Taxpayer Funded Islamic Shariah Law!… The Battle Escalates Against Islamic Law in US

June 20th, 2012

FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda

Shariah-Law-billboard

A battle against federal taxpayer subsidies for Shariah programs is
being escalated to the full 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after a
three-judge panel of the court decided that a U.S. Marine had no right
to challenge the government’s financial support for Islamic Law. ~ Bob Unruh

The case has been brought by taxpayer Kevin J. Murray over the
federal government’s multi-billion dollar bailout of AIG. It’s being
handled by Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi of the American Freedom Law Center.

“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,” Yerushalmi said.

The 6th Circuit’s panel of judges Alan Norris, Eric Clay and Allen Griffin
ruled Murray lacked “standing” to challenge the constitutionality of
the federal government’s use of taxpayer funds to support Shariah, the
Islamic code of law based on the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad.

See what happens when Shariah advances, in “Stop the Islamization of America.”

The complaint charges AIG used some of the bailout money to support
the company’s Shariah-compliant insurance division, which even hires
Muslims to advise on proper procedures.

Murray, a taxpayer and former combat Marine who served in Iraq, contends the federal government is not allowed to do that.

Muise argued it’s “well established that a federal taxpayer has
standing to challenge the constitutionality of the impermissible use of
federal funds appropriated and expended pursuant to Congress’ taxing and
spending power.”

“Here, Congress appropriated billions of taxpayer funds to support
AIG, and these funds are being used to support AIG’s Shariah-based
activities in direct violation of the Establishment Clause,” he said.

At the time of the bailout, Muise said, AIG “was the world leader in
promoting Shariah-compliant insurance products” and still is today.

The court conceded AIG subsidiaries “ensure the Shariah-compliance of
its SCF products by obtaining consultation from Shariah Supervisory
Committees.”

“The members of these committees are authorities in Shariah law and
oversee the implementation of SCF products by reviewing AIG’s
operations, supervising the development of SCF products, and evaluating
the compliance of these products with Shariah law,” the court said.

The case was filed against Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and others.

The judges admitted that funds directed toward those subsidiaries come from U.S. taxpayers.

“Neither party disputes that Treasury Department financing supported
all of AIG’s businesses, including the subsidiaries that marketed SCF
products.”

AFLC’s petition seeks a full panel of the 6th Circuit for a review of
the case because the three-judge decision “directly conflicts with U.S.
Supreme Court and 6th Circuit precedent, and it effectively immunizes
congressional spending from an as-applied constitutional challenge under
the Establishment Clause. Additionally, AFLC is requesting en banc
review because this case has exceptional public importance.”

The three-judge opinion argued federal TARP funds given to AIG were
exempt from such challenges because the authorizing legislation didn’t
consider giving money to aid religious outreaches such as AIG’s Shariah
programs and the money was directed there by “executive” decisions.

Thus, the taxpayer lacked “standing” even to complain about the issue.

The judges came to their conclusion even though the court opinion
admitted that shortly after the Treasury Department acquired an interest
in AIG, the “department sponsored a conference entitled ‘Islamic
Finance 101.’”

“The stated purpose of the conference was to provide government
policymakers information about Islamic finance,” the judges said. “The
presentation materials from the conference discussed topics such as the
source of Islamic finance, how Islamic finance works and the market
factors that caused its growth.”

The plaintiffs argued that Congress could or should have known its
bailout money to AIG would go to Shariah “since AIG was well known as
the leader in [Shariah complaint finance].”

But the judges that didn’t matter, contending the argument” falls well
short of supporting a reasonable inference of congressional intention
that a portion of the [federal bailout money] might support [Shariah].”

The appeals judges affirmed an earlier decision from a trial court
judge who concluded the $153 million of U.S. taxpayer money spent
supporting Islamic Shariah really isn’t anything worth mentioning.

Bob Unruh – June 19, 2012 – posted at WorldNetDaily

digg muti del.icio.us google reddit facebook