/PRNewswire/ -- Ordering federal employees to work during a government shutdown violates the U.S. Constitution, according to a lawsuit filed today by the nation's largest federal employee union.
The American Federation of Government Employees filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob Lew and Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry are named as defendants.
The lawsuit contends that the Obama administration is violating the U.S. Constitution's Appropriations Clause and Thirteenth Amendment by requiring federal civilian employees to work without pay during a period of lapsed federal appropriations.
"Hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be required to work during a shutdown, and there's no guarantee that Congress will keep the administration's promise to pay those employees once the shutdown is over," AFGE National President John Gage said.
Section 1341 of Title 31 of the U.S. Code prohibits federal and D.C. government workers from spending or obligating funds that have not already been appropriated by Congress.
The administration claims that it can require certain employees to work during a shutdown under Section 1342 of Title 31, which includes a clause covering "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property."
However, AFGE's lawsuit contends that this section of U.S. Code is not a valid exception to the prohibition on incurring debts during a shutdown because it is not an appropriations law and does not empower federal agencies to force Congress to pay for debts incurred during a shutdown.
"The Constitution requires an appropriation by Congress before federal dollars can be spent, no exceptions," Gage said. "Without an appropriation, the agencies simply can't spend money or incur debts by forcing employees to work."
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is the largest federal employee union, representing 625,000 workers in the federal government and the government of the District of Columbia.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Friday, April 8, 2011
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Libertarians say Kagan is bad, but bigger problem exists
Wes Benedict, Executive Director of the Libertarian Party, issued the following statement today:
"Elena Kagan is another bad pick for the Supreme Court. If confirmed, it is likely that she will vote on cases with the intent of advancing political policy goals.
"Kagan will probably vote to advance liberal policy goals, just as some other justices vote to advance conservative policy goals. That is not the place of justices, who should be applying the Constitution, not trying to rewrite it to make society work better according to their views.
"However, the bitter battles over Supreme Court justices expose a more serious problem in our federal government: the legislative and executive branches simply refuse to take the Constitution seriously.
"Once upon a time, Congress felt it had a duty to legislate in accordance with the Constitution. Likewise, past presidents believed that they should veto laws that were not clearly constitutional. But in more recent years, both branches have thrown this crucial duty away. Now their attitude seems to be, 'We can pass anything we want to, and let the Supreme Court deal with it if they don't like it.' That was absolutely not what the American Founders had in mind.
"We shouldn't have to worry so much about who gets appointed to the Supreme Court. It shouldn't be the case that a single justice can make all of American society lurch from one direction to another. They shouldn't have that much power.
"Republicans who want to throw stones at Kagan, ought to ask themselves why they supported the Bush Administration's blatantly unconstitutional Patriot Act, or why they supported huge expansions of the blatantly unconstitutional Medicare program. When they were in power, they showed absolutely no respect for the Constitution.
"I wish that President Obama had picked a nominee with more regard for the original intent of the Constitution. But even more than that, I wish that he and the members of Congress would stop shirking their responsibility to apply the Constitution themselves."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"Elena Kagan is another bad pick for the Supreme Court. If confirmed, it is likely that she will vote on cases with the intent of advancing political policy goals.
"Kagan will probably vote to advance liberal policy goals, just as some other justices vote to advance conservative policy goals. That is not the place of justices, who should be applying the Constitution, not trying to rewrite it to make society work better according to their views.
"However, the bitter battles over Supreme Court justices expose a more serious problem in our federal government: the legislative and executive branches simply refuse to take the Constitution seriously.
"Once upon a time, Congress felt it had a duty to legislate in accordance with the Constitution. Likewise, past presidents believed that they should veto laws that were not clearly constitutional. But in more recent years, both branches have thrown this crucial duty away. Now their attitude seems to be, 'We can pass anything we want to, and let the Supreme Court deal with it if they don't like it.' That was absolutely not what the American Founders had in mind.
"We shouldn't have to worry so much about who gets appointed to the Supreme Court. It shouldn't be the case that a single justice can make all of American society lurch from one direction to another. They shouldn't have that much power.
"Republicans who want to throw stones at Kagan, ought to ask themselves why they supported the Bush Administration's blatantly unconstitutional Patriot Act, or why they supported huge expansions of the blatantly unconstitutional Medicare program. When they were in power, they showed absolutely no respect for the Constitution.
"I wish that President Obama had picked a nominee with more regard for the original intent of the Constitution. But even more than that, I wish that he and the members of Congress would stop shirking their responsibility to apply the Constitution themselves."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Friday, March 19, 2010
Libertarian Party opposes health care plan
The Libertarian Party adamantly opposes the health care bill passed on Christmas Eve by the US Senate that is currently being considered in the US House of Representatives. The Libertarian Party calls on the US House to vote down this disastrous plan, and instead to pass laws reducing federal involvement in health care.
Libertarian Party Chairman William Redpath commented, "We oppose this horrible federal government expansion into health care, just as we have consistently opposed all the increased government intrusion into health care proposed by Republicans and Democrats over the years. For example, we vocally opposed the huge Medicare expansion pushed through Congress by Republicans in 2003."
Redpath continued, "It is a virtual certainty that the cost estimates of this legislation are drastically understated. When Medicare Part A started in 1965, the projected cost for 1990 was $9 billion. It turned out to be $67 billion. Should this bill become law, when the debt of the United States government is downgraded by ratings agencies shortly thereafter, it will not be a coincidence. That will increase interest rates, and the entire economy will suffer."
The Libertarian Party Platform says the following about health care: "We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions."
The words "health care" and "medicine" are not found anywhere in the Constitution. Accordingly, the Libertarian Party asserts that Congress has no authority to regulate or appropriate money for health care. (The Libertarian Party has consistently argued for decades that the "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses are not generic authorizations for spending and regulation.)
