SANE's Email Update for Free Subscribers: Vol. 6; No. 1

Sane Email Update Vol. 6. No. 1                                                                                                            January 13, 2010 

Dear SANE Subscriber, Member, or Friend:

Welcome!

***

We have a new development in SANE’s effort to counter the convergence between the Western Elite who would destroy national existence for a transnational or even supranational world order on the one hand, and the Shariah-driven Muslim mujahideen fighting and “striving” for a world order of their own—the Caliphate. The convergence between these two very real forces is personified in the current administration’s domestic and foreign policies.

The SANE Board of Trustees has just recently authorized a more invigorated and focused legal assault on both of these fronts by establishing a public interest law firm in association with the Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. As it is, Mr. Yerushalmi has dedicated a huge portion of his firm’s resources to these legal battles pro bono. A list of just the most recent work is impressive: 

• Murray v. Geithner et al. (U.S. District Court, E.D. MI): Lawsuit against the Treasury and Fed challenging its takeover of AIG on the grounds that tax payer funds are going directly to support Shariah in the form of AIG’s Shariah-compliant insurance businesses. 

• Lopez et al v. CAIR/Saiyed v. CAIR (U.S. District Court, D.C.): Now three separate fraud-racketeering cases against the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Hamas-Muslim Brotherhood front group operating in the U.S. as a fund raising arm for global jihad.  

• Stop the Madrassa v. Almontaser (NY App. Div. 2^nd Dept.): Defamation action by NY grass roots community coalition suing the former principal of a NY “Arab language and culture” public school, who sought to silence the school’s critics with false allegations of criminal behavior. The school Almontaser designed was in effect a CAIR-Muslim Brotherhood incubator. 

• Representing former CIA agent and now Iranian expert researcher against subpoena issued by agents of the Iranian government.  

• Representing Customs and Border Protections Officer in whistleblower disclosures when Obama administration issues policy directives for officers not to connect the terror dots.  

• Representing local law enforcement first responders throughout the U.S. when sued or charged with Islamaphobia by Muslim Brotherhood allies within and without their agencies. 

• Representing several policy think tanks when confronted with threatened legal action by groups aligned with Leftists and Muslim Brotherhood organizations.  

In the coming editions of the SANE Email Update, we will develop this idea of SANE as the first public interest law firm with the distinct focus on national existence and the battle against the convergence of the Elite and the Shariah-faithful. In the meantime, following is a press release on the most recent lawsuits filed against CAIR:

***

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 

Muslim Group CAIR Sued Yet Again by Former Clients for  Fraud & Breach of Fiduciary Duties 

For more information:
Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C.
ContactYerushalmiLaw@verizon.net
www.davidyerushalmilaw.com

SANE's Email Update for Free Subscribers: Vol. 5; No. 5

Dear SANE Subscriber, Member, or Friend:

Welcome!

***

We are in the midst of putting together our December Email Update, but we thought we’d send out now this recently posted oped (at National Review’s Corner blog) on the implications of the financial meltdown of Dubai World. The posting, by SANE’s David Yerushalmi, discusses the convergence of interests between the Shariah-faithful financial jihadists, the oil-soaked royal families in the Persian Gulf, and the “Western facilitators”, meaning the banks and their professional lackeys—the lawyers and accountants that make it all possible—and, lest we forget, the government policy makers and technocrats who endorse this dangerous tool of the financial jihad by engaging in a studied form of willful blindness.

The Threat of Shariah-Compliant Finance    [David Yerushalmi]

News of the financial meltdown of Dubai World — a quasi-sovereign global concern that owns 77 percent of the international port manager DP World and is the single largest real-estate developer in Dubai, which is known for its palm-tree-shaped luxury residential developments — has raced from the business pages to the headlines of the front pages in a matter of days. Since the first reports on Thanksgiving, the Wall Street Journal and just about every other major media outlet are now reporting on the worldwide implications of this latest financial shockwave.

What makes this story more than simply one of a massive real-estate-investment company gone bad is the double-edged sword so prevalent in the chase for oil-based Middle East wealth: sovereign wealth funds and Shariah-compliant finance.

Beginning in the 1970s with the Carter-era oil crisis and accelerating during the post-9/11 oil-price spikes, Persian Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E.’s wealthiest city-state of Abu Dhabi have been awash in liquidity. These trillion-dollar cash reserves are controlled in every case by the respective royal families, typically in sovereign or quasi-sovereign wealth funds.

Another phenomenon that followed the great Oil Rush of the post-9/11 era was the promotion and aggressive exportation of a Muslim Brotherhood doctrine called Shariah-compliant finance (SCF). SCF or “Islamic finance” was first articulated in the mid-20th century by men like Sayyid Qutb of Egypt and Abul Ala Maududi of Pakistan, both of whom argued for a jihad against Westernization and for the creation of Islamic polities that would ultimately join in a hegemonic global Caliphate, with the goal of establishing Shariah not merely as the supreme law of the land, but as the supreme law of the world.

In the post-9/11 era, Western imams and their infidel advisors in business suits speaking the Queen’s English have understood that, given the global jihad’s reliance on the dictates of Shariah to murder apostates and terrorize the infidels into submission, SCF must be attired in a kind of progressive Western garb to attract the attention of the financial centers in London, Hong Kong, and New York. So it was that SCF became known as “Ethical Investing” and Western and Muslim financiers began lecturing the world that fraud and abuse in the financial markets were driven by the desire for forbidden gain through interest and gambling. They told us that SCF was based not on forbidden interest and speculative paper assets, but on profits acquired through equity participation and sound investing in real assets.

Dubai World, a company wholly owned by the Dubai sovereign, has funded itself through debt to the tune of $60 billion. The Dubai debt now in default just happens to be Shariah-compliant bonds (or “sukuk”). These bonds pay interest just like their forbidden cousins in the Western markets, but the interest is put into the black box of Shariah-created fictions and “special purpose vehicles” to keep the forbidden interest off the books. What we now see as a real-estate-bubble collapse in Dubai is no different and no more or less ethical than any other financial failure. But what makes this collapse so problematic is precisely what makes SCF and sovereign wealth funds so dangerous.

To understand the rather opaque world of Islamic finance, one must understand the players. Since its founding, the modern SCF world has been driven by essentially two groups. The first we can label the Shariah fundamentalists. They come in the form of the fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood “political Islamists” operating principally in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia. These Shariah-inspired financiers understand SCF as “financial jihad” — indeed, as part of a larger stealth campaign to institutionalize Shariah in the West.

What makes this institutionalization a bit tricky is that the financial jihadists must convince the Western financiers and their governmental counterparts that Shariah-inspired finance is somehow distinct from Shariah-inspired global jihad against the infidel West. In other words, how do you export a financial model among infidels when that model is built upon a doctrine that manifestly calls for the death and destruction of the infidels and their political and social systems? The answer to this quandary is found in the second group of SCF advocates: the Western facilitators.

The financial jihadists built their strategy upon both sovereign wealth and the cravenness and fecklessness of the Western facilitators who would sell their own well-being and physical security for a place among the Fortune 500. Led by the Saudis but also joined by the other oil-soaked Persian Gulf regimes, the Shariah-inspired jihadists learned quickly that Western financial institutions and their professional lackeys in the legal and accounting fields would do anything for that next billion-dollar transaction.

Greed, self-indulgence, and even treason are of course not new to the international banking and multinational corporate worlds. But what the Shariah advocates have found even more to their liking is the fact that the Western technocrats and government policymakers have been more than willing to ignore Shariah’s call for global jihad and its resonance as the common doctrine articulated by jihadists around the globe.

The result has been the perfect convergence of (1) Western financial markets in dire need of liquidity, (2) the liquidity available in the sovereign wealth funds of the Shariah faithful, and (3) the willful blindness of Western governments.

— David Yerushalmi is an attorney specializing in litigation and general counsel to the Center for Security Policy, a Washington think tank specializing in national security.

***

As always, those of us at the Society of Americans for National Existence continue our focus:

To strengthen America’s national existence by probing a new and deeper discussion of the issues others fear or just avoid. We are convinced that with integrity of purpose and thought, graced with civility, the SANE message will pierce the fog that lies heavy on the ground.

All the best,

SANE Staff

Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE)^(sm)

We note that since the publication of the Muslim Mafia by Paul Sperry and Dave Gaubatz, we have had many visitors trying to figure out what SANE is or is not because CAIR has attempted to discredit Dave Gaubatz by discrediting SANE. Below is our explanation.

Initially, what you will read below was published before SANE became a members-only website. If you read below to the SANE email Update, Vol. 5, No. 1, you will gain some understanding of our purposes. We are re-publishing this statement of truth now because CAIR is attempting, in typical fashion, to discredit the recently published WND book entitled Muslim Mafia by discrediting one of its co-authors Dave Gaubatz.

Now, in our view Mr. Gaubatz is an American patriot. He has served his country his entire adult life, either in uniform or out. Whether you agree with everything he says or does is besides this point. Few men can match his dedication. 

CAIR attacks Mr. Gaubatz by suggesting that SANE, for whom Mr. Gaubatz worked as director of the Mapping Shariah project for several years (his contract ended more than a year ago), is a "racist organization". CAIR then marches out some quotes, some of which are simply falsely attributed to SANE, some of which don't even exist, and most of which have been kidnapped from context and raped of any meaning. But anyone who knows anything about CAIR, including its Muslim clients, knows this to be their modus operandi. CAIR is a criminal organization. You may read below our more specific responses to the CAIR lies and deceptions.

______________________________  

Some of the visitors to this site come by way of CAIR press releases attacking SANE, David Yerushalmi, or our Mapping Shariah project. Others come here by way of a dozen or so other pro-Shariah or dhimmi Elite web sites which regurgitate CAIR's talking points. Some few come via a Far Left pseudo-Jewish site called Tikun Olam which also employs ad hominem argument rather than substance.

The approach used in these attacks is to quote literally a word or phrase or in some cases a provocative query in a long analytical piece that examines the hard reality of facts but to quote it in such a way as to suggest some demonic (i.e., racist) agenda on the part of SANE and its participants.

(Other smear approaches include: (1) making up quotes and not providing an actual link to the SANE site; (2) simply supplying the title and link to a long article, such as "On Race: a Tentative Discussion", to suggest that it must be "racist" and betting on the fact that most cyberspace drive-bys will never take the time to read the article much less attempt to study it at any level of seriousness; and (3) linking to articles by others that have been posted on other websites in David Yerushalmi's name--we're not sure if the spurious attributions have been deliberate or not because we haven't bothered to track them all down and read them. We ignore these smear tactics because they are facially juvenile.)

Here we go through some, but not all, of the representative samples of the more "substantive" critiques:

[1] The name: Society of Americans for National Existence. By just mentioning the word "national" in some positive way, the Elite respond by immediately crying out as if that were a demonstration that one advocates fascism. The argument: because some of the 20th century fascists have called themselves "national socialists" or would emphasize national interests as their calling card, anyone who advocates "national" as opposed to "human" interests is a fascist. Little needs to be said here since in fact most fascists are not true advocates of national existence and sovereignty but rather seek global hegemony well beyond "national" identity. This was true of Hitler's ultimate  designs and certainly true of Marxist-fascist regimes such as the Soviet Union. National existence or the advocacy of such is not an "ism" as in nationalism. It is a statement about how men live in political society--that is, about political order. It is about discriminating between a distinct people and others.

Now, it is absolutely the case that the Elite and the Shariah faithful abhor national existence--viz., the distinction between a nation and others. They both seek a worldwide political order where each man is a citizen of the "human race". They both understand, by necessity, man reduced to indiscriminate matter. The former understand man nullified and wholly subsumed within and to "scientific facts" and the latter to Allah's Shariah.

[2] From SANE's Mission Statement:

America was the handiwork of faithful Christians, mostly men, and almost entirely white, who ventured from Europe to create a nation in their image of a country existing as free men under G-d. This constellation of forces existed no where else in the world and resulted in a unique people and nation.

This reference to historical fact is often used to prove "racism". The reason this type of argument is successful is that almost any reference to the historical founding that emphasizes the particularity of the people who came to these shores with dreams of a new and different political order contradicts the absolute narrative imposed by the Elites and exploited by the Shariah faithful following the CAIR line of attack. This narrative allows one only to speak of non-peoplehood dressed up in talk of "multi-culturalism" and "pluralism". If you do mention White or Christian, it must be in a denigrating way. Thus, beginning in the 1960s and continuing to this day, the Bill Ayers-Noam Chomsky genre on university campuses never tires of speaking about how America is grounded in the White Christian racist, imperialist, colonialist agenda. The Muslim Brotherhood types like Edward Said of Columbia University exploited this narrative to attack non-Muslim academics who dared to even attempt to study what Shariah and Islam say about the world.

But, the quite obvious question must be asked: had the pioneers who came to this continent not been who they were, in particular White European Christians, would they have developed a constitutional republic resembling America? If one were to argue in the affirmative, we'd like to hear that argument made outside a comedy routine. But more to the point, the argument that historical fact is a cover for racism renders speech utterly incoherent and the refuge of totalitarian race-baiters who seek nothing less than the demise of meaningful political speech.

