Leftist NGOs Continue to Target Counterterrorism and Pro-Constitution State Legislation Like Andy’s Law
Center for Security Policy Calls Out Soros-Funded Groups Masquerading as News Organizations and Watchdogs, as They Ally with Enemies of the Constitution to Vilify Americans Concerned About Jihad
Washington, D.C.— Terrorism doesn’t just happen. Terrorism, says the Center for Security Policy (CSP), is committed, and terrorist acts are perpetrated by individuals who are motivated and trained.
In some cases, according to a special report by CSP Vice President for Outreach Christopher Holton, these acts are funded directly, but the activities involving recruitment, indoctrination, training and funding constitute material support for terrorism.
In his piece, Holton outlined the tragic impetus for legislation known as “Andy’s Law,” which has been passed in Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas, North Carolina, Tennessee and Florida. On June 1, 2009, Private William “Andy” Long was killed in Little Rock, Arkansas, when a terrorist, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe, shot two U.S. Army soldiers outside a recruiting office in a shopping mall. Private Quinton I. Ezeagwula was also wounded.
“To fully comprehend the true nature of the threat of terrorism, one must understand that, though Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad had been labeled a ‘lone wolf,’ such terrorism does not happen in a vacuum,” Holton wrote. “Before he became Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, Carlos Bledsoe was recruited. He was indoctrinated. He was selected to receive training in the far-off land of Yemen and, after that training, he committed horrible acts of terrorism in what he himself termed ‘Jihad.’
“Not only did Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad commit dastardly acts of terrorism, but others provided support that eventually led to his act of terrorism,” Holton continued. “For that those people should have been made to pay. Unfortunately, there has been no specific mechanism to see to it that they should pay.”
Andy’s Law is starting to change that, and this common-sense legislation has received broad, bipartisan support in the states in which it has been passed into law, usually passing unanimously. There was no known opposition to Andy’s Law outside of Muslim Brotherhood organizations and the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center, Holton noted, until very recently when a George Soros-funded NGO—the Center for Public Integrity—masquerading as a news organization, began contacting legislators around the country who have sponsored Andy’s Law essentially accusing them of authoring legislation that unfairly targets Muslims.
“The Soros funding is obviously a huge red flag. And this is not the first time that a Soros-funded NGO has waged information warfare on state level legislative initiatives related to Andy’s Law,” Holton wrote.
“Some might believe that terrorism and the material support of terrorism are crimes that are and should be dealt with strictly on the federal level. This thinking is flawed.”
The federal government has repeatedly declined to pursue terrorism charges over the years in cases that were clearly terrorism:
- The federal government declined to pursue terrorism charges against Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad for his attack on US soldiers in Little Rock.
- The federal government termed the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hassan, to have committed “workplace violence” and declined to pursue terrorism charges against him.
- In a little-known case, in December 2012, Ahmed Ferhani, an Algerian, was convicted under New York’s state-level terrorism statute in a plot to blow up 10 synagogues in New York City. Once again, the federal government had declined to pursue terrorism charges against Ferhani.
“Andy’s Law equips law enforcement and criminal justice personnel on the state and local level with the tools they need to aggressively prosecute terrorists and their supporters,” Holton added. “More importantly, Andy’s Law protects the rights of victims of terrorism by empowering them to take civil action against those who commit these heinous crimes against them and their loved ones. Andy’s Law allows for seizure of the assets including money, used in the course of, intended for use in the course of, derived from, or realized through terrorism. This would empower law enforcement to prevent terrorists, or attempted terrorists, and those who support them, from keeping their assets.
“The idea that Andy’s Law somehow unfairly targets any particular protected class, group or segment of society is ludicrous,” he continued. “In each state in which it has been passed, the law is completely facially neutral. There is absolutely no mention whatsoever of race, religion or political viewpoint. It is strictly aimed at those who commit violent acts of terrorism and those who may have helped them. Andy’s Law can just as easily be applied to groups like the KKK or Antifa as it could be applied to Jihadis. There is absolutely nothing in the language that singles out any sector.”
Andy’s Law is not redundant either, one of the bogus criticism’s raised by the SPLC, according to Holton. Andy’s Law provides remedies for victims of terrorist acts that are not provided in current law. Therefore, without Andy’s Law, victims of terrorism will be denied key remedies that would assist them in recovery of their losses. Additionally, he said, Andy’s Law cannot be used to target people who were not involved in a terrorist act.
“To oppose Andy’s Law is truly to side with the terrorists over victims of terrorism,” Holton wrote. “It is most unfortunate that radical left organizations masquerading as news organizations and watchdog groups have decided to ally themselves with the enemies of our constitution in the Muslim Brotherhood in the use of the term “Islamophobia” to attempt to ridicule and shame Americans with legitimate concerns about both violent and civilization jihad.
“The reason they do so is because they cannot enter into legitimate debate to oppose common-sense legislation such as Andy’s Law.”
Read Holton’s entire report here on the Center for Security Policy website.