Redpath concluded, "This is a top-down, Washington-mandated control of health insurance and health care in this nation. It is the antithesis of consumer-driven health care, which is what will ultimately be necessary to control health care costs and to provide the best health care for the greatest number of people."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Libertarian Party Chairman William Redpath commented, "We oppose this horrible federal government expansion into health care, just as we have consistently opposed all the increased government intrusion into health care proposed by Republicans and Democrats over the years. For example, we vocally opposed the huge Medicare expansion pushed through Congress by Republicans in 2003."
Redpath continued, "It is a virtual certainty that the cost estimates of this legislation are drastically understated. When Medicare Part A started in 1965, the projected cost for 1990 was $9 billion. It turned out to be $67 billion. Should this bill become law, when the debt of the United States government is downgraded by ratings agencies shortly thereafter, it will not be a coincidence. That will increase interest rates, and the entire economy will suffer."
The Libertarian Party Platform says the following about health care: "We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions."
The words "health care" and "medicine" are not found anywhere in the Constitution. Accordingly, the Libertarian Party asserts that Congress has no authority to regulate or appropriate money for health care. (The Libertarian Party has consistently argued for decades that the "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses are not generic authorizations for spending and regulation.)
Redpath concluded, "This is a top-down, Washington-mandated control of health insurance and health care in this nation. It is the antithesis of consumer-driven health care, which is what will ultimately be necessary to control health care costs and to provide the best health care for the greatest number of people."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Friday, January 22, 2010
Judicial Watch Sponsors National Tea Party Convention
/Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the non-partisan public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it will serve as a major sponsor for the upcoming National Tea Party Convention to be held February 4-6, 2010, at the Opryland Hotel in Nashville, Tennessee. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton will also address the convention on how to uncover and combat government corruption. Former Alaska
Governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin is set to provide the keynote address.
The purpose of the convention is to bring "Tea Party Movement leaders together from around the nation for the purpose of networking and supporting the movement's multiple organizations' principal goals."
The convention will feature speakers, workshops, information centers, and will provide organizational tools for those who support the Tea Party movement.
"We're proud to stand with other Americans who respect the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, and the need to limit the size and scope of the federal government," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Most Americans, especially the Tea Party movement, understand that big government leads to big corruption. So as the Obama administration inflates the size of government to unprecedented and dangerous levels -- Americans' concern about corruption is rightly increasing. As a group that has taken on both Republican and Democratic corruption,
Judicial Watch is honored to support the independent Tea Party movement."
According to a recent Judicial Watch poll conducted December 11-19, 2009, in partnership with Survey USA, a majority of likely voters believe that government is too big (64%) and that bigger government leads to more corruption (62%). Overall, 65% believe political corruption in the federal government is a "very serious" problem. Sure enough, most Americans(62%) believe increasing government's role in healthcare will lead to more corruption in the healthcare system.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin is set to provide the keynote address.
The purpose of the convention is to bring "Tea Party Movement leaders together from around the nation for the purpose of networking and supporting the movement's multiple organizations' principal goals."
The convention will feature speakers, workshops, information centers, and will provide organizational tools for those who support the Tea Party movement.
"We're proud to stand with other Americans who respect the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, and the need to limit the size and scope of the federal government," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Most Americans, especially the Tea Party movement, understand that big government leads to big corruption. So as the Obama administration inflates the size of government to unprecedented and dangerous levels -- Americans' concern about corruption is rightly increasing. As a group that has taken on both Republican and Democratic corruption,
Judicial Watch is honored to support the independent Tea Party movement."
According to a recent Judicial Watch poll conducted December 11-19, 2009, in partnership with Survey USA, a majority of likely voters believe that government is too big (64%) and that bigger government leads to more corruption (62%). Overall, 65% believe political corruption in the federal government is a "very serious" problem. Sure enough, most Americans(62%) believe increasing government's role in healthcare will lead to more corruption in the healthcare system.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Libertarians take aim at Sotomayor’s anti-gun stance
America’s third largest party reiterated its opposition Wednesday to the Supreme Court nomination of federal judge Sonia Sotomayor after the nominee refused to give a firm answer on whether individuals have the right of self-defense.
“Is there a constitutional right to self-defense?” Sotomayor asked when questioned by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) whether or not the Constitution guaranteed him the right of self-defense. “ I can’t think of one. I could be wrong.”
“Whether you agree with her position or not, Judge Sotomayor has had no problem stating that things not directly found in the Constitution are ‘settled law.’ That’s why it’s troubling that when confronted with a constitutionally-enshrined principle she disagrees with, the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of one’s rights, things are suddenly muddled and up for debate,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director.
“The Libertarian Party is the only party that never compromises in its defense of our Second Amendment-guaranteed rights. That’s why we have opposed Judge Sotomayor’s nomination from the moment we reviewed her troubling anti-gun record. Judge Sotomayor’s answers Wednesday further show she believes the law should flow from her own personal biases and not the literal wording of the Constitution,” said Ferguson.
Judge Sotomayor is the latest in a long line of hardline anti-gun activists nominated by President Obama to government positions where they would have the power to infringe on gun rights. Libertarians also opposed the nominations of anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder and anti-gun State Department legal adviser Harold Koh.
“The Libertarian Party will hold accountable at the ballot box any senator who votes to confirm Judge Sotomayor. America’s nearly 90 million gun owners come from all walks of life and political beliefs – and they decide their vote on this issue. Libertarians look forward to speaking with them about the LP’s fundamental belief in gun rights, and their senator’s voting record on it,” said Ferguson.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
“Is there a constitutional right to self-defense?” Sotomayor asked when questioned by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) whether or not the Constitution guaranteed him the right of self-defense. “ I can’t think of one. I could be wrong.”
