Intersting article on the great David Yerushalmi from mother Jones which claimed

[mord]

that shooter of Gabrielle Gifford was Jewish          http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/david-yerushalmi-sharia-ban-tennessee#comment-159561650   










Tue Mar. 1, 2011 3:00 AM PST

Last week, legislators in Tennessee introduced a radical bill that would make "material support" for Islamic law punishable by 15 years in prison. The proposal marks a dramatic new step in the conservative campaign against Muslim-Americans. If passed, critics say even seemingly benign activities like re-painting the exterior of a mosque or bringing food to a potluck could be classified as a felony.

The Tennessee bill, SB 1028, didn't come out of nowhere. Though it's the first of its kind, the bill is part of a wave of related measures that would ban state courts from enforcing Sharia law. (A court might refer to Sharia law in child custody or prisoner rights cases.) Since early 2010, such legislation has been considered in at least 15 states. And while fears of an impending caliphate are myriad on the far-right, the surge of legislation across the country is largely due to the work of one man: David Yerushalmi, an Arizona-based white supremacist who has previously called for a "war against Islam" and tried to criminalize adherence to the Muslim faith.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Yerushalmi, a lawyer, is the founder of the Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE), which has been called a "hate group" by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). His draft legislation served as the foundation for the Tennessee bill, and at least half a dozen other anti-Islam measures—including two bills that were signed into law last year in Louisiana and Tennessee.

With the exception of SB 1028, much of Yerushalmi's legislation sounds pretty innocuous: State courts are prohibited from considering any foreign law that doesn't fully honor the rights enshrined in the US and state constitutions. Because a Taliban-style interpretation of Islamic law is unheard of in the United States, the law's impact is non-existent at best. But critics of some of the proposed bills have argued they could have far-reaching and unintended consequences, like undoing anti-kidnapping statutes, and hindering the ability of local companies to enter into contracts overseas.

But Tennessee's SB 1028 goes much further, defining traditional Islamic law as counter to constitutional principles, and authorizing the state's attorney general to freeze the assets of organizations that have been determined to be promoting or supporting Sharia. On Monday, CAIR and the ACLU called for lawmakers to defeat the bill.

"Essentially the bill is trying to separate the 'good Muslims' from the 'bad Muslims,'" said CAIR staff attorney Gadeir Abbas in an interview with Mother Jones. "Out of all the bills that have been introduced, this is by far the most extreme."

Reports about the rise of the anti-Sharia movement have typically focused on Oklahoma's voter-approved constitutional amendment, which explicitly prohibited state courts from considering Islamic law (a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against the amendment in December). But the movement began much earlier, with a sample bill Yerushalmi drafted at the behest of the American Public Policy Alliance, a right-wing organization established with the goal of protecting American citizens from "the infiltration and incursion of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, especially Islamic Shariah Law."

In a 40-minute PowerPoint that's available on the organization's site, Yerushalmi explained the ins and outs of the sample legislation. His bills  differ from the failed Oklahoma amendment in one key way: They don't mention Sharia. Instead, they focus more broadly on "foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines." As Yerushalmi explained in an interview with the nativist New English Review in December, the language is "facially neutral," thereby achieving the same result while "avoiding the sticky problems of our First Amendment jurisprudence."

Since crafting the sample legislation, Yerushalmi's services have been been in high demand as an expert witness. In mid-February, he flew to South Dakota to testify in support of a bill modeled on his "American Law for American Courts" plan. (He also offered to provide pro-bono legal support for the state if the law produced any legal challenges.)

Ultimately, the bill died in committee, after the state's attorney general testified that the bill could lead to lawsuits. "I am a little chagrined by the fact that none of the opponents of the bill have actually read it with any care," Yerushalmi told the committee. "Something else is at work here."

But it's not just Muslims who draw Yerushalmi's scorn. In a 2006 essay for SANE entitled On Race: A Tentative Discussion (pdf), Yerushalmi argued that whites are genetically superior to blacks. "Some races perform better in sports, some better in mathematical problem solving, some better in language, some better in Western societies and some better in tribal ones," he wrote.

