It’s one thing to use the class room for “mind exercises” in which you think of how and why multiculturalism is king and how to use the “noble savage” way to make this world better. It is far different when the law of the land and those who help protect that law question it’s validity. Take a read. Things you need to know are in bold.
Also read: commentary magazine
From Pamela Geller
Tuesday, in an article called The ABA’s Jihad in The American Thinker, I exposed the Islamic supremacism taking root at the American Bar Association, breaking the story of the ABA’s support for Sharia law. I revealed the notice, circulated among ABA members, of an organized ABA campaign to oppose the anti-Sharia legislation that has been introduced in 14 state legislatures. Then on Wednesday the ABA issued a statement in response to my article, claiming that “the American Bar Association has taken no action in support of, or in opposition to, judges considering Islamic law or Sharia.”
How dishonest and disingenuous.
The ABA statement said that the organization has “nearly 400,000 members, many of whom volunteer with any of the ABA’s 2,200 entities. One of those 2,200 entities is the Section on International Law, which has elected to assemble a taskforce of several individuals to examine this issue.” The statement makes it sound as if this examination is completely neutral: “These individuals are examining whether the proposed changes to the law impact important constitutional questions. They are also considering implications for international commerce.”
Above all, the ABA claims that this taskforce has nothing to do with the organization itself: “The actions of a few interested members within one section are not and cannot be interpreted to be those of the entire American Bar Association. Claims to the contrary are erroneous.”
This is spin and damage control. In my Tuesday article I quoted the Section on International Law stating that the ABA’s Executive Counsel “has organized a Task Force to review the legislation of 14 states — Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming – in which anti-Sharia legislation has been introduced.”
There was no way this Task Force could be understood as neutral. Clearly it was dedicated to working against anti-Sharia legal initiatives. The Section on International Law document said: “The Section’s Executive Counsel [sic] has organized a Task Force to review the legislation of 14 states — Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming – in which anti-Sharia legislation has been introduced. The goal of the Task Force is to have a Report and Recommendation against such legislation as well as an informal set of ‘talking points’ that local opponents of these initiatives could use to make their case in each of these states.”
This should incite justifiable public outrage, and actually increase support for and awareness of the legislation among the grassroots electorate.
A source knowledgeable about the ABA has also informed me that the organization’s Middle East law committee recently began a lobbying campaign, which the ABA’s international law chair endorsed. It was a political act, not a neutral study. This source sent me ABA policy guidelines that make it clear that policies that are formulated by small committees or “entities” can and do become official ABA policy under certain circumstances, and those circumstances are present in the case of this pro-Sharia Task Force.
This puts the ABA on the spot: either its policy mechanism on Middle East law has been taken over by Middle East-based lawyer(s) with Islamic supremacist sympathies, or the Middle East law committee does represent the ABA’s actual positions.
Further, is there any ABA group or task force assigned to helping those who oppose Sharia to craft legislation to ban it? No. There is only an initiative to oppose those fighting the Sharia.
Particularly troubling is the non-democratic way in which the ABA made the decision to oppose the anti-Sharia initiatives of various states. A tiny minority of the ABA’s total membership steers its policies, which almost always are developed from the top down. The pro-Sharia initiative seems to have been pushed forward through what the ABA calls a “blanket approval” or even more rapid “technical comment” procedure, and seems to go beyond issuing mere statements to actively organizing lobbying to influence state legislation – a practice that is generally forbidden for tax-exempt organizations.
All this makes it obvious that the ABA’s statement disclaiming any support for Sharia was completely false and dishonest.
If the ABA continues to forward this deceitful rhetoric, I will expose even more information about its support for Sharia.
There is one way the ABA could make at least partial amends now: it’s time the ABA created a task force to help those of us who are fighting the introduction of Islamic law in America.