Roughly 270 million people have been killed by the political act of Islamic Jihad, over a period of 1400 years. At least five terrorist attacks are commited every day which can reasonably determined to have been committed out of religious duty. According to opinion polls, there is widespread support for Islamic law, Sharia, among Muslim populations in Muslim and non-Muslim countries. Hundreds of millions of women and girls have been mutilated. Untold millions are beaten, raped and humiliated.
In Offensive and Defensive Lawfare: Fighting Civilization Jihad in America’s Courts, David Yerushalmi, Esq., Director of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) and General Counsel for the Center for Security Policy, and AFLC co-founder Robert J. Muise, Esq. describe the use by our Islamic supremacist enemies of U.S. jurisprudence to compel submission to the doctrine they call shariah. As with so many other facets of the Muslim Brotherhood’s stealthy, pre-violent jihad against this country, most of us are unaware that such lawfare is taking place, let alone with such deleterious effects.
Even more importantly, Messrs. Yerushalmi and Muise lay out their recommendations for an offensive strategy to defend the U.S. Constitution and the rights it guarantees our countrymen and women from any further encroachment by Islamic law. In stark contrast to the longstanding use of such techniques to intimidate or suppress freedom-loving peoples, offensive lawfare against the Brotherhood and its ilk is a relatively nascent area of the law, in which the authors are true pioneers and formidable innovators.
Having collaborated for over four years on many high-profile cases, in January 2012, attorneys David Yerushalmi and Robert J. Muise decided to formalize their working relationship by together launching the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC). Yerushalmi, an orthodox Jew, and Muise, an orthodox Catholic, describe AFLC as the Nation’s first truly authentic Judeo-Christian, public interest law firm.”
The strength of our Nation lies in its commitment to a Judeo-Christian heritage and moral foundation and to an enduring faith and trust in God and His Providence. AFLC seeks a return to America’s founding commitment to receive God’s continued blessing to preserve the soul of this great Nation.
AFLC is first and foremost a public interest litigation firm. It aggressively seeks to advance and defend our Nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage in courts all across our Nation.
AFLC’s aggressive and innovative litigation team has forged new battle lines against our Nation’s enemies in both federal and state courts. To that end, AFLC prosecutes cases to advance and defend religious liberty, freedom of speech, the sanctity of human life, and the traditional family. It crafts litigation to promote limited government, a renewed federalism, and a strong national defense, which includes the right of private citizens to bear arms.
AFLC’s litigation team is experienced, committed to the mission, and fearless. They have over four decades of litigation experience in state and federal trial and appellate courts all across the country. And they are specialists in constitutional law with an emphasis on the First Amendment. First and foremost, the AFLC attorneys are deeply committed to their faith, their families, and this great Nation.
This interview with Shaun Sacks , of NGO Monitor, was conducted by Social Democrat and former intelligence officer Johan Westerholm , ed...
From Chapter 1: "The One Organizing Principle", page 33:
"The intention of Shariah authorities today is to limit the knowledge of non-Muslims to what they are allowed to know about Islam. If we read the books that the enemy declares are the basis of his intentions, we will better understand the nature of the threat. Because the enemy knows he lacks the kinetic ability to defeat us in battle, it is of utmost importance that he prevents us from defining him. The primary objective of the enemy in the War on Terror is to keep us from understanding his threat doctrine by keeping us from looking at the fact of Islamic law-"the one organizing principle"-that he, in fact, states is the driver of his threat doctrine. Once we understand his threat doctrine, the game is up. This is true even if he is wrong in his interpretation of Islam and Shariah."