reaboi | dreaboi@securefreedom.org| (202) 835-9077

Scroll down for important video.

Washington, D.C.: With the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence scheduled to vote tomorrow on John Brennan’s nomination to become the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, it has become clear that Senators simply do not have all the information necessary for an informed decision on so sensitive an appointment. In an effort to illuminate the nominee’s shortcomings that demand – but have yet to receive – close scrutiny, the Center for Security Policy convened a virtual press conference featuring video-taped comments by six of the country’s preeminent experts on, among other things, the threat of Islamism and Brennan’s blindness to it.

The video includes powerful statements by Steve Emerson, Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism; Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy; Chris Farrell, Vice President for Investigations and Research for Judicial Watch; Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, USA Ret., former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; Andrew C. McCarthy, former federal prosecutor and author of The Grand Jihad and Spring Fever; and Stephen Coughlin, Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy and author of the forthcoming book, Catastrophic Failure.

The video, National Security Experts Warn: Reject Brennan, compliments the Center’s other efforts to educate the public, media and policymakers about the dangers of a possible Brennan tenure at the CIA, including a collection of Brennan-related resources and several investigative pieces.

Andrew McCarthy–who successfully prosecuted the Blind Sheikh who, twenty years ago yesterday, conspired to blow up the World Trade Center–said:

Making John Brennan the director of the Central Intelligence Agency is the most monumental mismatch of man and mission that I can imagine. The point of having our intelligence agencies is to make sure that we have a coherent, accurate idea of the threats that confront the United States. Unfortunately, Mr. Brennan’s career, and certainly the signature that he has put on the national security component of the Obama administration has been to blind the United States to the threats against us.

Steve Emerson, one of the country’s preeminent counter-terrorism experts added:

John Brennan, CIA director nominee, is uniquely unqualified to be the CIA director as evidenced by him being the architect of the outreach program to the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States as well as in the Middle East. In the course of the investigation conducted by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, we discovered that there were at least four hundred visits in the three years between 2009 and 2012 to the White House of radical Islamic groups, some of whom were unindicted co-conspirators in terrorism trials, but all of whom had been involved in establishing radical Islamic rhetoric, including support for Hamas, Hezbollah, denigrating the US, calling this a war against Islam by the United States.
Zuhdi Jasser, a leader of anti-Islamist Muslims in America, warned that:
…The reports put out from [John Brennan’s] counter-terrorism office at the White House…did not recognize the [Islamist] ideology. They noted a “radical ideology,” but didn’t name what it was — even though the word ‘ideology’ was mentioned twenty times. Our American-Islamic Leadership Coalition, that includes over 20 different reform-based organizations that are anti-Islamist, were not consulted. And, you can see from the report, that it seems to be very similar to things put out by groups like the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Islamic Society of North America. Unfortunately, John Brennan has had a very cozy relationship to these groups and has often used their talking points when speaking out about Islam, Islamism, jihad, and the threat…. In every position Brennan has been it, he has been more a facilitator of Islamist groups rather than a counterweight to them, in order to oppose them and confront them.

The Center today also released a letter signed by fifteen conservative leaders – many of whom have extensive experience with national security policy making and practice – calling on congressional leaders to launch a bicameral select committee to investigate the Benghazigate scandal. John Brennan’s involvement in the run-up to the murderous attack on September 11, 2012, his conduct during that seven-hour engagement and his role in the subsequent cover-up must be addressed before he is allowed, as Rep. Trent Franks recently put it “anywhere near the CIA, let alone running it.”

%CODE%

 

Study shows Sharia Law is creeping into our legal system

Editor’s Note– United States of America Law, derived through the Constitution, is the ONLY law that should ever be applied in ourcourt systems, at any level. One great problem in America is that too many people do not like the restrictions our Constitution exerts upon the way ‘we the people’ have chosen to govern ourselves. Because of these restrictions, many have sought alternative ways to get around our rule-of-law society by legislating, and failing that, by executive fiat and court action, almost always through liberal activism, cloaked in specious arguments.

