Federal Court Must Decide: Is the Treasury Department's Support of AIG's Shariah-Promoting Subsidiaries Constitutional?

/PRNewswire/ -- The Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C., together with the Thomas More Law Center, filed a motion for summary judgment on Monday, June 7, 2010, on behalf of Kevin Murray against the Treasury Department and the FED in the federal lawsuit pending in the Eastern District of Michigan. The lawsuit, captioned Murray v. Geithner et al. was brought by attorneys David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise, representing the plaintiff, Kevin Murray, a taxpayer and former combat Marine who served in Iraq. The federal lawsuit alleges that the U.S. government's takeover and financial bailout of AIG was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Specifically, at the time of the government bailout (beginning in September 2008 and continuing to the present), AIG was (and still is) the world leader in promoting Shariah-compliant insurance products. Shariah is Islamic law, and it is the identical legal doctrine that demands capital punishment for apostasy and blasphemy and provides the legal and political mandates for global jihad followed religiously by the world's Muslim terrorists. By propping up AIG with tax payer funds, the U.S. government is directly and indirectly promoting Islam and, more troubling, Shariah.

In May 2009, Judge Lawrence Zatkoff rejected the government's motion to dismiss the complaint and later rebuffed the defendants' efforts to stay the proceeding so the government lawyers could take an extraordinary appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court then set the ground rules for discovery and granted the parties until May 2010 to conduct discovery.

After a year of document requests, depositions of current and former government witnesses, and three separate subpoenas issued to AIG and the New York Federal Reserve Board, Messrs. Yerushalmi and Muise filed Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment this past Monday, arguing that the undisputed facts demonstrate that the government, through its absolute control and 2 ownership of AIG, and with tens of billions of tax payer dollars, have directly and indirectly promoted and supported Shariah as a religious legal doctrine. What makes this case all the more egregious is that this doctrine--Shariah--also happens to be the underlying legal and military doctrine animating jihad against the West by Muslims from the Middle East, Asia, Russia, Africa, and even right here at home. Each and every one of the domestic and foreign jihad terrorists have proclaimed their allegiance to Shariah and its call for "jihad against apostates and infidels." Two experts on Shariah, Shariah-compliant finance, and jihad testified at length through affidavits in support of plaintiff's case. The government could not--and did not-- oppose this expert testimony with any contrary evidence.

A year's worth of discovery uncovered the following facts in addition to what was known from the public record:

-- AIG has five wholly-owned subsidiaries which promote and practice
Shariah in Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Bahrain, and the U.S.
-- These Shariah-compliant companies employ or otherwise retain the
services of Shariah authorities to tell them how to conduct their
business according to Shariah, including the Shariah-compliant
charities to which these AIG subsidiaries must contribute.
-- The government places absolutely no controls on how its billions are
used by the Shariah-compliant companies or to whom they support with
their "zakat" ('charitable') dollars. Moreover, these companies all
accept Shariah's mandate to support jihad with zakat insofar as they
abide by the authoritative rulings of the world's leading Shariah
authorities.
-- Over one billion taxpayer dollars have flowed through AIG's
headquarters into supporting AIG's Shariah businesses worldwide.
-- The government has actively promoted Shariah and Shariah-compliant
finance in many ways and venues:
-- The Treasury Department has published, edited, and updated
articles about Shariah-compliant finance, which essentially
promote Islamic law uncritically.
-- The Treasury Department has created and staffed a position called
the Islamic Finance Scholar-in Residence. No other religious law
is so honored.
-- Published presentations by senior Treasury Department officials
lauding Shariah-compliant finance and stating explicitly that the
U.S. government "places significant importance on promoting...
Islamic finance" and has "recently deepened our engagement in
Islamic finance in a number of ways," including a "call[] for
harmonization of Shari'a standards at the national and
international levels."
-- After the AIG bailout, the Treasury Department co-sponsored a
half-day conference called "Islamic Finance 101" for government
policy makers which was in effect a cheerleading program to
promote Shariah and Shariah-compliant finance.


Mr. Yerushalmi remarked: "It is one thing that our government felt compelled to bail out AIG after its fortunes were destroyed due to the company's own recklessness and bad acts. It is quite another thing to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to promote and support AIG's Shariah businesses--all of which don't just sell Shariah products to the Muslim world, but actively promote Shariah as the best, most ethical way of life. Indeed, the Shariah authorities relied upon by AIG's Shariah Supervisory Committees actively promote jihad--and by jihad we mean kinetic war against the infidel West."

Mr. Muise, senior trial attorney for the Thomas More Law Center and co-lead counsel in this case, made the additional point that "We have not only traced taxpayer money to support Shariah, we have found explicit public statements by senior Treasury officials actually telling the world that it is U.S. government policy to support Shariah in the form of Islamic finance and even 'call[ing] for harmonization of Shari'ah's standards.' Since when is it our government's position to involve itself in the internal theological debates surrounding religious laws?"

The government defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that whatever aid was provided to AIG's Shariah businesses, it was both unintended and de minimus.

Richard Thompson, head of the Thomas More Law Center, added, "It's outrageous that the federal government is the owner of a corporation engaged in a business with interests adverse to the United States. We filed this lawsuit not only to defend constitutional principles, but also to defend our national security. It's clear we can't leave the job of protecting America to the Washington politicians."

The parties will now continue to brief the issue with cross-opposition and reply briefs and then the court will decide. Any decision is likely to end up on appeal at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. If the government loses, it is quite possible the case could be heard by the Supreme Court.

So Make it Transparent for the Public

All this nonstop chatter from the Obama Administration has just got to stop. If the differences in his plan are really so minor as he keeps insisting on the main stream media interviews, then why doesn't he compromise? Or is it because it's not his package, but rather that of Pelosi and company?