“Whether you agree with her position or not, Judge Sotomayor has had no problem stating that things not directly found in the Constitution are ‘settled law.’ That’s why it’s troubling that when confronted with a constitutionally-enshrined principle she disagrees with, the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of one’s rights, things are suddenly muddled and up for debate,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director.
“The Libertarian Party is the only party that never compromises in its defense of our Second Amendment-guaranteed rights. That’s why we have opposed Judge Sotomayor’s nomination from the moment we reviewed her troubling anti-gun record. Judge Sotomayor’s answers Wednesday further show she believes the law should flow from her own personal biases and not the literal wording of the Constitution,” said Ferguson.
Judge Sotomayor is the latest in a long line of hardline anti-gun activists nominated by President Obama to government positions where they would have the power to infringe on gun rights. Libertarians also opposed the nominations of anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder and anti-gun State Department legal adviser Harold Koh.
“The Libertarian Party will hold accountable at the ballot box any senator who votes to confirm Judge Sotomayor. America’s nearly 90 million gun owners come from all walks of life and political beliefs – and they decide their vote on this issue. Libertarians look forward to speaking with them about the LP’s fundamental belief in gun rights, and their senator’s voting record on it,” said Ferguson.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Gubernatorial Candidate, Georges Marciano, Calls for a California Constitutional Convention
/PRNewswire/ -- Georges Marciano, candidate for Governor of California, called upon every member of California's State Legislature to immediately pass a resolution calling for a constitutional convention. "We are living in the 21st Century; Californians deserve a 21st century constitution," exclaimed Mr. Marciano.
In his letter, dated June 22nd, Mr. Marciano stated, "It is time for this to occur. For too long now, our Constitution has produced gridlock, delay and injustice, rather than promote a responsive and accountable government."
Pursuant to California's Constitution, Article 18, Section 2, the legislature may vote on the question of whether to call a convention to revise the constitution. Upon passage by two-thirds of the membership of each house, the Legislature shall provide for the convention within 6 months. Mr. Marciano hopes for a strong and immediate response coming within the next 20 days.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
In his letter, dated June 22nd, Mr. Marciano stated, "It is time for this to occur. For too long now, our Constitution has produced gridlock, delay and injustice, rather than promote a responsive and accountable government."
Pursuant to California's Constitution, Article 18, Section 2, the legislature may vote on the question of whether to call a convention to revise the constitution. Upon passage by two-thirds of the membership of each house, the Legislature shall provide for the convention within 6 months. Mr. Marciano hopes for a strong and immediate response coming within the next 20 days.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, March 9, 2009
Utah 1st State to Give Voters Right to Constitutionally Secure Secret Ballots, Will Be on 2010 Ballot
SOS Ballot Secures Public Vote in Utah for Secret Ballot Constitutional Amendment; 1st State to Give Voters Right to Constitutionally Secure Secret Ballots Strongly Backed by Gov. Huntsman, Sen. Hatch, AG Shurtleff
/PRNewswire/ -- A constitutional amendment to guarantee the use of secret ballots in Utah elections, including in union organizing elections, has passed the Utah State Senate, ensuring a place on the November 2010 ballot. House Joint Resolution 8 was introduced in the State House by Rep. Carl Wimmer (R-Herriman), where the measure also passed with a 2/3rd vote earlier in the week. The amendment had the strong backing of Governor Huntsman, US Senator Orrin Hatch and Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, and becomes the first of what is likely to be a dozen or more states to place constitutional guarantees for secret ballots before the voters. Attorney General Shurtleff is a member of the National Advisory Board of Save Our Secret Ballot, the national group organizing similar movements in states throughout the country.
SOS Ballot National Advisory Board Chairman Rep. Ernest Istook commented, "Utahans are fortunate to have leaders like Rep. Wimmer as well as Governor Huntsman, Senator Hatch and Attorney General Shurtleff who understand just how imperiled and vulnerable the right to a secret ballot is. We applaud their leadership in making this issue a top priority and look forward to working with them to make sure Utahans never have to fear losing their right to a secret ballot. While Utah is the first state, it will soon be joined by other states in giving voters the right to protect the secret ballot. We won in Utah because voters want secret ballots protected. We will win in a dozen or more states this election cycle because voters are appalled that Congress would acquiesce to the extreme demands of Union bosses and threaten the right to a secret ballot."
Similar efforts have been launched by SOS Ballot in Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota with additional states soon to be announced. The 47-word amendment says:
"The right of individuals to vote by secret ballot is fundamental. Where state or federal law requires elections for public office or public votes on initiatives or referenda, or designations or authorizations of employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed."
Utah Governor John Huntsman extended his support to HJR 8 with the following statement:
"It is ever important for Utahans to have the right to vote their conscience in areas that are critical to their democratic representation and the representation within their employment without the fear of retribution or persecution. This constitutional amendment would ensure that individuals will be constitutionally guaranteed the right to a secret ballot for these types of important election. This issue is fundamental to our economic development efforts as a State and safeguards our State's long tradition of being a 'right to work' state Â- a position that is grounded in individual rights and freedoms," he continued.
Recent public opinion polls taken in the states where SOS Ballot has announced efforts show huge public support of 81% to 94%, with Union members even more supportive of the constitutional guarantee for a secret ballot than non-union members.