Great Britain succumbs under Sharia Pressure

The reasons are many, and the arguments are often strained and twisted. Contorted logic is employed to achieve their ends by employing these superficially plausible, but incorrect arguments. No where else is this more evident than it is where a so-called religion tries to force its will upon our legal system. Islam’s Sharia is purported to be a higher law than that of men and nations, but our inalienable rights are not recognized by it. So we have a conundrum, at least that is how many perceive the issue and so they seek to meld the two. This is how Islam’s goals work. Its stated goals, in the Koran, and other writings, in the words of their leadership, is for Sharia to be the law of all peoples, no matter the location. The manner and method to achieve this end is to infiltrate other systems, and eventually take them over. Examples abound in Europe, especially in Britain, and is evident by the study findings below, and they are trying it here.

Many in leadership positions, are also fostering this Sharia infiltration, maybe not overtly, or by design, but certainly through appeasement, and political correctness. The current Federal administration is perhaps the most guilty of allowing the door to be opened to this erosive measure, especially when people like Azizah Yahia Muhammad Toufiq al-Hibri was appointed to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom by Barrack Obama in June of this year. A person with ties and fealty to the Muslim Brotherhood is now speaking on behalf of America, desensitizing our citizenry to Sharia. Not only has Sharia law been applied to our domestic court system, but Obama has installed a new bridge within his administration and this bridge directs America and policy to favor Islam.

New Study Finds Shariah Law Involved in Court Cases in 23 States

Center for Security Policy

The Center for Security Policy today released an in-depth study–Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. The study evaluates 50 appellate court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law.  The analysis finds that Shariah has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.

Some commentators have tried to minimize this problem, claiming, as an editorial in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times put it that, “…There is scant evidence that American judges are resolving cases on the basis of shariah.” To the contrary, our study identified 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate court published cases.

Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy.  The Center’s analysis, however, found 15 trial court cases, and 12 appellate court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases.

The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with constitutional protections.

On the releasing the study, the Center for Security Policy’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:

These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process.  These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah.  When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded.

 Key Findings:

  • At the trial court level, 22 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 15 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level.
  • At the appellate Court level: 23 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 12 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.
  • The 50 cases were classified into seven distinct “Categories” of dispute:  21 cases dealt with “Shariah Marriage Law”; 17 cases involved “Child Custody”; 5 dealt with “Shariah Contract Law”; 3 dealt with general “Shariah Doctrine”; 2 were concerned with “Shariah Property Law”; 1 dealt with “Due Process/Equal Protection” and 1 dealt with the combined “Shariah Marriage Law/Child Custody.”
  • The 50 cases were based in 23 different states: 6 cases were found in New Jersey; 5 in California; 4 each in Florida, Massachusetts and Washington; 3 each in Maryland, Texas and Virginia; 2 each in Louisiana and Nebraska; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and South Carolina.

Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases includes summaries of a sample of twenty cases, as well as the full published texts for all fifty cases.

Mr. Gaffney added:

This study represents a timely contribution to the debate developing around the country:  To what extent is the Islamic politico-military-legal doctrine of Shariah being insinuated into the United States?  The analysis complements and powerfully reinforces the warnings contained in the Center’s bestselling 2010 “Team B II” Report, Shariah: The Threat to America.  It confirms that Shariah’s adherents are making a concerted effort to bring their anti-constitutional code to this country.

Together with follow-on analyses now in preparation, we hope to equip those who share the Center’s commitment to the Constitution of the United States, to the liberties it guarantees and to the democratic government it mandates to thwart those like the Muslim Brotherhood who would supplant freedom with Shariah law.  Clearly, we must work to keep America Shariah-free, or risk inexorably losing the country we love.

The full text of the study, including text from the court cases and tables displaying the findings, can be found at www.ShariahInAmericanCourts.com.