Here's a thought. Make any federal money going out really transparent and allow the public to track it.

New National Poll Finds Strong, Bipartisan Demand for Transparency in Economic Recovery Package

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- An overwhelming majority of voters want full and open reporting on how Recovery Act funds are spent at federal and state levels, according to a nationwide survey conducted last week on behalf of the Coalition for an Accountable Recovery. Further, roughly eight in ten voters say that making the U.S. government more accountable and more open to average citizens should be a high priority for the new administration; four out of ten said it is "one of the most important priorities.".....
http://statenationalpolitics.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-national-poll-finds-strong.html

Bailout for Defaulted Homeowners? Not so Fast, says Survey

Americans are weighing in with opinions on bailouts and mortgages. Will Congress and the Obama Administration listen?

Here is the story:

Majority Opposes Using Bailout Funds to Help Defaulting Homeowners

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- As a new Congress and the incoming Obama Administration prepare to tackle record numbers of foreclosures that have depressed real estate values, a new national survey released today by the Reecon Advisory Report found that a majority of Americans, 51 percent, opposes using Federal bailout funds to help pay the mortgages of homeowners who are in default. Forty-three percent of those surveyed favor helping homeowners in trouble.

The survey found that opposition to using bailout money to help defaulters is greatest among men (58.3 percent), elderly (56.2 percent) and those living in the Northeast (56.1 percent). Support for helping defaulting homeowners is greatest among young people age 18 to 24 (69.1 percent) and those earning less than $20,000 a year (60.1 percent).

"These findings indicate that there are significant political barriers to proposals now being drafted in Congress to use some of the remaining $700 billion of bailout funds to help stem foreclosures by helping defaulting homeowners with their mortgages," said David Lereah, president of Reecon Advisors Inc., an independent real estate economics and information company.

"As a new Federal foreclosure policy unfolds in the months to come, public opinion will certainly play a central role. It's clear that people have strong opinions and a candid and vigorous debate will improve the chances for a successful outcome. The outcome could shape the real estate markets for many years to come," added Lereah.

The survey also found that consumer confidence in real estate is significantly higher than the stock market, despite the depression in property values. By a margin of 53.7 percent to 30.8 percent, those surveyed think real estate is a better long-term investment than the stock market, considering the current economic situation. Confidence in real estate is highest in the South (58.6 percent) and West (58.4 percent), and among young people 18 to 24 (63.8 percent). The stock market ranks highest with those age 35-49 (34.7 percent).

However, public opinion on whether the stock market or real estate will recover first is much more evenly split and falls within the survey's margin of error. Forty-six percent predict the stock market will recover first; 43.2 percent believe real estate will be first. Real estate ranked highest with young people 18 to 24 (57.3 percent) and Southerners (50.6 percent).

The telephone survey, by GFK Custom Research North America, was conducted December 19-21, 2008. A total of 1,004 interviews were completed, 524 with female adults and 480 with male adults. The margin of error on weighted data is +3 percentage points for the full sample. All completed interviews are weighted to ensure accurate and reliable representation of the total population, 18 years and older.

The poll is the first in a series of opinion surveys on issues critical to real estate markets to be conducted by Reecon Advisors, Inc. for the Reecon Advisory Report, a weekly newsletter being launched today, to provide insight, analysis and intelligence on residential real estate.

American Corporations and Immigration Study

A new study shows many corporations want cheap labor with immigrants while pink slipping Americans and asking for bailout money.

Here is the story.

Who's Lobbying on Immigration and Why? New Report Details Extensive Corporate Lobbying for Increased Immigration

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) finds that over the past three years dozens of well-known American corporations, representing virtually every sector of the economy, have committed extensive resources lobbying for increased immigration, more foreign guest-workers, and amnesty for illegal aliens. Many of these same corporations that have pressured Congress to provide them a cheap labor supply have recently been pink-slipping their existing workers and seeking federal taxpayer bailouts. The report, Immigration Lobbying: A Window into the World of Special Interests, is the first and only study of lobbying on immigration policy and reveals a scope of influence previously unknown.

FAIR's Immigration Lobbying report uncovers how in the past three years, 521 corporations, trade associations, business groups, labor organizations, government entities, educational institutions, and non-profit groups attempted to influence key congressional immigration-related legislation. Only about 2 percent of these organizations supported reductions in immigration and enhanced enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. The rest -- 98 percent -- fought for increased immigration, amnesty and more foreign guest workers.

In addition, FAIR's report shows that over 58 percent of the lobbying on immigration between 2006 and 2008 was carried out by American corporations and business and trade associations ranging from high tech to agriculture.

Their primary goals included:
-- Amnesty for the estimated 13 million illegal aliens residing in the
U.S.
-- Dramatic increases in both low-skill and high-skill foreign guest
workers.
-- Increased admission of foreign students to U.S. universities, and
subsequent entry to the U.S. labor market.


"This new report demonstrates conclusively that the hallmark of corporate concern about immigration policy has been to increase their own access to cheap foreign labor," stated Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "Equally evident from this lobbying investigation is that the public interest has been almost entirely absent from efforts to influence the direction of U.S. immigration policy.

"In the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, many of these companies are simultaneously asking for more cheap foreign labor while laying off existing U.S. workers. It's contradictory behavior and shows an appalling lack of community and corporate responsibility," observed Stein. "With the exception of a small number of public interest advocacy organizations like FAIR, nearly every lobbying dollar spent on influencing immigration policy has been focused on bringing cheaper labor to this country, rewarding illegal immigration, and building ethnic political constituencies.

"Given the damage that these interests have already inflicted on hard-working American families, we hope that the incoming Obama administration will restore some modicum of public interest to this important policy debate," said Stein.