[3] Referencing the black subculture of violence, drugs, and the abuse of women is forbidden. In an earlier article (also published by the American Thinker in only slightly modified form), we point to statistics collected by the Department of Justice and reported by the New York Times indicating that blacks in NYC are 2.5 times more over represented as murderers than any other race and their victims are more likely to be black. Pointing to this statistic and asking hard questions about the source of this violence is similarly "racist" UNLESS you blame the White majority culture and identify institutionalized racism and poverty as the cause. We pointed out in our earlier article that while Latinos in NYC are more likely to live in poverty than blacks, the Latino murder rate mirrors their overall representation in the population. That of course suggests something other than simple poverty at work. Now, we certainly will not discount the impact of slavery on African Americans or even colonialism on the African continent to explain in part the violence of this sub-culture but that suggests issues of intractability that the Elite glibly ignore when they devise "social policies" such as affirmative action and welfare programs to "fix" the problem.

We note here as we did in our article that black Americans who have raised this same issue, such as Bill Cosby, have been excoriated by the Elite as well but not labeled racist since that epitaph is reserved for any one who is not "of color" who dares to raise these issues. Once again we find that the representation of fact is rendered an indictment for "racism", rendering language the exclusive tool of race-baiting scoundrels.

[4] The Founding Fathers purposefully limited the political franchise to a subset of the overall adult population. In several articles we asked the question why that was. It certainly was not, in their estimation, a mistake or an oversight. These men were brilliant political theorists who came together to author our founding documents and to create a social and political culture which developed into the greatest nation of modern times. This forces the question what it is the Founders sought to institutionalize by allowing such a limitation to the most important aspect of representative government. The modern narrative is that these men were flawed in the extreme and the great founding political error limiting the franchise in the way it did can be explained by the fact that the Founders were racists, bigots, and misogynists. But this narrative does not even bother to ask whether America could have come to exist or survive if modern notions of "democracy" as a kind of constant plebiscite among peoples with no common culture or worldview had existed at the time. Might it be worth asking if these men understood there to be an importance -- either in fact or in political theory -- to this discriminating limitation? But alas, to even ask this question is to suggest, at least by implication, that there might have been good reasons for such limitations. That, in today's politicized environment, is enough to indict even the best men.

[5] Finally, SANE's Immigration Proposal, which we have reposted below, in its original form called for outlawing Islam but it specifically defined Islam for purposes of the proposal as synonymous with Shariah, the Islamic law doctrine which seeks an Islamic worldwide political order predicated upon Shariah as constitutional and the use of violence and murder to achieve that end. In the various CAIR and CAIR-like attacks, this definitional limitation was ignored and the proposal was quoted out of context to suggest that we proposed outlawing Islam when worshipped as a personal, pietistic and quite peaceful relationship with Gd sans Shariah. Even though this malicious absurdity should have been dismissed by most, we have decided to be prudent rather than just morally and intellectually correct. We have since moved the definition up to the actual substantive provisions to avoid this version of cyberspace vandalism.

If someone wishes to take issue with our understanding of Shariah, which is effectively sedition when advocated from within our borders and an act of war from without, that is fine. We will take up that argument quite readily. But to argue that discriminating between legitimate religious expression and worship on the one hand and a violent doctrine seeking our destruction on the other is "racist" or "Islamophobic" is absurd in the extreme and deserves no more attention than we pay it here.

With this we conclude this defense of our purposes and ultimate mission in the context of race-baiting slurs by the enemies of America as a distinct nation and people. Reasonable visitors to this site and others who come across the dishonest diatribes of our critics will certainly have enough to discern for themselves the value of our analysis and the provocative nature (meaning contrary to the PC narrative) of our inquiries.

SANE's Email Update for Free Subscribers: Vol. 5; No. 4

Dear SANE Subscriber, Member, or Friend: 

***

We begin by referencing War Strategy 101or “Relearning the Art of War,” by SANE’s Col. Thomas Snodgrass (USAF retired). This is an essay we published at SANE almost a year ago. The fundamentals elucidated in this essay are essential for anyone seeking to properly assess “counterinsurgency” as war strategy. We have reposted this essay at the public portion of the SANE Works for US log-in page (scroll down below the posted Email Updates).

Once you’ve digested the basics, we would recommend two shorter essays by Col. Snodgrass dealing directly with the Afghan war effort. Both essays have been published at the American Thinker (as well as in SANE’s membership library) and are available by following these links:

• Can We Find Clarity in the Afghan Strategy Debate?
• Is Counterinsurgency a Viable Strategy for America?

We would also recommend Andy McCarthy’s piece on the subject: This Mission is not McChrystal Clear.

Not surprisingly, the pro-counterinsurgency-Limited War theorists have already gone on the counteroffensive against Andy, including this one by Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute. We will respond to Kagan in full in our next edition but in the meantime we can say this: Counterinsurgency in Iraq has not succeeded. What it has done is to create conditions where it might succeed IF BUT ONLY IF (1) we cut off the Iranian and Syrian supply chains (which we have been unwilling to do because that would require attacking Tehran and Damascus) and (2) we were prepared to remain in Iraq taking casualties at least another decade.

That is, “orthodox” counterinsurgency theory (including the Petraeus-McChrystal version) is based upon a seven to twelve year horizon precisely because nation building is not easy. Add Shariah-Islam’s hostility to infidels occupying dar al-Islam and you have an almost impossible task with an absolutely unknown horizon.

Do the Kagan’s of the world actually expect Iran not to re-assert itself in Iraq the moment our battle-ready forces exit? Does Iraq not present Iran with the perfect theatre to control the West? Will there not be a direct relationship between Iranian-sponsored insurgency in Iraq with Western pressure on Iran’s nuclear program? Thoughts to the contrary are simply sand castles of blind faith constructed from President George W. Bush’s foreign policy and war doctrine: All men, everywhere, at all times desire liberty and free markets. The problem we should recognize by now is that this is not even true any more in the West much less in the Muslim Near East.

SANE's Email Update for Free Subscribers: Vol. 5; No. 3

Dear SANE Subscriber, Member, or Friend:

Welcome!

***

Last week in the SANE Email Update we delved into the question why liberals, conservatives, and independents are all progressives at heart. If you would like to go back and review that analysis, we have posted it at the SANE Works for US web site log in page. This week we highlight an essay by David Yerushalmi discussing the latest assault on this country’s longest-standing Judeo-Christian institution. It follows.

***

The legal dynamic duo of Ted Olson and David Boies have made the news and the talk-show rounds promoting their lawsuit on behalf of gay marriage. Olson, a conservative Republican former Solicitor General, and Boies, a liberal Democrat who is known as a litigator’s litigator, were once adversaries locked in the epic battle over Florida chads, which ultimately played out in the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. Now, the two men have joined forces to beat back the gay-bashing Christian hordes in California who dared to amend the state constitution to insist that marriage should be preserved as a union between one man and one woman.

The dynamic duo’s legal case, laid out in interviews and various op-ed essays, notably by Boies in a July 20^th oped in the Wall Street Journal, is based on a three-tiered argument that begins at the level of social science, elevates itself to science proper, and then concludes at the moral level. Robert J. Loewenberg of the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies has termed this argument the Reciprocal. Meaning, if you can reduce the basis of a political discourse to science or mathematical symbol, you win because science permits no discrimination based upon value judgments. Alternatively, or reciprocally, if you reduce the argument to all that is not science, that is opinion or belief, you win as well since society may never discriminate between any two things once the differentiation is understood as unscientific. The dirty little secret of the Reciprocal is that nothing today is admitted to being anything but science or belief. In a word, the Reciprocal rules all. Point-game-match.

Thus, the first leg of the dynamic duo’s case for the constitutionality of gay marriage is that there is no “legitimate” policy to deny homosexuals the “fundamental right” to marry a same sex partner. By “legitimate” they mean rational, as in validated by data collected by social scientists. Proposition 8 in California, therefore, is illegitimate because there is no basis in social science to prohibit gay marriages. This reliance on social science as the poor cousin of the “hard” sciences is a respected argument in constitutional jurisprudence, but it has a difficult time standing fully on its own without some help from its more pedigreed hard science cousins. We will see this shoring up with hard science momentarily.

The specific social science argument in favor of gay marriage is that since gay unions have now been accepted as commonplace and we see no measurable (i.e., empirical) social, economic, or political harm in these unions, any moral argument against gay marriage is irrational. Even more specifically, since heterosexual marriage and family life is not affected deleteriously by granting homosexuals the same privilege, society’s bias in favor of opposite sex marriages that will produce naturally conceived children remains unharmed by eliminating any legal bias against homosexuals.

But, social science only goes so far, and the reason is that statistics applied to social phenomena are notoriously subject to manipulation. The Christian right often comes into court loaded with its own empirical-statistical evidence about the negative influence homosexual marriages will have on the children of these unions, typically adopted or artificially conceived. While the Christian social science advocates are at a distinct disadvantage since most social scientists with academic degrees will amass as a “consensus” in favor of the progressive no-harm side, the very hint that the social sciences are really nothing more than beliefs dressed up in empirical fact allows the ‘hard’ sciences to make an entry and rescue the argument from uncertainty.

The hard science argument in this case is based upon biology. Human sexuality is a fact of genetic composition, which in turn is a product of evolution. Even the age-old argument over homosexuality—nature or nurture or some combination thereof—has been denuded by evolutionary biology’s newest “discovery” that man like all matter is locked in an ever-evolving environmental process that precludes any rational person from claiming that evolved behavior X at time Y is somehow more moral or better in any scientific way than behavior not-X.

In the Journal op-ed authored by Boies, hard science’s shoring up is accomplished by declaring that even if homosexual marriage were in fact perceived by an overwhelming consensus in our society as a bad thing, homosexuality is a status determined by evolutionary biology and not subject to correction.

Once homosexuality has been turned into something akin to race (i.e., biological), all past discrimination becomes evil (meaning, scientifically irrational) and the legal argument, based upon 20^th century jurisprudence, has been converted from rational basis to compelling interest. Now the state must show that gay marriage threatened harm to a compelling state interest and that there was no other less discriminatory fix available to protect this interest. As you can well imagine, the compelling interest argument is one that a state rarely musters successfully.

Having moved the argument from the rationality of statistics in the social sciences to the compelling certainty of biology, the dynamic duo’s argument finally comes to rest on the other side of the Reciprocal—morality or belief. This tack grants that a large segment of American society views the world through a Christian (sometimes referred to as the Judeo-Christian) moral lens and that this group has a First Amendment right to cling to their belief. However, because religion is mere opinion or belief and lacks the certainty of science or even the rationality of the social sciences, it can never be the basis for a discriminating law.

The problem with this argument against morality-based legislation, however, was foreseen by Justice Anton Scalia when the Supreme Court first appeared to embrace it in Lawrence v. Texas. There the Court, with Justice Kennedy authoring the majority opinion, concluded that the state’s moral basis for prohibiting homosexuals from engaging in sodomy was not rational. Left unsaid, but certainly implied, is the conclusion that this morality legislation prohibiting homosexual sodomy was not supported by either the hard or soft sciences. Without that “objective” rational basis, morality alone is an arbitrary and uncertain basis to deny a man his liberty to engage in private consensual sex with the object of his choosing.

In his dissent, Justice Scalia described the societal dilemma this new a-moral jurisprudence presented:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bower’s [the Court’s earlier decision on anti-sodomy laws] validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.

In other words, America’s constitutional law is now understood to prohibit laws forbidding behavior touching upon sex or any other “fundamental liberty” on moral grounds. Morality standing alone is mere belief, uncertain, and as such irrational, or at least not rational. While Justice Scalia provided a list of horribles that may no longer be penalized, his own listing failed “to cabin the scope” of the Court’s almost full-throated embrace of the Reciprocal.

Given the Court’s rejection of morality standing alone as a valid basis for criminalizing what most would consider aberrant or even deviant sexual conduct, what does the future hold for the most “immoral” of sexual perversions, i.e., pedophilia?

A year before Lawrence, in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, the Court was comfortable assuming that sex with children was “abusive” and, as so defined, “an act repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people”. We must suppose, enlightened as we are by Lawrence, that what saves laws against pedophilia from being declared unconstitutional are not “the moral instincts of a decent people”, but rather the abusive nature inherent in the child-adult sexual relationship. Thus, social science can be employed to make the argument that children lack the maturity to consent to such behavior and that sex with a minor will result in substantial emotional harm to the child, which in turn will cause societal harm as the individual harm aggregates.

But the question must be asked: does science save us here? Is the Court right about the lack of mature consent necessarily constituting abuse, and is it inevitable or even probable that adult-child sex results in “empirical” harm to the child or to society?

Let’s begin with the consent issue. Do we as a society worry about a child’s inability to consent if adults wish to smile at the child? Do we worry about “consensual” waving at a child or playing peek-a-boo with an infant? Or, do we bother with consent issues when a parent convinces the child to brush her hair or to take a bath? No. And the reason we don’t is because none of these acts carry any “moral” opprobrium. They are what we might call morally neutral.

Similarly, a growing number of Americans don’t consider sex an act laden with moral overtones. Indeed, the atheist essayist Christopher Hitchens argues that Christian morality has destroyed man’s freedom to enjoy sex by imposing all sorts of religiously engendered taboos. So, why isn’t sex like washing your hands?

