How The U.S. Government and AIG Are Funding Hostile Islamic Activities!

  • Share

The AIG $40 Billion Bailout Violates The First Amendment.

Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act 0f 2008 (how’s it worked so far?).  Pursuant to its taxing and spending power, Congress appropriated $40 Billion in taxpayer money to support a majority ownership purchase of the American International Group, (AIG).  By the way, to sort of get a mental handle on “billion,” Jesus walked on earth 1 billion minutes ago.  A billion seconds ago it was 1959.  You do the math from there.

If you own an insurance company which invests its funds only in “Christian Compliant” entities and I purchase insurance from your company; am I not investing in Christian Compliant equities?  What are Christian compliant companies?  Use your imagination; a Christian compliant company might be a company that only does business with Christian fundamentalist church organizations for example.  A Christian compliant company might be further defined as a company that complies with all the religious tenets of the Latter Day Saints which only invests in like-minded companies.  Would you not be now investing in Latter Day Saint ‘compliant’ companies.  Suppose your insurance company is on the brink of bankruptcy and the United States Government invests in your company to save it.  Wouldn’t the Government be investing in a religious compliant organization in contravention of the U.S. Constitution?

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.1
The Establishment clause contained in the First Amendment is generally said to forbid Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination.  Another generally accepted interpretation is that this clause prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another.  So, assume Congress appropriated funds to support your insurance company; doesn’t that act smack of unconstitutionality?  I think so and so would a lot of other people.  Yet, this is exactly what has happened in the Government’s investment in AIG.
AIG owns companies which endorse and support hostile Islamic activities.

In a Federal lawsuit filed on December 15, 2008, in the Eastern District of Michigan, Kevin J. Murray, the Plaintiff alleges that AIG owns companies which endorse and support Islamic activities hostile to the United States Government. The lawsuit, Murray v. Paulson, was initiated by a complaint filed against Secretary of State Henry Paulson and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The lawsuit claims that the appropriation of tax dollars by Congress earmarked for AIG is unconstitutional and seeks to enjoin the Defendants from giving your tax dollars to AIG for several reasons.

It is claimed that AIG engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that are directly and indirectly anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Jewish.  Sharia law is the body of Islamic religious law.  In regard to modern practice of Sharia, Wikipedia offers a comprehensive historical review and contemporary application of Islamic religious law.  Sharia-compliant financing is a tenet which dictates that certain financial activities, including investments, must comply with Islamic law and Islamic religion.

    Sharia-compliant finance (SCF) is expanding among banks and securities houses eager to absorb the hundreds of billions of petrodollars cascading into the Middle East, thanks to $100-per-barrel oil. To lure this cash, financial companies increasingly offer vehicles that neither pay interest nor benefit from gambling, entertainment, alcohol, pork, or anything considered “haram” or “un-kosher” in Islam.  See Sharia-Compliant Finance Funds Jihad by Deroy Murdock.
One type of Sharia-compliant products and business plans is Takaful Insurance.  Through a subsidary, AIG has just recently began offering Takaful products to U.S. citizens.  The Takaful products must comply with Islamic religious principles.2   At paragraphs 28 and 29, the Complaint states that:
    According to AIG, its Takaful products are Islamic because, inter alia, AIG “do[es] not invest in anything that is haram” and it “do[es] not borrow, lend or enter into any financial transaction that is unIslamic.” According to AIG, “haram” is “[p]rohibited elements in Islam according to Sharia.”  The Takaful Insurance business of AIG is pervasively sectarian. Its secular purposes and its Shariah-based Islamic religious mission are inextricably intertwined. Consequently, federal aid in the form of taxpayer funds is flowing directly to a pervasively sectarian entity.3
The U.S. Government now owns a majority share of AIG thanks to Congress passing the bailout legislation. This bailout legislation authorizes Treasury Secretary Paulson to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) which purchases troubled assets from any financial institution.  The determination of what is a troubled asset is made by Paulson and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Here’s just one of several examples researched by Murdock on how this Sharia-compliant financing works against us:
    The North American Islamic Trust owns 69.8 percent of the Dow Jones Islamic Fund. The Justice Department identified NAIT last June as an unindicted co-conspirator in supporting Hamas’ murderous anti-Israeli terrorism. NAIT also owns Albany, New York’s Masjid As-Salam mosque. In April 2007, its founder, Mohammed Mosharref Hossain, and imam, Yassin Muhiddin Aref, received 15-year prison sentences for assisting an FBI sting operation to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat in Manhattan with a shoulder-fired missile.4

The Plaintiff in the federal lawsuit is a former Marine who was deployed to the Middle East in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.  No doubt that Murray is insulted by the actions of his Government in their purchase of assets that invest in and market Sharia-compliant instruments.  No doubt that our brave women and men serving in the Armed Forces must feel slapped in the face by the Government’s actions.  The conundrum here is; Who can immediately relieve the Government of its command?  Have Americans forgotten that on September 11, 2001, it was Islamic terrorists, guided by the fundamental dictates of Sharia, that killed thousands of American citizens?  Have Americans forgotten these same Sharia principles mandate jihad against “infidels?”  Have we forgotten Americans are openly labeled infidels by the Islamic fundamentalists who are hostile toward any other religious belief.  Any use of taxpayer funds to approve, promote, support, ratify religious activities of any type violates the Establishment clause; is unconscionable and should be immediately deemed immoral by all Americans and illegal by the U.S. District Court.

The real interesting question is will the U.S. Government litigate and deny that its majority ownership in AIG is immoral or in violation of the First Amendment.  As for me, I can hardly wait to see the Defendants’ Answer to the Complaint.5  Is it too much to for us ask Congress to repeal the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008?  Let me know what you think.  I look forward to your comment.

  5. See Rule 12 provides the U.S. Government 60 days to file its Answer.
You Might Like

Published by

Roland   ·    Email   ·  Website

Founder and managing editor of Balloun Post. Roland earned his business administration degree with honours from the University of Missouri @ Kansas City and his law degree from Tulane. Roland is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Canada

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *