As Stephen Landman of the indispensable Investigative Project on Terrorism’s IPT News reported in a post Monday:

“The court roundly rejected the claims that there’s a distinction between aid to a terrorist group’s “social” wing, as opposed to its military wing….:

Material support meant to “promote peaceable, lawful conduct” can further terrorism by foreign groups in multiple ways. Material support is a valuable resource by definition. Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends. It also importantly helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups – legitimacy that makes it easier for those groups to persist, to recruit members, and to raise funds – all of which facilitate more terrorist attacks.

As a result of this ruling upholding the material support statute, it remains illegal to provide to designated terrorist groups “any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instrument or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (one or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.”

The Court found:  “Whether foreign terrorist organizations meaningfully segregate support of their legitimate activities from support of terrorism is an empirical question. When it enacted section 2339B in 1996, Congress made specific findings regarding the serious threat posed by international terrorism. One of those findings explicitly rejects plaintiffs’ contention that their support would not further the terrorist activities of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE): ‘Foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.’”

The ruling in Holder v. The Humanitarian Law Project also determined that: “Material support meant to ‘promote peaceable, lawful conduct’ can further terrorism by foreign groups in multiple ways. Material support is a valuable resource by definition. Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends. It also importantly helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups – legitimacy that makes it easier for those groups to persist, to recruit members, and to raise funds – all of which facilitate more terrorist attacks.”

The logic of the Supreme Court’s decision on material support suggests that it would be illegal to provide $400 million via the so-called “moderates” of the Palestinian Authority to the designated terrorist organization (DTO) Hamas, which runs the Gaza Strip – something President Obama has announced he intends to do.  It should also preclude the sort of “outreach” to the so-called “moderates” of another DTO, Hezbollah, as presidential advisor Brennan has twice indicated he thinks is in order.  Ditto negotiations with “moderate” members of the Taliban, at least to the extent such a process entails what amounts to material support to that terrorist organization in the form of financial or other substantial inducements to their cooperation.

What is more, the Supremes’ ruling in this case essentially upholds a landmark en banc opinion issued last year by the 7th Circuit in Boim v. Holy Land Foundation.  The latter decision written for the majority by highly esteemed Judge Richard Posner found that a contribution made to an organization embracing a doctrine like Shariah that calls on its adherents to engage in jihad amounts to material support.  This outcome was particularly gratifying for the Center for Security Policy as it filed an amicus brief in the case making precisely that argument.

Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the Supreme Court actually endorsed a broad interpretation of the material support statute.  Solicitor General Elena Kagan espoused the view that the law regulates conduct only, not speech per se. The Court found that the statute does indeed regulate speech and that Congress can criminalize speech on behalf of a known terrorist organization – even if such speech is for legal ends, as long as that speech also provides material support to said organization.

Accordingly, it appears that, for example, if an imam were to issue a Shariah fatwa “to, under the direction of, or in coordination with foreign groups that the speaker knows to be terrorist organizations,” he would be guilty of violation of the material support statute.  This could constitute a powerful new tool for countering the stealth jihad inside the United States.

By the same token, the Supreme Court ruling would apply to overseas activities as well, such as the so-called “humanitarian flotilla” that sought to break Israel’s naval blockade of Hamastan in Gaza.  Any U.S. organization that coordinated their support for this affair with Hamas in any way would be guilty of providing material support in violation of the statute.

In short, the top court in a federal judiciary that has in recent years handed a succession of victories to America’s terrorist foes – dare we call it “material support? – has rendered a decision in Holder v. the Humanitarian Law Project of signal importance.  It now behooves the Obama administration to conform its own policies and behavior to the letter and spirit of this sensible ruling, even as it enforces the law vigorously.

It turns out that, at the very moment Ms. Kagan was pushing aggressively to remove military recruiters from the Harvard Law School campus during her tenure as its dean, she was very supportive of having what amounted to Saudi recruiters ensconced there for the purpose of enlisting some of the nation’s finest young lawyers to work for the industry known as Shariah-Compliant Finance (SCF).