Yerushalmi has suggested that Caucasians are inherently more receptive to republican forms of government than blacks—an argument that's consistent with SANE's mission statement, which emphasizes that "America was the handiwork of faithful Christians, mostly men, and almost entirely white." And in an article published at the website Intellectual Conservative, Yerushalmi, who is Jewish, suggests that liberal Jews "destroy their host nations like a fatal parasite." Unsurprisingly, then, Yerushalmi offered the lone Jewish defense of Mel Gibson, after the actor’s anti-Semitic tirade in 2006. Gibson, he wrote, was simply noting the "undeniable Jewish liberal influence on western affairs in the direction of a World State."

Despite his racist views, Yerushalmi has been warmly received by mainstream conservatives; his work has appeared in the National Review and Andrew Breitbart's Big Peace. He's been lauded in the pages of the Washington Times. And in 2008, he published a paper on the perils of Sharia-compliant finance that compelled Sen. Minority Whip John Kyl (R-Ariz.) to write a letter to Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Chris Cox.

More recently, Yerushalmi co-authored a report on the threats posed by Islamic law—among other things, he worries Sharia-compliant finance could spark another financial collapse—that earned plaudits from leading Republicans like Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra. The report was released by Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, for which Yerushalmi is general counsel.

In 2007, he pushed legislation to make "adherence to Shari'a" a felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. That same proposal called for the deportation of all Muslim non-citizens, and a ban on Muslim immigration. The United States, he urged, must declare "a WAR AGAINST ISLAM and all Muslim faithful."

Neither Yerushalmi nor the American Public Policy Alliance responded to a request for comment for this article.

If his racially infused writings and rhetoric are any indication, it's Yerushalmi, not his Muslim bogeymen, who seems most determined to remake the American political system. Per its mission statement, SANE is "dedicated to the rejection of democracy and party rule," and Yerushalmi has likewise criticized the universal suffrage movement. As he once put it, "there's a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote."

[mord]

Mr Yerushalmi answer extreme fag leftist timmy murphy    



SANE Special Update: Material Support of Jihad Statute in Tennessee
By SANE Staff  Tue, March 1, 2011, 9:04 am

How the Left-Progressives Use the Race-Card to Avoid Substantive Debate

David Yerushalmi has been at the forefront of the fight against shariah and its doctrine of jihad to establish a worldwide political order it calls the Caliphate.  Mr. Yerushalmi has drafted laws that have been enacted into law in several states and are pending in many others to prevent foreign laws such as shariah from being recognized or applied in state courts when that application of foreign law would violate the parties’ fundamental state and federal constitutional liberties.  You can read about this work here.

Guess who opposes such laws? Muslim Brotherhood types like the Hamas front group, CAIR, and leftist-progressives.

Now, you’re confused, you say.  How is it possible that leftist-progressives oppose a law to protect fundamental constitutional liberties?  The answer of course is that leftist-progressives only support constitutional liberties when they put national existence at risk and oppose them when they work to protect national existence.  

Why is that?  The answer is patent at many of the essays posted at this SANE Web site (below), so we won’t repeat it here other than to say that leftist-progressives, not unlike the Muslim Brotherhood shariah advocates, all disdain national existence in the search for a world state.  The leftist-progressives seek a UN-like transnational structure with forced redistributions of wealth while the shariah advocates seek a unified “ummah” (Muslim nation) in ascendancy to reclaim its mantle as the dominate global empire it once was.

Recently, a bill to outlaw the material support of jihad terrorism (motivated by shariah) has been introduced in Tennessee.  The law was drafted by the Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C.  The resulting public discussion has not been a fact-based debate on the worthiness of the proposed legislation, but false reporting by the likes of the Tennessean reporter Bob Smietana, who claimed the bill “would jail shariah followers” and now a typical left-progressive attack piece against Mr. Yerushalmi by a Tim Murphy writing on the leftist blog called Mother Jones.

