The Radical Left and Muslim Brotherhood Continue Their Assault on Protecting Our Constitutional Rights

by CHRISTOPHER HOLTON March 5, 2018

 

State Representative Eric Redman of Idaho, a Vietnam veteran of the U.S. Air Force, is the latest elected leader in the USA to author American Laws for American Courts legislation.

Sadly-and predictably-Representative Redman has now had to endure vicious attacks and an organized disinformation campaign engineered by radical Leftist organizations, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Muslim Brotherhood, in the form of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

While patriotic, educated Americans should view opposition from the SPLC and CAIR as a sign that American Laws for American Courts is well worth supporting, the recalcitrant and corrupt news media has aided and abetted their disinformation campaign.

Before we address the opposition's underhanded tactics, it's worth reviewing just what American Laws for American Courts legislation does.

American Laws for American Courts is expressly written to protect individual, fundamental constitutional rights against foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines that are increasingly surfacing in U.S. court cases, especially on the state level. From the model language itself:

AN ACT to protect rights and privileges granted under the United States or [State] Constitution.

//

The [general assembly/legislature] finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of one of the following fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States: due process, equal protection, freedom of religion, speech, or press, the right to keep and bear arms and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.

//

Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision one or more of the following fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions: due process, equal protection, freedom of religion, speech, or press, the right to keep and bear arms and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.

In the USA's constitutional republic and representative form of government, elected representatives of the people vote for words on paper. Any HONEST, patriotic American when reading the words above can recognize that the purpose of the legislation is to defend the individual fundamental constitutional rights that we hold so dear.

Despite this clarity, groups have attacked American Laws for American Courts as "bigoted." In particular, the Muslim Brotherhood's Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has dubbed the legislation as "anti-Muslim."

The only conclusion that we can draw from this is that CAIR and its allies in the SPLC hate the U.S. constitution and are fighting efforts to protect fundamental constitutional rights.

The reason for CAIR's opposition stems from the fact that when foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines that arise in U.S. court cases appear to violate our fundamental constitutional rights, they often originate from countries that predominantly use the theo-political-legal-military doctrine known as shariah as a foundation of their native legal systems. This was detailed in the Center for Security Policy's report published in 2014 entitled: Shariah in American Courts: The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System

For instance, in one such case, a Maryland appellate court in Hosain v. Malik enforced a Pakistani custody order, issued under a sharia rule granting sole custody to the father when the child reaches age seven, handing a little girl brought to America by her mother over to the father.  The Maryland court acceded to the Pakistani court order even though the mother did not appear for the Pakistani proceedings, because, although she may have been arrested for adultery if she returned to Pakistan for the hearing, and been subject to "public whipping or death by stoning," the court found such punishments were "extremely unlikely."  The judges explicitly proclaimed that the best interest of the child should not be "determined based on Maryland law, i.e., American cultures and mores," but rather "by applying relevant Pakistani customs, culture and mores."  The court, explaining that "in the Pakistani culture, the well being of the child ... is thought to be facilitated by adherence to Islamic teachings," intentionally applied Islamic, rather than American, cultural and legal precepts.

This case, as well as dozens of others cited in the Center's study, including similar cases involving child custody and misogyny, demonstrate that American courts have followed divergent paths on addressing foreign law, such as sharia.  Legislatures, as representatives of the people, should appropriately direct the courts to avoid the enforcement of foreign law when such enforcement violates American constitutional and public policy norms.  Clearly, the child custody case in Maryland involved issues of gender discrimination, denial of freedom of travel, disregard for the best interests of a child, lack of procedural due process, and cruel and unusual punishment.  Organizations like the SPLC, claiming to be the defender of American civil rights, should be sensitive to the obvious breach of those rights implicated in applying many aspects of foreign legal doctrines, and not ignorantly stereotype all efforts to address such breaches as religious intolerance.

It should be noted that, American Laws for American Courts protects fundamental constitutional rights against ANY foreign law, which seems to be increasingly important as free speech, for example, is becoming an endangered species even in places like Canada, the UK and Western Europe.