The secret ballot was used locally as an act of post-Civil war southern reconstruction, first as a way to impose a literacy requirement on newly freed slaves. But the secret ballot also protected mostly black voters who faced physical intimidation, even lynching, depending on how their vote was cast. Secret ballots were first used statewide in the Massachusetts governor's race 1888 and nationally in 1892 to elect President Grover Cleveland.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
/PRNewswire/ -- A constitutional amendment to guarantee the use of secret ballots in Utah elections, including in union organizing elections, has passed the Utah State Senate, ensuring a place on the November 2010 ballot. House Joint Resolution 8 was introduced in the State House by Rep. Carl Wimmer (R-Herriman), where the measure also passed with a 2/3rd vote earlier in the week. The amendment had the strong backing of Governor Huntsman, US Senator Orrin Hatch and Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, and becomes the first of what is likely to be a dozen or more states to place constitutional guarantees for secret ballots before the voters. Attorney General Shurtleff is a member of the National Advisory Board of Save Our Secret Ballot, the national group organizing similar movements in states throughout the country.
SOS Ballot National Advisory Board Chairman Rep. Ernest Istook commented, "Utahans are fortunate to have leaders like Rep. Wimmer as well as Governor Huntsman, Senator Hatch and Attorney General Shurtleff who understand just how imperiled and vulnerable the right to a secret ballot is. We applaud their leadership in making this issue a top priority and look forward to working with them to make sure Utahans never have to fear losing their right to a secret ballot. While Utah is the first state, it will soon be joined by other states in giving voters the right to protect the secret ballot. We won in Utah because voters want secret ballots protected. We will win in a dozen or more states this election cycle because voters are appalled that Congress would acquiesce to the extreme demands of Union bosses and threaten the right to a secret ballot."
Similar efforts have been launched by SOS Ballot in Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota with additional states soon to be announced. The 47-word amendment says:
"The right of individuals to vote by secret ballot is fundamental. Where state or federal law requires elections for public office or public votes on initiatives or referenda, or designations or authorizations of employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed."
Utah Governor John Huntsman extended his support to HJR 8 with the following statement:
"It is ever important for Utahans to have the right to vote their conscience in areas that are critical to their democratic representation and the representation within their employment without the fear of retribution or persecution. This constitutional amendment would ensure that individuals will be constitutionally guaranteed the right to a secret ballot for these types of important election. This issue is fundamental to our economic development efforts as a State and safeguards our State's long tradition of being a 'right to work' state Â- a position that is grounded in individual rights and freedoms," he continued.
Recent public opinion polls taken in the states where SOS Ballot has announced efforts show huge public support of 81% to 94%, with Union members even more supportive of the constitutional guarantee for a secret ballot than non-union members.
The secret ballot was used locally as an act of post-Civil war southern reconstruction, first as a way to impose a literacy requirement on newly freed slaves. But the secret ballot also protected mostly black voters who faced physical intimidation, even lynching, depending on how their vote was cast. Secret ballots were first used statewide in the Massachusetts governor's race 1888 and nationally in 1892 to elect President Grover Cleveland.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Monday, March 2, 2009
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Attorney General Eric Holder at the Jewish Council for Public Affairs Plenum
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following are remarks as prepared for delivery by Attorney General Eric Holder:
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to join you today. It's a pleasure to be here among friends.
For more than 60 years, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and its partner agencies have worked to build a more just society. But what's more, JCPA has played a vital role in promoting an interfaith policy dialogue. I applaud the work done by the JCPA to further that dialogue, to engage the public in constructive interfaith discourse, and to always -- always -- seek justice.
It's a special privilege for me to lead the Department of Justice at this moment in its history. My Department has many goals to which we aspire. However, nothing is more important to me than defending our nation and its citizens from acts of terrorism, and ensuring that our government abides by the letter and the spirit of our Constitution.
Some see a tension between these two goals. I - most emphatically - do not. As President Obama said in his inaugural address, there is no contradiction between our safety and our ideals. He correctly characterized it as a "false choice." Yes, we must do everything in our power to thwart the evil aims of those who would do us harm. But we must do so in a manner that preserves, protects, and defends the rights that are enshrined in our Constitution, and the rule of law itself.
There is no reason we cannot wage an effective fight against those who have sworn to harm us while we respect our most honored constitutional traditions. We can never put the welfare of the American people at risk but we can also never choose actions that we know will weaken the legal and moral fiber of our nation.
The rule of law is not, as some have seen it, an obstacle to be overcome, but the very foundation of our nation. It is the rule of law that has held us together despite our differences, while other nations have faltered, and it is the rule of law that has made the United States a beacon to the world, a nation that others aspire to emulate.
This is not to say that we have never strayed from our ideals - but we have always returned to them quickly. Some of our greatest presidents, including Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, made decisions in the midst of crisis that history has judged harshly. But the measure of our greatness as a nation is that we have always quickly righted our missteps, reevaluated our judgments, and corrected our policies.
During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus on eight separate occasions. By the end of the war, Lincoln had suspended the writ throughout the entire United States and authorized his military commanders to detain and imprison any person who was guilty of any "disloyal act or practice."
During World War II, in the months after Pearl Harbor, almost 120,000 individuals of Japanese descent, two-thirds of whom were American citizens, were ordered to leave their homes in California, Washington, Oregon, and Arizona and told to report to detention camps in which they were confined for some three years, surrounded by barbed wire and military police. No charges were ever brought against these men, women, and children. There were no hearings, no findings of sabotage, espionage, or disloyalty. They were ordered to bring only what they could carry. Most families lost everything, most importantly, their liberty.
Although the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the internment order, rejecting the proposition that it was infected by "racial prejudice," this decision has come to be regarded as a dark moment in American constitutional history. In a courageous dissenting opinion, Justice Frank Murphy described the Court's decision in Korematsu as the "legalization of racism." I do not relate this history in order to criticize, but because it can inform our understanding of the present and the challenges we currently face.