The answer, of course, is because our Judeo-Christian moral foundations say it is properly an intimate and essentially holy act to be vested in the divinely sanctioned institution of marriage between two adults of the opposite sex. Now, it is true that much of this Judeo-Christian foundation has eroded, but enough remains to inform us as a society that certain acts are “repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people”.

But, Muslims who follow their prophet Mohammed, who, according to Islamic sources married a six year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was but nine, find nothing wrong in forced marriages and therefore sexual relations with young prepubescent girls. The only reason Muslims would today find this behavior reprehensible is because they have absorbed Judeo-Christian standards (one reason to applaud colonialism).

Yet, Muslims are not alone in this rather approving attitude toward adult-child sex. In Japan, the national criminal code sets the age of consent at 13 (which is raised by law in certain local jurisdictions). So, there are certainly many people and societies who don’t view adult-child sex as “morally repugnant”. 

What this means, of course, is that as a society we are concerned about coercive consent in sexual relationships because we have labeled sex something other than brushing our teeth. By imposing our “religious” filter on the act, we have elevated “consent” to some moral high ground. Yet, if we were to remove the religious or subjective moral filter and rely upon science, any claim about the morality of pedophilia based upon the “moral instincts of a decent people” is on its face vacuous. Devoid of our unscientific “moral instinct” unique to a “decent people”—at least in our case that means the Judeo-Christian moral instinct—you can know nothing about the virtue or vice of pedophilia.

Indeed, if we move onto the second argument, which claims that there is a rational, empirical basis for a secular law against pedophilia, the logic is at best tentative and at worst circular. The tentative argument rests on a social science analysis of the individual and societal costs of such behavior. But, this means that if science can marshal enough empirical evidence to show that consensual, non-violent, adult-child sex is not harmful, the rational basis for such laws would evaporate. Indeed, social scientists have already gathered empirical evidence which suggests that child-adult sex at a young age, even in our current religiously-biased society, does not necessarily lead to subsequent trauma and this, the researchers argue, should lead to a more nuanced and scientifically enlightened approach. (See, Rind, B., Tromovitch, P. & Bauserman, R. (1998). “A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples”. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), pp. 22-53.)

But more than tentative, this argument turns out to be circular. What would happen if our society adopted the secular, scientific view of sex? That is, sex is not a divinely sanctioned act between a married man and woman but simply a biological urge to reproduce and play in the Darwinian arena of survival.

Arguably, the only reason adult-child sex might cause a child emotional or psychological harm is because our society starts with the Judeo-Christian premise about sex and such behavior. If children were taught by their guardians, peers, and society at large that sex was like brushing one’s teeth, how could they be traumatized by it? 

What this means to the secular “social science” adherent is that pedophilia is not morally wrong because that characterization is meaningless to science and wholly subjective and arbitrary as a social norm. Indeed, given the science-belief Reciprocal, we are but one vote away from embracing a moral positivism predicated upon science devoid of Judeo-Christian foundations. In this way, we (as in a majority) could merely agree (democratically of course) to treat sex of all types like brushing your teeth. It might not be something we’d do in public, but it certainly ought not to carry any moral opprobrium. A child who had sex at age 5 or 9 would be like a child who brushed her teeth at that age and of absolutely no concern to society (presumably it would still make sense to make it a crime to cause a child physical harm).

But alas, this whole discussion becomes absurd because no decent Jew or Christian would tolerate such a view of the world. And even those among us who reject such religious affiliations understand still today that child-sex is morally repugnant. But this is so because we as a people have embraced the Judeo-Christian moral compass even as so many mindlessly mouth objection to it.

Yet with each passing day, with each scientific advancement or “progress”, we lose sight of that compass. And, to remove that compass from us altogether—as the Court has done in Lawrence and as our dynamic duo suggests we do now with the institution of marriage—is to render our society no society at all but a mass of homogenous solitary particles of matter combining in endless but ultimately meaningless ways, bound only by the laws binding all matter, everywhere. And, as all political societies progress closer to this certainty of the science-opinion Reciprocal devoid of any common faith in transcendent truth, we move inexorably closer to the Reciprocal’s political articulation in the science-democracy one world order.

And, it is not hard to predict the future. Today, to speak in public of the moral abomination of homosexual conduct is to be set up for ridicule and, in some jurisdictions in Europe, possibly an indictment for hate-speech. But this was not always the case. Just a few years ago, it was a crime to engage in such behavior. As was the case with adultery and other such “moral offenses”. But in the science-democracy political order, we embrace “scientific advancement” as a measure of both time and social-political progress. In our new world order, we view technological advancement as human advancement simply. We have reduced “being” in human being to a historical ontology based upon the movement of matter. In a word, we have rid ourselves of what it means to be Man and replaced it with literally nothing.

__________________

David Yerushalmi is a trial attorney specializing in public policy and constitutional issues. He serves as General Counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., one of the nation’s leading national security think tanks founded by former Reagan administration official Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., and has been Of Counsel and Senior Legal Advisor for Policy Affairs to the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies (Potomac, Maryland) since 1988.

***

As always, those of us at the Society of Americans for National Existence continue our focus:

SANE's Email Update for Free Subscribers: Vol. 5; No. 1

Dear SANE Subscriber, Member, or Friend,

Welcome!

At our SANE Works for US web site, we have now completed our conversion from an “open source” journal on public policy (stage one), to an open source web log (stage two), and now to a members-only policy web log and knowledge base (stage three). Our data archives are loaded with mineral-rich and protein-packed essays and white papers. Many readers, numbering in the hundreds, have requested membership information. Consider this email a response if you haven’t received a direct email response to date.

For basic membership privileges to access the web log, one should pledge $150 per month or make a one-time annual donation of $1200. For access to the archived knowledge base, $250 per month or $2500 annually. SANE of course is a 501c(3) tax-exempt organization and these donations are tax deductible. (These are suggested donation amounts and are subject to change.)

As we have explained previously, SANE has made this move for two reasons. One, we wish to engage in an uncensored policy debate that is prepared to call a spade a spade. Remaining an open source allowed jihad promoters like CAIR and leftists groups sympathetic to the jihad promoters to cut and paste context in such a way that we were spending too much time navigating around flak and not enough time affecting policy.

And, this is important to keep in mind. SANE is not a journalistic effort. We are not primarily about educating people, although that is certainly a big part of our mission statement. Our number one goal is to affect policy discourse in a meaningful way and to preserve national existence, principally America’s. To achieve that, we must educate the policy movers. At present, it is our view that this mission is best achieved through two modalities.

The first is by engaging in a targeted, more discreet educational approach through private briefings, direct email exchanges, and one-on-one discourse with policy leaders. This allows for more considered and contextual thought. This approach, we would think, is self-explanatory.

The second is by supporting a counter lawfare offensive.