The opposition from CAIR to American Laws for American Courts legislation should raise a red flag, simply because of what CAIR is.

CAIR is a nefarious, subversive organization with a disturbing past and even more disturbing ties to Jihadist terrorism. The evidence indicating that CAIR is actually an anti-American, sharia-supremecist organization is overwhelming:

• The Federal Bureau of Investigation has suspended all formal contacts with CAIR due to evidence demonstrating a relationship between CAIR and HAMAS, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

• In the U.S. v the Holy Land Foundation, the largest successful terrorism financing prosecution in U.S. history, CAIR was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group and was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial...CAIR opened its first office in Washington, D.C. with the help of a grant from the Holy Land Foundation, a charitable organization that was shut down by the US Treasury Department for funding Jihadist terrorist organizations.

• In 2014, U.S. ally the United Arab Emirates officially designated CAIR as a terrorist organization.

• In March 2011, Muthanna al-Hanooti, one of CAIR's directors, was sentenced to a year in federal prison for violating U.S. sanctions against Saddam's Iraq.

• In 2006, the co-founder of CAIR's parent organization, IAP (Islamic Association for Palestine), Sami Al-Arian, was sentenced to 57 months in prison on terrorism charges for financing Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a designated terrorist organization according to the US State Department.

• In 2004, CAIR-Northern Virginia director Abdurahman Alamoudi pled guilty to terrorism-related financial and conspiracy charges, which resulted in a 23- year federal prison sentence.

• In 2009, Ghassan Elashi, who served as a founding board member for CAIR's regional chapter in Texas, was sentenced to a total of 65 years in prison after being convicted of 10 counts of conspiracy to provide, and the provision of, material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization; 11 counts of conspiracy to provide, and the provision of, funds, goods and services to a Specially Designated Terrorist; 10 counts of conspiracy to commit, and the commission of, money laundering; one count of conspiracy to impede and impair the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and two counts of filing a false tax return.

• Randall Todd (Ismail) Royer, who served as a communications specialist and civil rights coordinator for CAIR, trained with and set up an internet-based newsletter for Lashkar-I-Taiba, an al Qaeda-tied Kashmir organization that is listed on the State Department's international terror list and was also indicted on charges of conspiring to help al Qaeda and the Taliban battle American troops in Afghanistan and was sentenced to twenty years in prison on April 9, 2004.

• In September 2003, CAIR's former Community Affairs Director, Bassem Khafagi, pled guilty to three federal counts of bank and visa fraud and agreed to be deported to Egypt after he had funneled money to activities supporting terrorism and had published material advocating suicide attacks against the United States, illegal activities which took place while he was employed by CAIR.

• Ann Arbor, Michigan CAIR fundraiser Rabih Haddad was arrested on terrorism-related charges and was deported from the United States due to his work as Executive Director of the Global Relief Foundation, which in October 2002 was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department for financing al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

Opposition from CAIR to legislation designed to protect Americans' fundamental constitutional rights is a reason to SUPPORT American Laws for American Courts legislation. Their opposition to our constitution today is not unlike that of subversive activity from the German-American Bund in the 1930s.

We are delighted to report that Idaho's American Laws for American Courts bill has passed their House of Representatives by a 2 to 1 margin and now awaits disposition in the Idaho state senate.

 

 






Christopher Holton is a Vice President with the Center for Security Policy and the Director of its Divest Terror Initiative. Chris Holton is a past president and marketing director of Blanchard & Co. and editor-in-chief of the Blanchard Economic Research Unit from 1990 to 2003. As chief of the Blanchard Economic Research Unit in 2000, he conceived and commissioned the Center for Security Policy special report Clinton's Legacy: The Dangerous Decade. Holton is a member of the Board of Advisers of WorldTribune.com.

 


blog comments powered by Disqus

FSM Archives

10 year FSM Anniversary

More in MUST READS ( 1 OF 25 ARTICLES )