Once again, we are at a crucial juncture in the history of our country. We face a grave threat in the form of an enemy so bent on our destruction that they are willing to sacrifice their own lives in order to take the lives of innocent civilians. Accordingly, since September 11, 2001, there have been many changes made to the way our country seeks to protect itself, and we will continue to explore new ways to keep our fellow citizens safe from harm. But we will ensure that all of the measures we take - new and old - are consistent with the principles and values that have made our nation strong for more than 200 years.
There is no doubt that the challenges before us are extraordinary. But we will not be ruled by fear. We will face the challenges before us without diminishing our respect for the rule of law. We will guard our rights and freedoms while protecting our national security, and by doing so repair our standing in the world and regain the trust of our friends and allies.
As you know, within days of taking the oath of office, President Obama signed several executive orders related to the treatment of detainees and enemy combatants. The first of these executive orders calls for an immediate review of the status of all individuals currently being held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and orders the closure of that facility within one year.
This order establishes an interagency task force across all relevant Departments--including our government's foremost military and security experts--to assemble and examine relevant information, and to make recommendations regarding the proper disposition for each individual currently detained at Guantanamo Bay, including, in some cases, prosecution or transfer consistent with our national security and foreign policy interests.
Last week, I visited Guantanamo Bay and toured the facility. My trip reinforced my belief that while closing the detention center will be no easy task, it is one that must be done. The closure of Guantanamo has come to symbolize - to our citizens and to our global partners - the depth of our commitment to the rule of law. This is why President Obama and I believe that ultimately, closing Guantanamo will make us safer and stronger.
The review process begun by the President's executive order is already underway. Early last week, the interagency panel reviewed the case of Binyam Mohammed and determined that his transfer, pursuant to an arrangement between the United States and the United Kingdom, was consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and in the interests of Justice.
The President also ordered an interagency task force to consider the detention of Ali al-Marri. And as many of you know, on Friday, a federal grand jury in the Central District of Illinois returned a two-count indictment charging al-Marri with providing material support to al-Qaeda and conspiring with others to provide material support to al-Qaeda. As I said then, the Department of Justice is resolved to protect the American people in a manner consistent with our values and to prosecute alleged terrorists to the full extent of the law. The President has made it clear - and I couldn't agree with him more strongly - that we will hold accountable anyone who attempts to harm Americans.
Another of the President's national security executive orders employs an interagency task force to study options for managing the custody of individuals apprehended in connection with terrorist activities. It is our responsibility to find a solution to this issue that employs the rule of law instead of circumventing it. In developing this solution, the task force will engage Members of Congress, the military, the intelligence community, and others who share the interest of confronting this challenge.
In the process of implementing these executive orders and formulating our policy priorities, the Department of Justice is examining all of our anti-terrorism policies to help define how we confront global terrorism in the years to come. We are certain that there is room for improvement, and we are committed to ensuring that we create a system that is strongly rooted in American values.
While many practices will be subject to review under these executive orders, one in particular will not. As I unequivocally stated in my confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate, waterboarding is torture. My Justice Department will not justify it, rationalize it, or condone it. The sanction of torture is at odds with the history of American jurisprudence and American principles. It undermines our ability to pursue justice fairly, and it puts our own brave soldiers in peril should they ever be captured on a foreign battlefield.
Some have compared the Cold War - which President Kennedy called "our long twilight struggle" - to our current struggle against terrorism. In many ways, this is an apt comparison. The Cold War did not end on a traditional battlefield, and neither will our fight against terrorism. But the comparison is even more compelling because both struggles are ones in which values - ideals and morals - are as important as military strength. As the President has made clear, winning the war on terrorism requires winning the hearts and minds of people around the world. Engaging those hearts and minds is dependent upon our ability to show the world that the United States will once again be a force for positive change in the lives of people across the globe. We must accomplish that goal by setting an example with our ideals, and by rebuilding our partnerships with our allies. We cannot ask other nations to stand by us in a pursuit of justice if we are not viewed as being in pursuit of that ideal ourselves.
I have no doubt that our devotion to this country's founding principles - and to the rule of law - are strong enough to withstand the challenges we face, as they have withstood so many challenges before. History teaches us that the rule of law and our stature in the world are inextricably linked. From the trials at Nuremburg to our victory in the Cold War, our respect for the rule of law has been a powerful tool for promoting our national interest on the international stage. To continue our leading role on that stage, we must adhere to our country's core principles and to its most treasured values. This is our nation's challenge.
Too often over the past decade, the fight against terrorism has been viewed as a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties. Not only is that school of thought misguided, I fear that in actuality it does more harm than good. I have often said that the test of a great nation is whether it will adhere to its core values not only when it is easy, but also when it is hard. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I have every confidence that we will pass that test. With the support and guidance of Americans like you, no difficulties, no challenges, and no hurdles will deter us from our solemn responsibility to protect our people while we also protect our principles.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to join you today. It's a pleasure to be here among friends.
For more than 60 years, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and its partner agencies have worked to build a more just society. But what's more, JCPA has played a vital role in promoting an interfaith policy dialogue. I applaud the work done by the JCPA to further that dialogue, to engage the public in constructive interfaith discourse, and to always -- always -- seek justice.
It's a special privilege for me to lead the Department of Justice at this moment in its history. My Department has many goals to which we aspire. However, nothing is more important to me than defending our nation and its citizens from acts of terrorism, and ensuring that our government abides by the letter and the spirit of our Constitution.
Some see a tension between these two goals. I - most emphatically - do not. As President Obama said in his inaugural address, there is no contradiction between our safety and our ideals. He correctly characterized it as a "false choice." Yes, we must do everything in our power to thwart the evil aims of those who would do us harm. But we must do so in a manner that preserves, protects, and defends the rights that are enshrined in our Constitution, and the rule of law itself.
There is no reason we cannot wage an effective fight against those who have sworn to harm us while we respect our most honored constitutional traditions. We can never put the welfare of the American people at risk but we can also never choose actions that we know will weaken the legal and moral fiber of our nation.