The first insight this record suggests is that Ms. Kagan’s true motivation in barring the armed forces was, indeed, an animus towards the military, rather than concern about its supposed mistreatment of homosexuals.  After all, the theo-political-military-legal code that authoritative Islam calls “Shariah” and that is the law of the land in Saudi Arabia is infinitely more homophobic than the Pentagon’s efforts to enforce the U.S. statute that prohibits avowed gays and lesbians from serving in uniform.  The former requires the murder of homosexuals; the latter simply kept them out of the ranks.

Ms. Kagan’s troubling tolerance of Shariah would, of course, have vastly more far-reaching implications should she reach the Supreme Court.  Consider several examples of her direct and indirect role in its insinuation into key U.S. institutions – several of which could be matters upon which the Court may have to rule:

Thanks to millions of dollars gifted by an aggressive promoter of the so-called “civilizational jihad” espoused by the Shariah-adherent Muslim Brotherhood, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, and other Saudi sources, Harvard University is now a major beachhead of Shariah in America.  In particular, under Dean Kagan, the law school opened an Islamic Finance Project (a less-transparent euphemism for Shariah-Compliant Finance).  The Project’s personnel have been aggressive promoters of SCF, particularly in the aftermath of the economic meltdown in the Fall of 2008, which was portrayed by the industry as proof of the inherent corruption of capitalism and the need for a more virtuous, “ethical” form of finance, namely that “required” by Shariah.

The first clue that something is wrong with Shariah-Compliant Finance is the first word:  SCF is a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood dating to the 1940’s as a means of legitimating and advancing Shariah’s stated objective: this barbaric, totalitarian doctrine’s domination of the Muslim community world-wide and, ultimately, all non-Muslim populations, as well.

What makes a given investment or transaction Shariah-compliant is not, in the final analysis, whether it involves interest, pork, gambling, tobacco, alcohol, pornography or Western defense.  To be sure, those are all considered haram (or “impure”) and are to be eschewed by adherents to Shariah.  No, ultimately, the compliance of a given financial activity with Shariah is a function of whether one or more recognized Shariah authorities say it is halal (“pure”).

This reality accords enormous influence in the SCF industry to such authorities.  Aspiring practitioners of the trade at Harvard Law and elsewhere are, therefore, impressed that they must recruit and rely upon prominent Islamic scholars revered for the latters’ knowledge and practice of Shariah.

Unfortunately, every one of such individuals embraces not only the supremacy of authoritative Islam’s Shariah.  Without exception, they aspire to its ultimate objective: a global theocracy in which a ruler (the “Caliph”) governs in accordance with Shariah.

Thus, the coterie of Shariah authorities now employed by most of the Western world’s financial institutions – including many in the United States – unfailingly champion a seditious program that has at its core the overthrow of the alternative legal systems like the U.S. Constitution and the government it empowers.

One of the most prominent of these authorities is Sheikh Yusef al-Qaradawi who sits on numerous SCF advisory boards and those of Persian Gulf sovereign wealth funds.  He also has his own television program on Al Jazeera, which he uses week after week to inveigh about and call for violence against infidels, the United States, Israel, apostates and, yes, homosexuals. Interestingly, Qaradawi has called zakat, the Muslim charitable donation required by SCF, a form of “financial jihad.”

It is alarming Ms. Kagan has appeared so indifferent to the ominous, if lucrative, use of her campus to legitimate and facilitate the penetration of the academy and, as we shall see, other institutions by Shariah’s insidious, anti-constitutional agenda and its adherents.  In fact, under a neglected part of the U.S. code, such conduct could constitute a felony offense known as “misprision of treason” – inaction (not to say complicity) in the face of seditious activity.

While the prospect that such conduct might be a matter for judicial review, including by the Supreme Court, may seem unlikely at the moment, don’t be so sure.  It is not unreasonable to expect that – in the event of the sort of devastating attack on this country that the intelligence community says is certainly being prepared by Shariah-adherent jihadists (oops, by “violent extremists”) – there will be investigations and perhaps criminal prosecutions of those who were, however tangentially, involved in promoting Shariah in this country.