As most of you know, the Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas-Salafi groups, led by CAIR, ISNA, and a whole host of alphabet soup acronyms, have taken a page out of the progressives’ play book, notably the ACLU’s, to destroy this country’s defenses “from within” through “civil rights” style litigation. What this means is that this country’s national existence is under direct attack not only from the traditional Left-wing groups, but also from the Shariah-faithful. As has been noted on these pages, this represents the perfect convergence between elite Left-wing One World types with the Shariah-driven Muslims seeking a resurgent One World Caliphate. This convergence is not unlike the overt and covert convergence we witnessed in the last century between the hard and soft Left in this country on the one hand and the Marxists and Stalinists seeking their own form of statist global hegemony on the other.

Until recently, this legal arena has been effectively ceded to the litigating jihadists because most conservative or religious groups, which have made it their business to take on the ACLU on discreet conservative or religious issues during the past two decades, have refused to engage the threat from Shariah-Islam. One man and his law firm have been an exception to this rule and we are pleased to say it is SANE’s founder, David Yerushalmi, and his law firm, the Law Offices of David Yeurshalmi, P.C. Thus, we have made the decision to line up our support behind the efforts of Mr. Yerushalmi and his frontal, offensive (as opposed to defensive) effort in this battle space. Our support has been matched by Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, for whom Mr. Yerushalmi serves as General Counsel.

The Thomas More Law Center, a nationally recognized public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is another exception to this rule and we have supported David Yerushalmi’s active partnership with this group of stalwart Catholic lawyers. As many of you know, Mr. Yerushalmi and Rob Muise of TMLC are in federal court as we write representing an Iraq War veteran, Kevin Murray, working to expose the U.S. government’s financial support of AIG’s efforts to promote Shariah globally through its promotion of Shariah-compliant insurance products (see the complaint in Murray v. Geithner et al here and the latest court ruling denying the federal government’s motion to dismiss here).

Mr. Yerushalmi is also prosecuting a civil racketeering and fraud action in federal court against the Muslim Brotherhood front group, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). (See background here and a copy of the complaint here.)

The second reason for our shift to a members-only web log is more mundane: pure economics. Providing free content is fine if you are prepared to live and die by the advertising dollar. We are not. Once you move in that direction, you are subject to hostile ad boycotts and the like and no truly independent policy organization should be so handicapped. The only other option is to live and die by the charity of your donor base, but the post-Madoff, post-financial meltdown world has changed those realities radically. Our position today is that our information and analysis has an intrinsic and extrinsic value. If you wish to take advantage of that value, you ought to be willing to pay for it. If we are right, we will raise the funds to support our work. If not, so be it. The response to date from our previously free member base suggests we have made the right, albeit tough, choice. We are of the view that we are way ahead of the curve on this new trend.

However, because many of our readers and friends cannot afford to pay for our content, we have decided to make our weekly email newsletter available to our free subscriber base. Feel free to forward these email newsletters to those in your address book you think might find it worthwhile. While this email will not have the detail of our online knowledge base, it will include the broad strokes of our current focus.

Now, onto substance.

* * *

This week we focus on an essay by our dear friend and true American patriot, Andy McCarthy. The former U.S. Attorney who prosecuted the Blind Sheikh for the first WTC bombing in the 1990s, and who is now a regular contributor at National Review and involved in policy discourse through a host of other outlets, is one of the most astute commentators on the national security scene today. You cannot go wrong reading and studying his body of work.

In an essay last week in the National Review, Andy artfully and persuasively makes the argument that “democracy-building” is a foreign policy nightmare. He explicitly makes the case that we have made in the past that the delusion, preached emphatically by President George W. Bush, that ‘all men, everywhere, and at all times desire liberty and free markets’ is patently false. Andy coherently points out that this is no where more evident today than among the Shariah-faithful or among even the Shariah-friendly. For reasons we appreciate although don’t adopt, Andy calls this crowd (numbering in the hundreds of millions) “Islamists”.

Andy’s essay closes with two powerful paragraphs worth repeating here because SANE’s Colonel Thomas Snodgrass and David Yerushalmi have been making the same case in dozens of essays at SANE since teaming up together in 2006:

We can’t stop Muslim countries from being Islamist. That is their choice. It should be no concern of ours who rules them as long as they do not threaten American interests. When they inevitably do threaten us, or allow their territories to be launch pads for terrorists, we should smash them. But the price of defending our nation cannot be spending years — at a cost of precious lives and hundreds of billions of dollars — in a vain attempt to give people who despise us a way of life they don’t want.

Meanwhile, we must accept that Islamism is our enemy and has targeted our constitutional system for destruction by slow strangulation via sharia. Instead of worrying about democracy in Afghanistan, we need to worry about democracy in America. The surge we need is at home: to roll back Islamism’s infiltration of our schools, our financial system, our law, and our government. In addition to not being universal, the “values of the human spirit” are not immortal. If we don’t defend them in the West, they will die.

Now, pay attention to Andy’s penultimate sentence. He is saying something nuanced but of ultimate importance. America’s “values of the human spirit” are neither universal nor immortal. In other words, Andy is confirming, even if in a passing way as a closing remark, what we have been saying for some time. The idea that our values are somehow part of a “universal human rights” paradigm is absurd. There are no such things as universal human rights. While there are specific liberties which arise out of discreet peoples organized within geographically bounded political orders sharing common history, culture, religion, language and political thought, if you advocate universal “rights”, you can count on them coming with a price tag. If you think otherwise, ask yourself where this universal human rights plank exists? How is it discovered? Who defines its particulars? Who enforces it?

There are only two answers to those questions (if you think about it you’ll know what they are; hint: think tyranny—active phase; passive phase) but both lead to precisely the same end: a one world political regime that denies national existence to discreet peoples. Why is this so? Because to create a transnational or supra-national political right, some political order or institution must first define that right and then be prepared to enforce it. That global sovereign by definition must reign supreme over the lesser national existences of its constituent parts. (The European Union is of course a minor league example of this in actu.)

Even the authors of the Declaration of Independence understood the inherent danger of declaring divinely ordained rights as “transnational” and purposefully and quite carefully followed their famous articulation of those unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which they understood were endowed by the Creator, with the eminently practical limitation that only discreet peoples could translate such lofty notions into concrete “political rights”:

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

These “unalienable rights” to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not dictate capitalism or western democracy. To the Leftist Progressive, it means the march toward global statism. To the Shariah faithful, the jihad toward a global Caliphate. The founders understood this and that is why they speak of “the right of the people to alter or to abolish it” and to reorganize “in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

Peoples, or what we call nations in modern political orders, differ fundamentally on what constitutes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. America is what it is because of its People and this People’s shared history, culture, language, religion, and political thought. While this People has of late given way to multi-culturalism and the notion that America is not a nation or a People but an “idea” of freedom and civil rights, enough of it remains to defend. It is why we see the People taking to the streets at town hall meetings and tea parties in protest of President Obama’s march toward statism and globalism in the guise of universal health care and carbon cap-and-tax policies.