The rule of law is not, as some have seen it, an obstacle to be overcome, but the very foundation of our nation. It is the rule of law that has held us together despite our differences, while other nations have faltered, and it is the rule of law that has made the United States a beacon to the world, a nation that others aspire to emulate.
This is not to say that we have never strayed from our ideals - but we have always returned to them quickly. Some of our greatest presidents, including Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, made decisions in the midst of crisis that history has judged harshly. But the measure of our greatness as a nation is that we have always quickly righted our missteps, reevaluated our judgments, and corrected our policies.
During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus on eight separate occasions. By the end of the war, Lincoln had suspended the writ throughout the entire United States and authorized his military commanders to detain and imprison any person who was guilty of any "disloyal act or practice."
During World War II, in the months after Pearl Harbor, almost 120,000 individuals of Japanese descent, two-thirds of whom were American citizens, were ordered to leave their homes in California, Washington, Oregon, and Arizona and told to report to detention camps in which they were confined for some three years, surrounded by barbed wire and military police. No charges were ever brought against these men, women, and children. There were no hearings, no findings of sabotage, espionage, or disloyalty. They were ordered to bring only what they could carry. Most families lost everything, most importantly, their liberty.
Although the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the internment order, rejecting the proposition that it was infected by "racial prejudice," this decision has come to be regarded as a dark moment in American constitutional history. In a courageous dissenting opinion, Justice Frank Murphy described the Court's decision in Korematsu as the "legalization of racism." I do not relate this history in order to criticize, but because it can inform our understanding of the present and the challenges we currently face.
Once again, we are at a crucial juncture in the history of our country. We face a grave threat in the form of an enemy so bent on our destruction that they are willing to sacrifice their own lives in order to take the lives of innocent civilians. Accordingly, since September 11, 2001, there have been many changes made to the way our country seeks to protect itself, and we will continue to explore new ways to keep our fellow citizens safe from harm. But we will ensure that all of the measures we take - new and old - are consistent with the principles and values that have made our nation strong for more than 200 years.
There is no doubt that the challenges before us are extraordinary. But we will not be ruled by fear. We will face the challenges before us without diminishing our respect for the rule of law. We will guard our rights and freedoms while protecting our national security, and by doing so repair our standing in the world and regain the trust of our friends and allies.
As you know, within days of taking the oath of office, President Obama signed several executive orders related to the treatment of detainees and enemy combatants. The first of these executive orders calls for an immediate review of the status of all individuals currently being held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and orders the closure of that facility within one year.
This order establishes an interagency task force across all relevant Departments--including our government's foremost military and security experts--to assemble and examine relevant information, and to make recommendations regarding the proper disposition for each individual currently detained at Guantanamo Bay, including, in some cases, prosecution or transfer consistent with our national security and foreign policy interests.
Last week, I visited Guantanamo Bay and toured the facility. My trip reinforced my belief that while closing the detention center will be no easy task, it is one that must be done. The closure of Guantanamo has come to symbolize - to our citizens and to our global partners - the depth of our commitment to the rule of law. This is why President Obama and I believe that ultimately, closing Guantanamo will make us safer and stronger.
The review process begun by the President's executive order is already underway. Early last week, the interagency panel reviewed the case of Binyam Mohammed and determined that his transfer, pursuant to an arrangement between the United States and the United Kingdom, was consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and in the interests of Justice.
The President also ordered an interagency task force to consider the detention of Ali al-Marri. And as many of you know, on Friday, a federal grand jury in the Central District of Illinois returned a two-count indictment charging al-Marri with providing material support to al-Qaeda and conspiring with others to provide material support to al-Qaeda. As I said then, the Department of Justice is resolved to protect the American people in a manner consistent with our values and to prosecute alleged terrorists to the full extent of the law. The President has made it clear - and I couldn't agree with him more strongly - that we will hold accountable anyone who attempts to harm Americans.
Another of the President's national security executive orders employs an interagency task force to study options for managing the custody of individuals apprehended in connection with terrorist activities. It is our responsibility to find a solution to this issue that employs the rule of law instead of circumventing it. In developing this solution, the task force will engage Members of Congress, the military, the intelligence community, and others who share the interest of confronting this challenge.
In the process of implementing these executive orders and formulating our policy priorities, the Department of Justice is examining all of our anti-terrorism policies to help define how we confront global terrorism in the years to come. We are certain that there is room for improvement, and we are committed to ensuring that we create a system that is strongly rooted in American values.
While many practices will be subject to review under these executive orders, one in particular will not. As I unequivocally stated in my confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate, waterboarding is torture. My Justice Department will not justify it, rationalize it, or condone it. The sanction of torture is at odds with the history of American jurisprudence and American principles. It undermines our ability to pursue justice fairly, and it puts our own brave soldiers in peril should they ever be captured on a foreign battlefield.
Some have compared the Cold War - which President Kennedy called "our long twilight struggle" - to our current struggle against terrorism. In many ways, this is an apt comparison. The Cold War did not end on a traditional battlefield, and neither will our fight against terrorism. But the comparison is even more compelling because both struggles are ones in which values - ideals and morals - are as important as military strength. As the President has made clear, winning the war on terrorism requires winning the hearts and minds of people around the world. Engaging those hearts and minds is dependent upon our ability to show the world that the United States will once again be a force for positive change in the lives of people across the globe. We must accomplish that goal by setting an example with our ideals, and by rebuilding our partnerships with our allies. We cannot ask other nations to stand by us in a pursuit of justice if we are not viewed as being in pursuit of that ideal ourselves.
