Does it get any more bizarre than this?
The steady implementation of Islamic sharia law in the United States
is a fascinating, complex and deeply disturbing topic of which most Americans
are blissfully unaware. This post focuses only on the case of how the American
taxpayer has been duped into supporting a system of "laws" that are
incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.
Sharia is:
“a wide-ranging body
of law and personal rules, regulating matters of jurisprudence, hygiene,
politics, business, banking, family, sexuality, diet, and society. It is meant
to serve as the governing principle both within the Muslim world and for
Muslims living outside it”.
It is obviously incompatible with Western style democracy.
Limited “NO-GO” zones have been implemented in western European countries where
sharia law governs every aspect of society including criminal cases, trials and
punishments. These areas were established under the threat of terrorism.
Needless to say, there are many cases of problems. There has even been an
Islamic “Court” established in Texas,
the “Heartland of American Conservatism.” [1]
The largest supplier of Sharia Compliant insurance products
is, yes, AIG. With the Federal Governments assumption of 77.9% of AIG, the
American Taxpayer, through the evil Troubled Asset Relief Program, has been
placed in the curious position of supporting a way of life (Sharia)’ that is demonstrably incompatible
with our Constitution, government and way-of-life. Since AIG is not required to
account for the TARP money it is entirely possible that some American Taxpayer
money has been used to support terrorism and attacks on our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is possible, perhaps even likely,
because Sharia requires some funds to be “cleansed”. One way to “cleanse” money
is to funnel it to organizations engaged in jihad. Sharia also requires a “tax”
of up to 20%. This tax is also used for, among other things, the support of
Jihad.
Fortunately, but maybe a matter of too-little-too-late, a
lawsuit has been filed challenging this unholy alliance. The lawsuit, Murray v. Geithner et al., was brought against the Federal
Reserve and the Treasury by the Thomas
More Law Center on behalf of Kevin Murray, a former Marine who served
honorably in Iraq to defend
the United States
from Islamic terrorists. President Obama’s Justice Department sought to have
the lawsuit dismissed on the technical grounds that the plaintiff did not have
standing. Again, fortunately, the
government (our government, isn’t
this bizarre?) motion was not granted. In denying the government’s motion,
Judge Zatkoff wrote;
Pursuant to the EESA,
the government has injected AIG with tens of billions of dollars, without
restricting or tracking how this considerable sum of money is spent. At least
two of AIG’s subsidiary companies practice Sharia-compliant financing, one of
which was unveiled after the influx of government cash. After using the $40
billion from the government to pay down the $85 billion credit facility, the
credit facility retained $60 billion in available credit, suggesting that AIG
did not use all $40 billion consistent with its press release. Finally, after
the government acquired a majority interest in AIG and contributed substantial
funds to AIG for operational purposes, the government co-sponsored a forum
entitled “Islamic Finance 101.” These facts, taken together, raise a question
of whether the government’s involvement with AIG has created the effect of
promoting religion and sufficiently raise Plaintiff’s claim beyond the
speculative level, warranting dismissal inappropriate at this stage in the
proceedings.
Congresspersons Frank Wolf and Sue Myrick have also taken
AIG to task over this topic:
".. your touting
of Shariah finance is much like your marketing and promotion of subprime loans.
Many in the financial industry believed subprime loans were a great way to make
money and would cause no harm. Do not make the same mistake by supporting shariah
finance, because, as we have stated, there are far more dire
consequences."
"You may defend
your decision to offer Shariah products and will probably state that they have
no real ties to Shariah Law, and therefore, pose no threat. You are wrong.
"
- Letter from Congresspersons Frank Wolf and Sue Myrick to
AIG CEO Edward Liddy, December 8,2008
Even individuals adamantly opposed to getting involved with
anything political should follow this topic because it has the potential to
affect our lives in ways we have never dreamed.
CASE UPDATE (June 1, 2012): The Sixth Circuit rules
that Murray lacks
standing to challenge the federal government's use of taxpayer funds to support
sharia. Read the opinion here.
Read more about opinion here.
CASE UPDATE (June 15, 2012): AFLC files petition for
review asking the full court of the Sixth Circuit to review the decision
rendered by a three-judge panel. Read petition here.
CASE UPDATE (July 12, 2012): The Sixth Circuit denied
our petition for full court review of the decision rendered by a three-judge
panel which held that a federal taxpayer lacked "standing" to
challenge the constitutionality of the federal government's use of taxpayer
funds to support sharia. We are now working to take this case to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
CASE UPDATE: (October 10, 2012): AFLC filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, asking
the Court to review the appellate court decision which held that a federal
taxpayer lacked “standing” to challenge the constitutionality of the federal
government’s use of taxpayer funds to support sharia. You can read the
petitition here.
[1] The
Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas, Ft Worth, has granted a
ruling to The Texas
Islamic Court to enforce rulings. This means the State of Texas is obligated to
enforce decisions made by Islamic clerics or advisors.