When Mr. Yerushalmi pointed out to the Tennessean reporter that the bill did not impose any burden even on the advocacy of shariah-inspired violence, rather only the combination of such advocacy along with a capability and an intent to engage in terrorism, the reporter stuck to his guns and insisted that the proposed law did what it did not do.  The man is so driven by his advocacy of left-progressive causes he is prepared to be a public idiot.

The next example of the public debate to date comes in the form of a now tired ad hominem claiming that Mr. Yerushalmi, an orthodox practicing Jew, is somehow a white supremacist who would, presumably, join hands with neo-Nazis and KKK types even as he would be their first victim.

As in the case of previous ad hominem attacks against Mr. Yerushalmi, we here present a fact-based response by Mr. Yerushalmi to Mother Jones and Tim Murphy:

    Dear Mr. Murphy: It is obvious at this point that your email and telephone calls to me were not seeking an opportunity at fact finding but just the ability to add a throw-away quote for your form of bigoted journalism.   I note that you had available to you my detailed response (at SANE's website) addressing the identically absurd allegations of "white supremacy" raised by leftist-progressives every time they wish not to deal with the substance of an argument but rather to attack personalities with ad hominem.

    Let's begin with the "white supremacist" label. As an orthodox Jew, whose grandparents were immigrants to this country, I am the first person that real white supremacists wish to murder.  Have you not read neo-Nazi or KKK literature?

    Further, I am from the same group that leftist-progressive bigots such as you attack when they wish to express Jew-hatred disguised as "anti-Israel."

    Now, let's look at your actual evidence of "white supremacy." First, you claim that I wrote an essay asserting that "whites are genetically superior to blacks." That is a fiction. And, indeed you cannot find such a quote in my writings. The long and sourced essay to which you refer and indeed the actual quote you cite to suggest that I believe that "whites are genetically superior to blacks," says no such thing which is why those are your words (“whites are genetically superior to blacks”) not mine.

    The article simply makes the point that biologists and medical specialists have found time and again that there are genetic racial components to skin color, muscle development, body structure, propensity to disease and the like.  

    Have you not heard of sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs? Are these diseases "racist" or "white supremacists" because they affect people of African descent and Ashkenazi Jewish descent, respectively? Indeed, the point of the essay was that this does not speak to a "supremacy" by one group over another, merely a distinction or difference.  Where in the essay does it speak in any way about one race being "superior" as in better or as in deserving certain "rights" over another?  

    Secondly, you suggest I am a racist because I criticize liberal Jews. I dare say that insofar as I am an orthodox, practicing Jew, my criticism of liberal Jews can hardly be counted as "racism;" yet, indeed, you make this asinine argument.

    Third, you claim a statement articulating SANE's mission is racist: "America was the handiwork of faithful Christians, mostly men, and almost entirely white." That does not even suggest that whites or Christians ought to be superior to non-whites or non-Christians--it is a statement of fact.

    My grandparents were Russian Jewish immigrants who came to this country only in the 20th century. I can say with certainty that my ancestors and Jews generally had very little to do with founding and building this country. Does that make me a Jew-hater or anti-Semite? Your charge that I am a white supremacist is not just leftist ugliness, it is patently absurd.  

    Fourth, you claim I have authored a bill to outlaw Islam and being Muslim. Another patent falsehood. The bill I drafted outlawed explicitly a Sharia advocacy that promoted likely and imminent violence.  Indeed, I have represented Muslims pro bono to get them asylum and entry visas into this country to protect them from this Sharia doctrine and system, and this is made clear at SANE's website, had you chosen to actually report facts and not just engage in a bigoted ad hominem attack.