I have no doubt that our devotion to this country's founding principles - and to the rule of law - are strong enough to withstand the challenges we face, as they have withstood so many challenges before. History teaches us that the rule of law and our stature in the world are inextricably linked. From the trials at Nuremburg to our victory in the Cold War, our respect for the rule of law has been a powerful tool for promoting our national interest on the international stage. To continue our leading role on that stage, we must adhere to our country's core principles and to its most treasured values. This is our nation's challenge.
Too often over the past decade, the fight against terrorism has been viewed as a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties. Not only is that school of thought misguided, I fear that in actuality it does more harm than good. I have often said that the test of a great nation is whether it will adhere to its core values not only when it is easy, but also when it is hard. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I have every confidence that we will pass that test. With the support and guidance of Americans like you, no difficulties, no challenges, and no hurdles will deter us from our solemn responsibility to protect our people while we also protect our principles.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Treasury Secretary to Stop AIG Bailout Financing of Terrorist Activities
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A federal lawsuit was filed December 15 against U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. and the Federal Reserve Board to stop all bailout funds from going to American International Group, Inc. ("AIG"). According to the lawsuit, the U.S. government, through its ownership of AIG, is not only violating the Constitution, but also promoting and financing the destruction of America using American tax dollars.
The basis of the lawsuit is that AIG intentionally promotes Shariah-compliant businesses and insurance products, which by necessity must comply with the 1200 year old body of Islamic cannon law based on the Quran, which demands the conversion, subjugation, or destruction of the infidel West, including the United States. To help achieve these objectives and with the aid of federal tax dollars, AIG employs a three-person Shariah Advisory Board, with members from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Pakistan. According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority "is to review [its] operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and [its] investments."
Of particular significance is the Pakistani Board member, Dr. Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani. Dr. Usmani is the son and devoted disciple of Sheik Mufti Taqi Usmani, the leading authority on Shariah financing who, in 1999, authored a book dedicating an entire chapter on why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country - even if Muslims are given equality and freedom to practice their religion and to proselytize.
The lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of Kevin J. Murray, a former Marine infantryman who served two tours of duty in Iraq. Murray is represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and David Yerushalmi, an associated attorney who specializes in litigation and is an expert on Shariah law (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1105101) and Shariah compliant financing. Mr. Yerushalmi also serves as general counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C.
According to the lawsuit, use of taxpayer funds to acquire ownership of a business that intentionally promotes, endorses, supports, and funds Shariah-based Islamic religious practices violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, "This lawsuit not only raises significant constitutional issues, it also shines a light on serious national security issues that our own government has created by direct financial support and ownership of a business that supports anti-American, radical Islamic activities. Make no mistake, there is an internal cultural jihad underway against our great nation, and I fear that many of our political leaders are unwittingly complicit in it."
On September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists, guided by principles of Shariah-mandated jihad against "infidels," attacked and killed thousands of innocent American civilians. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. went on the offensive by engaging Islamic terrorists overseas in Iraq and in Afghanistan. As in the past when our Nation faced great crisis, American servicemen were called to action, and Kevin Murray answered the call. From March to October 2003, Murray - a U.S. Marine - was deployed overseas in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Yet today, Murray's federal tax dollars are being used to advance the very cause of global jihad he and his fellow servicemen were placed in harm's way to overcome. Shariah explicitly demands the murder of infidels like Kevin Murray and the destruction of the United States, which Murray took an oath to defend. Shariah is the same law that is used to justify beheadings, stonings, and amputation for petty crimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan, which Americans deplore.
Nevertheless, AIG acknowledges and boasts its promotion of Shariah law and Shariah-based business practices. AIG itself describes "Sharia" as "Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet [Mohammed]."
In further support of the federal government's endorsement of Shariah, the U.S. Treasury department co-sponsored a seminar in November of this year entitled "Islamic Financing 101" (http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/-AnnouncementonIslamicFinan ce.pdf) to promote Shariah financing among American institutions. The Seminar was jointly sponsored by Harvard University, one of the many American universities and colleges receiving millions of dollars from oil-producing countries to influence their Middle East programs, which are often staffed with professors who are anti-American, anti-Israeli, and pro-Islamic.
"It is clear," said Thompson, "oil money is purchasing the sovereignty of the United States and whatever loyalty to America these greedy financial institutions, corporations, and universities have left. It's up to the American people to take back their country from those who so easily betray its interests."
The federal lawsuit challenges that portion of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the United States government's majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that are anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-American.
According to the lawsuit, through the use of taxpayer funds, the U.S. government acquired a majority (79.9%) ownership interest in AIG, and as part of the bailout, Congress appropriated and expended an additional $40 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities. AIG, which is now a government owned company, engages in Shariah-compliant financing, which subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. This specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities.
An important element of Shariah-compliant financing is a form of obligatory charitable contribution called zakat, which is a religious tax for assisting those that "struggle [jihad] for Allah." The amount of this tax is between 2.5% and 20%, depending upon the source of the wealth. The zakat religious tax is used to financially support Islamic "charities," some of which have ties to terrorist organizations that are hostile to the United States and all other "infidels," which includes Christians and Jews.
The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, recently convicted for providing material support to Islamic terrorist organizations, is an example of an Islamic "charity" that qualifies for receipt of the zakat. Thus, as a direct consequence of the taxpayer funds appropriated and expended to purchase and financially support AIG, the U.S. government is now the owner of a corporation engaged in the business of collecting religious taxes to fund interests adverse to the United States, Christians, Jews, and all other "infidels" under Islamic law
Continued Thompson, "This lawsuit is as much about protecting constitutional principles as it is about protecting our national security and preventing another 9/11 - whether it be overt through flying planes into buildings or covert through appropriating taxpayer money to fund an Islamic cultural jihad."