As it happens, Ms. Kagan’s Islamic Finance Project has also played an important role in the infiltration of Shariah’s promoters within the U.S. government.  On November 6 2008, Harvard Business School professor Samuel L. Hays III conducted a day-long “seminar for the policy community” entitled “Islamic Finance 101. Hayes was a founding member of Harvard’s Islamic Finance Project Advisory Board. Roughly sixty officials were encouraged to embrace the merits of Shariah-Compliant Finance from the standpoint of its ethical and strategic virtues – the latter primarily being an opportunity to recycle petrodollars from OPEC back to Western capital markets.

The host of this Kagan program-enabled “seminar” was Assistant Treasury Secretary Neal Kashkari, who used the occasion to express his own enthusiasm for  Shariah-Compliant Finance.  At the time, Mr. Kashkari had his hand on the spigot of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).  The message was not lost on either his colleagues in government or on the financial sector:  At a time when the viability of major banks and investing institutions depended on Secretary Kashkari’s favor, getting with the SCF program could only be a plus.

Another momentous development during that tempestuous Fall was the federal government’s acquisition of nearly 80% of AIG.  It turns out that the giant insurance conglomerate is also the world’s largest purveyor of Shariah-Compliant financial products.  That’s right:  The U.S. taxpayer now owns the biggest commerial promoter of Shariah on the planet.

The Supreme Court may soon have an opportunity to consider whether such government involvement in promoting a religion violates the Constitution’s establishment clause separating church (or mosque) and state.  A federal lawsuit now pending in the Eastern District of Michigan that asserts the unconstitutionality of this arrangement seems like an open-and-shut case.  Do we really want Elena Kagan casting a vote on the question?

President Obama clearly thought that it would be advantageous to nominate someone to the Supreme Court with a record nearly as thin as was his own prior to winning the presidency.  Fortunately, the foregoing record makes plain that the U.S. Senate has more to go on in evaluating Elena Kagan – at least with respect to her  judgment and fitness to serve on a court that may be the last best hope to preserve the Constitution in the face of Shariah’s civilizational jihad.  The nominee’s hearings afford an opportunity not only to make such an evaluation, but to have a “teachable moment” about the extent to which that insidious, stealthy jihad has, with her help, penetrated America.

Starting on February 17 we notified those seven officials about the terrorist links of Dar al Hijrah’s past and current imams and congregants.  Two of them, Senator James Webb and State Delegate Kaye Kory, had their names removed from the flyer in the weeks following our notifications.

Yet on the eve of the fundraiser, the remaining five – DNC Chairman and Former Governor Tim Kaine (D-VA), Congressman Gerry Connolly (D-VA), Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA), and Fairfax County Supervisors Penny Gross and Sharon Bulova – still had their names on the invitation.

Last Saturday April 3, Dar al Hijrah went ahead with their annual fundraising banquet at the Fairview Park Marriott in Falls Church, VA.  So did the remaining invited politicians show up?  Watch our latest mini-documentary for the full story:

A group of concerned Virginia citizens including the Virginia Anti-Sharia Taskforce (VAST) and Act for America held a protest outside of the banquet.

Two local community members, who had purchased confirmed tickets days in advance, and had registered, and been issued name-tags at the door, were later ejected by security guards before they could even enter the event.  The next day they came to the Center for Security Policy, concerned about Dar-al-Hijrah’s poor treatment of non-Muslims who are average citizens, while Dar-al-Hijrah actively invited non-Muslims who are elected officials.

We contacted the five remaining politicians on Monday to give them a chance to answer a simple “Yes” or “No” question: “Did you attend the Dar Al-Hijrah fundraiser?”

Congressman Jim Moran and Governor and DNC Chairman Tim Kaine confirmed they had not attended.  Moran’s press secretary stated that he was abroad in Turkey over the weekend, while the DNC Press Secretary stated that Governor Kaine “didn’t receive an invitation and didn’t attend.”  The other three – Gerry Connolly, Sharon Bulova and Penny Gross – refused to comment.