    Finally, you throw in a few quotes out of context as other leftist-progressives have done to suggest I am an anti-something-or-other. For example, you write:

        If his racially infused writings and rhetoric are any indication, it's Yerushalmi, not his Muslim bogeymen, who seems most determined to remake the American political system. Per its mission statement, SANE is "dedicated to the rejection of democracy and party rule," and Yerushalmi has likewise criticized the universal suffrage movement. As he once put it, "there's a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote."

    Is the first statement about rejecting “democracy and party rule” to you an extreme statement or a remaking of America? Have you not read the Federalist Papers or taken a rudimentary college course in political theory? Do you not suppose that our form of government was a rejection of what was later to be developed in Europe? Our form of government, at least as set out in our Constitution, is not democracy in any Athenian or parliamentary sense nor is it party-rule as in the parliamentary systems adopted in the main on the Continent.  Do you not understand the differences between our system of a constitutional republic with the separation of powers (not present in the typical parliamentary system) dominated by two parties historically and the multi-party parliamentary system developed in other Western democracies?  

    As to the latter statement about the founding fathers not providing blacks or women suffrage, I have responded to this in detail in my response to another leftist-progressive blogger and it was available to you at SANE. Is there any doubt that you chose to ignore it because you wish to frame the debate as a racist one when you knew at the time you wrote your article it had nothing to do with race? This is what we call in the law, “actual malice.”

    Below, is in fact what you had available to you at SANE which highlights the bolded sentence you quote and places it in its more complete context as part of my response to yet another of your ilk:

            There is a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote. You might not agree or like the idea but this country’s founders, otherwise held in the highest esteem for their understanding of human nature and its affect on political society, certainly took it seriously. Why is that? Were they so flawed in their political reckonings that they manhandled the most important aspect of a free society – the vote? If the vote counts for so much in a free and liberal democracy as we ‘know’ it today, why did they limit the vote so dramatically?

        Your point is, as you note in your blog entry, that I “dislike” blacks and women. Let’s assume further that your point is that I am a bigot and a misogynist.  The problem once again is that the portion you quote, and it is clear in context as well, is a question.  It is not a position. And, it is a point of serious consideration among scholars as well.  

        That is, if you are going to take the position that our Founding Fathers, men to whom we have erected monuments in our nation’s capital, withheld the most cherished and fundamental liberty in a free society (the right to participate in representative government via the vote in their respective states) to entire subsets of our population, you must be prepared to answer, Why?  

        Now, you might simply respond as follows: they did so because they were evil bigoted and chauvinistic men. If so, you still have not answered why they did not recognize the chasm between “democracy” theory and the constitutional order actually employed?  Were they also political buffoons?  Were they so oblivious to the obvious contradiction?  If so, why do we hold them in such high esteem? And, how do we even justify the existence of this nation, which was built on the destruction of indigenous peoples and subsequently developed through the denial of the right to vote to so many?

        Now, we know your answer and the answer of your fellow progressive travelers. Your pat answer: America was founded upon evil and in evil.  That is why you wish to radically change the country and why you worship “progress” as in Time or History as transcendent. But I was not writing to you and your ilk. Your positions are well known. I was writing to otherwise patriotic Americans who nearly worship our Founding Fathers and founding as heroic and our nation as a great advance for mankind. (This would be the position to which I would most closely associate.) This group must be forced to confront this issue head on. It was to this group that I asked the question.  In my world, analysis and penetrating questions are the sine qua non of the quest for knowledge.  

        You, however, take the question out of context to make it a pathetic statement of bigotry as if I were proposing to roll back the franchise to a pre-Civil War state. Again, this is argument by caricature. You can get away with this on a blog written for other progressives where no one is prepared to actually think for themselves and ask you the questions I have raised here.  But in the world of policy, where real lives are affected by real decisions with real impact, this is a dangerous if not fatal approach.

    Mr. Murphy, at the end of the day, this response is not for you because you are not interested in facts. This response is for others who have some interest in reality. Moreover, this response will become part of a brief discussing “actual malice” in the context of the First Amendment. Good luck.

 second article on page                     http://www.saneworks.us/indexnew.php