The lawsuit seeks a court order to stop the taxpayer funding of AIG and its Islamic-based businesses and activities.
The Thomas More Law Center has been involved in several cases dealing with the insidious threat of radical Islam. Law Center attorney Robert Muise, who is handling this case involving AIG, is also one of the Law Center's attorneys defending LtCol Jeffrey Chessani, USMC, the senior officer charged in the so-called "Haditha Massacre" case. Those charges were dismissed by a military judge, and the government has appealed that ruling. Muise is also representing former Marine Jesse Nieto, whose anti-Islamic terrorism message was recently banned by military authorities at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune because of some unknown complaints.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America's Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
The basis of the lawsuit is that AIG intentionally promotes Shariah-compliant businesses and insurance products, which by necessity must comply with the 1200 year old body of Islamic cannon law based on the Quran, which demands the conversion, subjugation, or destruction of the infidel West, including the United States. To help achieve these objectives and with the aid of federal tax dollars, AIG employs a three-person Shariah Advisory Board, with members from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Pakistan. According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority "is to review [its] operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and [its] investments."
Of particular significance is the Pakistani Board member, Dr. Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani. Dr. Usmani is the son and devoted disciple of Sheik Mufti Taqi Usmani, the leading authority on Shariah financing who, in 1999, authored a book dedicating an entire chapter on why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country - even if Muslims are given equality and freedom to practice their religion and to proselytize.
The lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of Kevin J. Murray, a former Marine infantryman who served two tours of duty in Iraq. Murray is represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and David Yerushalmi, an associated attorney who specializes in litigation and is an expert on Shariah law (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1105101) and Shariah compliant financing. Mr. Yerushalmi also serves as general counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C.
According to the lawsuit, use of taxpayer funds to acquire ownership of a business that intentionally promotes, endorses, supports, and funds Shariah-based Islamic religious practices violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, "This lawsuit not only raises significant constitutional issues, it also shines a light on serious national security issues that our own government has created by direct financial support and ownership of a business that supports anti-American, radical Islamic activities. Make no mistake, there is an internal cultural jihad underway against our great nation, and I fear that many of our political leaders are unwittingly complicit in it."
On September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists, guided by principles of Shariah-mandated jihad against "infidels," attacked and killed thousands of innocent American civilians. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. went on the offensive by engaging Islamic terrorists overseas in Iraq and in Afghanistan. As in the past when our Nation faced great crisis, American servicemen were called to action, and Kevin Murray answered the call. From March to October 2003, Murray - a U.S. Marine - was deployed overseas in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Yet today, Murray's federal tax dollars are being used to advance the very cause of global jihad he and his fellow servicemen were placed in harm's way to overcome. Shariah explicitly demands the murder of infidels like Kevin Murray and the destruction of the United States, which Murray took an oath to defend. Shariah is the same law that is used to justify beheadings, stonings, and amputation for petty crimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan, which Americans deplore.
Nevertheless, AIG acknowledges and boasts its promotion of Shariah law and Shariah-based business practices. AIG itself describes "Sharia" as "Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet [Mohammed]."
In further support of the federal government's endorsement of Shariah, the U.S. Treasury department co-sponsored a seminar in November of this year entitled "Islamic Financing 101" (http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/-AnnouncementonIslamicFinan ce.pdf) to promote Shariah financing among American institutions. The Seminar was jointly sponsored by Harvard University, one of the many American universities and colleges receiving millions of dollars from oil-producing countries to influence their Middle East programs, which are often staffed with professors who are anti-American, anti-Israeli, and pro-Islamic.
"It is clear," said Thompson, "oil money is purchasing the sovereignty of the United States and whatever loyalty to America these greedy financial institutions, corporations, and universities have left. It's up to the American people to take back their country from those who so easily betray its interests."
The federal lawsuit challenges that portion of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the United States government's majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that are anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-American.
According to the lawsuit, through the use of taxpayer funds, the U.S. government acquired a majority (79.9%) ownership interest in AIG, and as part of the bailout, Congress appropriated and expended an additional $40 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities. AIG, which is now a government owned company, engages in Shariah-compliant financing, which subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. This specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities.
An important element of Shariah-compliant financing is a form of obligatory charitable contribution called zakat, which is a religious tax for assisting those that "struggle [jihad] for Allah." The amount of this tax is between 2.5% and 20%, depending upon the source of the wealth. The zakat religious tax is used to financially support Islamic "charities," some of which have ties to terrorist organizations that are hostile to the United States and all other "infidels," which includes Christians and Jews.
The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, recently convicted for providing material support to Islamic terrorist organizations, is an example of an Islamic "charity" that qualifies for receipt of the zakat. Thus, as a direct consequence of the taxpayer funds appropriated and expended to purchase and financially support AIG, the U.S. government is now the owner of a corporation engaged in the business of collecting religious taxes to fund interests adverse to the United States, Christians, Jews, and all other "infidels" under Islamic law
Continued Thompson, "This lawsuit is as much about protecting constitutional principles as it is about protecting our national security and preventing another 9/11 - whether it be overt through flying planes into buildings or covert through appropriating taxpayer money to fund an Islamic cultural jihad."
The lawsuit seeks a court order to stop the taxpayer funding of AIG and its Islamic-based businesses and activities.
The Thomas More Law Center has been involved in several cases dealing with the insidious threat of radical Islam. Law Center attorney Robert Muise, who is handling this case involving AIG, is also one of the Law Center's attorneys defending LtCol Jeffrey Chessani, USMC, the senior officer charged in the so-called "Haditha Massacre" case. Those charges were dismissed by a military judge, and the government has appealed that ruling. Muise is also representing former Marine Jesse Nieto, whose anti-Islamic terrorism message was recently banned by military authorities at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune because of some unknown complaints.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America's Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)