If he did attend, this wasn’t Gerry Connolly’s first tribute to terrorist-linked Dar-al-Hijrah.  We discovered an enthusiastic letter of support from him for Dar-Al-Hijrah’s 25th Anniversary banquet in 2008, years after the mosque was widely known to be associated with terrorism.

[Connolly_Hijrah_Letter_2008.pdf]

In fact it appears from the letter that as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, he actually hosted the event.  Connolly wrote, “I am delighted to welcome you to Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center’s 25th Anniversary Dinner… We are honored to host such an outstanding group of individuals.”

How long can Representative Gerry Connolly and supervisors Gross and Bulova cover up whether they attended?  More importantly, is Connolly covering up the fact that he did attend, to hide his continuing radical connections from  responsible citizens – including patriotic Muslims -  in his own district?   Or is he covering up the fact that he did not attend, so he doesn’t offend the Islamist allies whose support he has have counted on in the past?

Either way, it’s time to end the cover-up.  It’s time for a clear-cut answer: “Yes” or “No.”

Congressman Gerry Connolly 202-225-1492

Chairwoman Sharon Bulova 703-324-2321

Supervisor Penny Gross 703-256-7717

Meanwhile foreign donors have given CAIR over $6,000,000 in cash and loans, and over $50,000,000 in pledges.  That’s 1% from American members; tens of millions from Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.  Shouldn’t there be a law to let the American public know the truth about CAIR and their foreign donors? Of course, and there is one.  CAIR just doesn’t follow it.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), enacted just before World War Two, still requires foreign agents spreading propaganda to register so Americans can know what they are up to.  Back then the problem was foreign agents working for the Nazis.  Today the problem is foreign agents like CAIR, defending Jihadists in the media and pushing Muslim Brotherhood values in America.

The Center for Security Policy recently unveiled a unique new tool to expose CAIR as a foreign agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and several of its member states.  The CAIR Observatory website (http://www.cairobservatory.org) presents comprehensive open-source evidence and analysis alleging that CAIR has acted as a foreign agent on behalf of Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.

The centerpiece of the website is the report “CAIR and the Foreign Agents Registration Act,” which details the foreign funding, foreign direction and domestic political influence operations of CAIR in the United States.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) requires any agent of a foreign principal — not just foreign governments but foreign political parties, corporations, non-governmental organizations and even individuals — to register with the U.S. Department of Justice as a foreign agent.

The report documents these CAIR activities as a foreign agent:

• CAIR received at least $2,192,203 in Contributions, Income and Money from foreign principals in the form of 10 distinct transactions
• CAIR received a $2,106,251 mortgage loan from a foreign principal for their Washington, D.C. headquarters
• CAIR secured the promise of at least $54,500,000 in pledges from foreign principals
• CAIR met and coordinated with foreign principals on at least 30 occasions
• CAIR engaged in at least 50 political influence operations on behalf of foreign principals in the United States

And the Center for Security Policy has additional evidence that cannot be made public at this time documenting another $2.4 million in foreign donations and loans given to CAIR since 2000.

The goal of the CAIR Observatory website (http://www.cairobservatory.org/) is to build a model for researching and compiling evidence of illegal behavior by Muslim Brotherhood front organizations, with a focus on organizations operating in the United States as unregistered foreign agents for the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and its member states.  The website’s name — “CAIR Observatory” — is a direct counter to the so-called “Islamophobia Observatory” maintained by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The Jeddah, Saudi Arabia-based OIC has been a contributor to CAIR, and the two have a history of coordinated meetings, tactics and goals.

CAIRObservatory.org will regularly feature new reports and short documentaries spotlighting specific examples of CAIR’s FARA violations, and will be frequently updated with new evidence on CAIR’s ongoing activities as a currently unregistered foreign agent.

Starting next week we’ll begin to expose specific CAIR political operations targeting the U.S. Congress.

For more information contact CAIRObservatory.org Editor Adam Savit (savit@securefreedom.org).