(To suggest that Peoplehood doesn’t count is to belie history. If our Founding Fathers had been Chinese or Mexican or Buddhists or Slavs or Africans or Eastern European Jews would they have crafted and designed the political order founded in a Revolution in 1776? Not likely. By the by, imagine if today’s Blue State Democrats were the founding generation of this country. Do you imagine for a second that they would have crafted anything other than a statist, socialist regime?)

The question, however, remains. And it is one that Andy has steered clear of to date even though he has quite ably remonstrated against the transnationalists in the Obama administration. Why is it that Western democracies have “progressed” steadily toward this notion that there are no “Peoples” with discreet and unique values and interests but rather a global village consisting of its global citizens? Or, why have we marched, seemingly inexorably, toward universal and transnational solutions, thereby requiring universal and international political mechanisms and institutions, necessarily sacrificing our own sovereignty and consequently our own peoplehood? This question, however phrased, demands an answer if we ever expect to stem the tide even momentarily.

In our next issue, we will discuss how the notion of democracy-building, universal human rights, and globalism are the necessary conditions of the science-democracy Reciprocal. That is, we will suggest a diagnostic analysis of the malady, not merely descriptive punditry. If you don’t know what the Reciprocal is, you haven’t been paying attention. Stay tuned for next week’s edition.

* * *

As always, those of us at the SANE Works for US web journal continue our focus:

To strengthen America’s national existence by probing a new and deeper discussion of the issues others fear or just avoid. We are convinced that with integrity of purpose and thought, graced with civility, the SANE message will pierce the fog that lies heavy on the ground.

All the best,

Staff

Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE)^(SM)

SANE's Email Update for Free Subscribers: Vol. 5; No. 2

Dear SANE Subscriber, Member, or Friend:

A proposal to deal with the threat posed by Islamic Jihadists residing in America and the security risks associated with open or effectively open borders. (Note: all references to "Islam" are meant to be understood as "Shari'a-faithful Islam".)

[Note: this is a modified version of our earlier posting to reflect the fact of cyberspace vandalism from the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR and Richard Silverstein's Tikun Olam site, a certifiable water carrier of such groups. See here and here for an explanation. The introduction to this Immigration Proposal (immediately below) has also been modified to reflect a re-evaluation of Lawrence Auster's "Separationist" proposal. Mr. Auster also writes to us to explain that his Separationist approach would in fact allow for kinetic  responses (as in use of the armed forces) to threats from Shariah regimes and that any characterization of his proposal to the contrary is not accurate. We accept this correction with good spirit and with approval.]

Previously we posted the SANE War Manifesto. It is not for the faint hearted. Today, we propose the SANE Act to Deal with the Islamic Threat to America’s National Existence. We have taken as a starting point for our legislative proposal a draft of a document in the form of a legislative-policy resolution on Muslim immigration prepared by Lawrence Auster and others at his web log, View From the Right. Auster’s work is a valiant effort to come to grips with the enormous existential domestic threat posed by Islam in America. This threat is made grotesque by the privilege we Americans give to “religion” and its free exercise. If religion can mean anything, then it means nothing. The question that Auster begins to address is whether Islam is a religion properly accorded constitutional protection or something else far more sinister.

We believe Auster’s work is a good first or even second effort but that it requires greater focus and less verbiage. Our version should be considered as part of the work-in-progress begun by Auster and his co-authors.

Two additional and more fundamental problems with Auster’s effort, however, require correction. First, is Auster’s attempt to conform this otherwise good and wise effort to his over-arching theory that while Shari'a-centered Islam is and has historically been at war with the West, sometimes quite actively and sometimes less so given its own weakness, the West should do what it can to avoid this war by simply separating from and quarantining the Islamic world. We have dealt with the fatal shortcomings of Auster’s Separationist doctrine in several of our essays posted in the Premium Archives under the rubric Affairs of War, but it is worthwhile to review them here.

First, Auster’s own critique of Islam accepts that Islam (we use the term Shari'a-Islam to be clear) is at war with the West and is not likely to quit the war until vanquished. Auster concludes, based upon sheer numbers and Shari'a-Islam’s built-in fanaticism, that we cannot win this war. His answer: we need not fight a "civilizational" war with Islam's 1.3+ billion adherents; we need only separate ourselves from them and their evil influence.  Initially permit us to say we reject his notion that this war cannot be won. We deal with that question below. But to respond to his notion of effectively quarantining Shari'a-Islam so it cannot effectively war against us, we would begin by suggesting that the devil here is in the details.The idea that the US, feckless Europe, duplicitous Russia, and self-serving China would somehow join hands to cooperate sufficiently to actually effectuate such a quarantine is at this point quite obviously silly. Whatever offensive or defensive plan the US develops in response to the war Shari'a-Islam is waging against the West, the US will have to be able to carry the day flying solo until it is obviously on the right path. Only then will our “allies” jump in to join the battle.

Second, even if we could successfully create a military-trade-finance-travel blockade of all of dar al-Islam, the Shari'a Muslim nations of the Near- and Middle-East have enough science and technological know-how to develop a massive arsenal of WMD and the necessary delivery capability to have that arsenal hand-delivered to our front doors. Pakistan is of course already quite nuclear. You don’t need Soviet-era ICBMs to deliver nuclear warheads to North American if you have fleets of Russian-, French-, Chinese-, Iranian-, and even US-manufactured fighter jets, attack helicopters and cruise missiles. NORAD couldn’t protect the Pentagon from one big relatively slow flying civilian jetliner even after two such projectiles flew into the Twin Towers; how does one suppose our air defenses will do with jet fighters approaching our shores flying at low altitudes? The only logistical issue for them to figure out is refueling but that is hardly insurmountable.

Third, by attempting to walk away from a war everyone knows Shari'a-Islam is waging against the West, and by attempting to build a wall of separation in lieu of responding with war, all we will have accomplished is to allow the Shari'a-Muslim world to develop these weapons and Jihadist plans in total secrecy. Everyone involved in intelligence gathering and analysis knows how difficult it is to acquire good intel and to assess it. It is far more difficult when the people and society about which we need to learn are wholly alien to our own culture and language. It is almost impossible among Arabs because of their tightly knit clans and tribes who rarely accommodate converts or outsiders. And, finally, it will be simply impossible if we exit the theatres of battle and build real and virtual walls.