On Saturday, April 3, the terrorist-linked Islamic Center Dar Al Hijrah in the Washington DC suburbs will hold their annual fundraising banquet.  The original flyer headlined  that seven elected officials were “invited”: former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, now Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA), Sen. James Webb (D-VA), Fairfax Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Sharon Bulova, Fairfax Supervisor Penny Gross, and Virginia State Delegate Kaye Kory.   We thought that those elected officials would not want their names associated Dar Al-Hijrah, long-known as an al-Qaeda linked Islamic center, on which we had posted at Biggovernment.com on February 14.  So on February 17, we mailed and faxed a letter to each of the seven elected officials, alerting them to the invitation using their names, and asking them if they would remove their names as invitees.

Within a few days, Senator James Webb and State Delegate Kaye Kory’s names were removed from the invitation.

Their offices declined to comment, but the removal of the names did follow receipt of our faxes, letters, and phone calls.

The reasons the others should not legitimate the Dar Al-Hijrah fundraiser, we had written them, included the Islamic Center’s continued support for the Dar al-Hijrah imam in 2001, Anwar Al-Awlaki, the senior al-Qaeda recruiter for three 9/11 hijackers, imam and mentor to the accused 2009 Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan who killed 13 people, and online mentor to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the suspect in the Christmas Day 2009 attempt to blow up  Northwest Airlines Flight 253.   We described several other Dar Al-Hijrah leaders linked to terrorism and supporting violent jihad against America, including the current imam who will host the April 3 event.

Yet –  after multiple letters, faxes, emails and phone calls alerting their offices to the invitation listing their names – as of Sunday, March 28, 2010, Congressmen Connolly and Moran, former Governor and current DNC Chairman Tim Kaine, Fairfax Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Bulova and Supervisor Penny Gross have all chosen to keep their names on the invitation. Governor Tim Kaine’s spokesman did comment that they had not received an invitation and would not attend, but declined to comment on whether they had asked for Kaine’s name to be removed from the invitation.

So, if these five officials DO attend the dinner they have helped publicize now for over a month, here’s some background on their jihadist host, the current Imam at Dar Al-Hijrah, Shaker Elsayed.  Taken word for word from the letters  they were mailed – and faxed – and then faxed again.

On February 17, we mailed this information on Imam Elsayed  to Rep. Gerry Connolly and the others:

“Mr. Elsayed, the current Imam and a dual citizen of Egypt and the U.S., openly supports the terrorist organization Hamas, including their doctrine advocating the destruction of Israel.  In 2005, shortly after becoming Dar Al-Hijrah’s Imam, he preached that ‘Islam forbids you to give allegiance to those who kick you off your homeland, and to those who support those who kick you off your homeland…We do have license to respond with all force necessary to answer our attackers.’ ”

And on February 17, Congressman Jim Moran’s letter, like all the others, told him this info on Imam Elsayed

“According to video available online at the Investigative Project on Terrorism,  in 2002 at a conference sponsored by the Muslim American Society, Mr. Elsayed stated (translated from Arabic): ‘And about the subject unfairly named suicide bombers, homicide bombers, or murderers, or killers. Our answer to this issue is simple. To decide that this man is a martyr or not a martyr, it is a pure religious matter. Nobody who is not Muslim has any right to decide for us, we the Muslims, whose is a martyr or another. We as Muslims will decide that. It is in-house business.[...]‘ “

And the letter we sent – same day – to Former Governor Tim Kaine, now Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told him as well as the others about this quote from Imam Elsayed:

“The Islamic scholars said whenever there is an attack on an Islamic state or occupation, or the honor of the Muslims has been violated, the Jihad is a must for everyone, a child, a lady and a man. They have to make Jihad with every tool that they can get in their hand. Anything that they can get in their hand and if they don’t have anything in their hand then they can fight with their hand without weapons.”

These five elected officials’ names are still on the flyer. Only five days remain for them to tell the American public whether they support Imam Shaker Elsayed and his jihadist doctrines.

We have since learned that the logo has been used at the MDA website since at least October 2009.   Matters are made more confusing by the fact that the agency continues to use its older shield-like logo for online and other purposes.  The contract for a complete rebranding for MDA was let in 2007, during the Bush administration, although much of the work appears to have been done in 2008 in follow-on contracts during the presidential campaign in which the Obama logo was much in evidence.

It has also been observed that – rather than embracing the symbolic crescent and star, they could be interpreted as the targets of the intercepting swoosh in the MDA’s latest logo.  If so, the 2009 design would presumably be offensive to Islamists, rather than evidence of submission to them.

For these reasons, I am content to have the question posed in the last post be answered in the negative, and I regret any confusion caused by my suggesting otherwise.  The other criticisms I leveled at the Obama administration in connection with its serial and indisputable assaults on the Pentagon’s missile defense programs and capabilities – which the Missile Defense Agency is responsible for building – stand.   Here’s an example:

Visit  the Missile Defense Agency website for this extraordinary video of the successful February 11, 2010 Airborne Laser Testbed  (ALTB) firing of a High Energy Laser, destroying a threat-representative ballistic missile.  It’s a real-life example of what the old MDA logo – and okay, yes, the new MDA logo – represent in our missile defense systems: in this case, our nation’s only program capable of providing a near-term ability to intercept ballistic missiles early in their flight (i.e., the boost-phase).

Yet in the proposed 2011 budget, the Airborne Laser Testbed will never see production.  As SpaceNews reports, “The MDA at one time had plans to field operational versions of the ABL for boost-phase missile defense, but the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama has scaled back the program. Plans now call for using the experimental ABL platform as a test bed for research on directed energy weapons.”

After years of effort, the MDA achieved a  breakthrough success two weeks ago.  The administration should reverse their plans to defund the Airborne Laser Testbed.  Build on success – don’t punish it.

The former would be bad enough, starting with Candidate Obama’s pledge to block “unproven missile defenses.” Once in office, he cut over a billion dollars from the Missile Defense Agency’s budget.  He cancelled the deployment of interceptors and radars in Eastern Europe designed to defend this country, as well as our allies over there.

Among other reprehensible actions, Team Obama terminated the nation’s only program capable of providing a near-term ability to intercept ballistic missiles early in their flight (i.e., the boost-phase).  This Airborne Laser Program nonetheless was successfully tested earlier this month — destroying not one but two missiles similar to those arrayed against us and our friends today and making the case that such systems should be operationalized and deployed as a matter of the utmost urgency.

Then, there are the persistent reports that President Obama is going to accede to Russian demands to reinstitute bilateral restrictions on missile defenses as part of the new START follow-on treaty now being finalized with the Kremlin.  Moscow lost its effective veto over such U.S. systems when George W. Bush withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001 and the Russians have been as anxious as its American fellow-travelers to be able to exercise it again.

Now, thanks to an astute observation by Christopher Logan of the Logans Warning blog, we have another possible explanation for behavior that — in the face of rapidly growing threats posed by North Korean, Iranian, Russian, Chinese and others’ ballistic missiles — can only be described as treacherous and malfeasant:  Team Obama’s anti-anti-missile initiatives are not simply acts of unilateral disarmament of the sort to be expected from an Alinsky acolyte.  They seem to fit an increasingly obvious and worrying pattern of official U.S. submission to Islam and the theo-political-legal program the latter’s authorities call Shariah.

What could be code-breaking evidence of the latter explanation is to be found in the newly-disclosed redesign of the Missile Defense Agency logo (above).  As Logan helpfully shows, the new MDA shield appears ominously to reflect a morphing of the Islamic crescent and star with the Obama campaign logo. (For a comparison, the previous logo is below.)

Even as the administration has lately made a show of rushing less capable sea- and land-based short-range (theater) missile defenses into the Persian Gulf in the face of rising panic there about Iran’s actual/incipient ballistic missile and nuclear capabilities, Team Obama is behaving in a way that — as the new MDA logo suggests — is all about accommodating that “Islamic Republic” and its ever-more aggressive stance.

Watch this space as we identify and consider various, ominous and far more clear-cut acts of submission to Shariah by President Obama and his team.  Readers are encouraged to offer examples of their own to info@securefreedom.org.