Don’t misunderstand our criticism of Separationism. We’re all for building walls around our borders. We are though firmly convinced by history and by the science-art of war making that we will only emerge victorious and alive at the end of the day if we take the war to our enemies and eliminate their ability to establish Shari’a based regimes. War Making, as Colonel Snodgrass has taught us based upon Clausewitzian principles, equals Motivation + Capability. Destroy either one, and you win the war. We need not put large numbers of foot soldiers on the ground in any given theatre. Our mission should be to deny the Islamic Jihadists the capability to organize, train, plan, and deploy. This means we seek out their command and control centers, their infrastructure, and their leadership in hiding for destruction. As they rebuild their infrastructure and bury their dead, we destroy what they’ve rebuilt. As we exit each newly established no-fly zone, we drop leaflets, so to speak, with the following warranty: “Build Shari’a based civilian and military organizations, and we will be back to destroy them. If you desire democracy, develop it; if you desire an autocracy, establish one; if you desire socialism, so be it. We will remain politically agnostic. But build any political or military organization based upon Shari’a, and we will bomb it into non-existence. That comes with an American money-back guarantee.”

Jihadi Muslims have been beaten into submission before. They are not somehow immune from the horrible effects of a real war fought to destruction. It is only when we fight Limited Wars in an effort to construct democracies that we expose our weakness and encourage their insurgencies and worldwide Jihad. Leave them running from tree to tree and from cave to cave while their wives bury the dead and eventually you will not only have destroyed their capability, you will have zapped them of their motivation at least for another century or so.

A second failure of Auster’s approach as set out in his recently revised immigration proposal is it attempts to deal with the Islamic domestic threat by, in part, condemning Shari’a-Islam because it purportedly violates certain tenets of Western civilization or culture. Two examples given are polygamy and the inferiority of women.

This particular effort, however, is wrong headed for two reasons. One, it requires an analysis of such things as women’s roles or worth in Arab or Muslim culture and the West. This would be nonsensical since the “proofs” of the inferiority of women in Islam could very well be discovered in ancient and modern Christian civilizations and cultures. Are we to measure such distinctions per some scientific formula? For example, the fact that a Muslim woman’s testimony in court is less valued than a man’s or that a Muslim woman is not permitted a political voice are hardly unknown to Western civilization.

The second and most important reason this effort is wrong-headed is the fact that the reason to outlaw all Shari'a-adherent Muslim immigration (as opposed to outlawing all Hindu or Buddhist immigration) is not that Muslims think poorly of women or that they don’t particularly care for our civilization. The reason is that the political ideology of Islam as codified in Shari’a and developed by all five of the historical, traditional, and authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence (“fiqh”) calls for the conversion, submission or destruction of non-Muslim peoples and societies the world over. The only reason an Islamic Caliphate does not today exist as a One World State ruling all men everywhere is that Christian Europe defeated the Muslim armies in war, slaughtered them mercilessly, and pushed them out of Europe. That Muslim defeat was followed up by the defeat of the much weakened Ottoman Empire in World War I which ultimately led to the break up the Islamic world into separate countries more properly described as statist or oligarchic regimes.

Thus, while it is most certainly true that America ought to develop the notion and legal infrastructure to restrict non-Western and non-Christian immigration so that alien cultures and peoples should never come to threaten the national character of this nation, the grounds for outlawing Islam in this country and forbidding any Muslim immigration is based upon far more prudential concerns: national survival in a time of war. It is in this context that we offer the following.

A SANE Act to Deal with the Islamic Threat to America’s National Existence (SADITANE)

Whereas, Shari'a, as defined and understood by traditional and authoritative Shari’a  scholars, is a legal-political-military doctrinal system combined with certain religious beliefs; further, Shari’a is based historically and traditionally on full corpus of law and jurisprudence termed fique and usul al-fique, respectively, dealing with all aspects of a Shari’a-adherent’s personal and social life and political society.

Whereas, Shari'a as a political doctrine requires all its adherents to actively and passively support the establishment of a political society based upon Shari’a as foundational or supreme law and the replacement of any political entity not governed and governing by Shari’a with a Shari’a political order.

Whereas, Shari'a requires all its adherents to actively and passively support the replacement of America’s constitutional republic with a political system based upon Shari’a.

Whereas, Shari’a in particular includes a war doctrine known as jihad, which is an organic, intrinsic and central feature of the laws and traditions of Shari’a due to a consensus among Shari’a authorities throughout the ages.

Whereas, jihad and Shari’a are inextricably linked, with Shari’a formulating and commanding jihad, and jihad being waged for the purpose of imposing and instituting Shari’a.

Whereas, the unchanging and ultimate aim of jihad is the imposition of Shari’a on all states and nations, including the United States; further, pursuant to its own dictates, Shari’a requires the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution or the destruction of the national existence of the United States of America.

Whereas, the imposition of Shari’a on non-Shari’a adherent states is to be brought about both by criminal and violent means, including terrorism, and by lawful and non-violent means, including immigration-fed population growth and the resulting increase of Shari’a-centric political influence and power.

Whereas, adherence to Shari'a is adherence to the legal, political, and military doctrines and law of Jihad.

Whereas, adherence to and advocating of or for Shari’a poses an imminent likelihood of violent jihad and acts of terrorism. And,

Whereas, adherence to Shari'a is prima facie evidence of an act in support of the overthrow of the US Government through the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution by the use of imminent criminal and seditious violence with the aim of imposing Shari’a on the American People.

THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED THAT:

[1] A “Shari'a-adherent” shall be defined as any person who adheres to Shari'a or acts in support of the adherence to Shari'a or who makes any written or oral declaration in support of the adherence to Shari'a.

[2] “Adherence to Shari'a” shall be defined as any act, including any written or oral declaration, in support of Shari’a or in furtherance of the imposition of Shari’a within any territory of the United States of America. “Territory of the United States of America” shall be defined as any territory under the civilian or military control or governance of personnel acting for and on behalf of the US Government.

[3] “Shari’a” shall be defined as the set of rules, precepts, instructions, or edicts which are said to emanate directly or indirectly from the god of Allah or the prophet Mohammed and which include directly or indirectly the encouragement of any person to support the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution or the destruction of the national existence of the United States of America, and which  includes among other methods to achieve these ends, imminent violence. Any rule, precept, instruction, or edict arising from the extant rulings of any of the five authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence (the Hanafi, the Maliki, the Shafi'i, the Hanbali, or the Ja’afariya school or fiqh) is prima facie Shari’a without any further evidentiary showing.

[4] It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Shari'a.

[5] The President of the United States of America shall immediately declare that all non-US citizen Shari'a-adherents are Alien Enemies under Chapter 3 of Title 50 of the US Code and shall be subject to immediate deportation.

[6] No Shari’a-adherent shall be granted an entry visa into the United States of America. Anyone seeking an entry visa into the United States of America from any country or regime which advocates or implements Shari’a bears the burden to establish evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he/she is not a Shari’a-adherent.