Official Blogs from the Anti-Defamation League » ADL Blogs
providing inside access to our work on topics ranging from anti-Semitism and extremism to anti-Israel activity and much more
August 18, 2015 2

California Strengthens Laws Against “Paper Terrorism”

Cal­i­for­nia gov­er­nor Jerry Brown signed into law this past week a new mea­sure designed to increase pro­tec­tion for Cal­i­for­ni­ans from the so-called “paper ter­ror­ism” tac­tics of anti-government extremists.ab1267

Mem­bers of the anti-government sov­er­eign cit­i­zen move­ment often file bogus liens or other sim­i­lar doc­u­ments in order to encum­ber the prop­erty of their ene­mies in retal­i­a­tion for some per­ceived wrong­do­ing. Although fil­ing a bogus lien is a crime in Cal­i­for­nia, once such harass­ing liens are filed, it still takes sig­nif­i­cant time and money for vic­tims to get them removed—which is why they are so effec­tive as a retal­ia­tory tactic.

In the 1990s, Cal­i­for­nia enacted leg­is­la­tion to pro­vide a fast-track removal process for such bogus encum­brances. How­ever, the law only applied to pub­lic offi­cials or employ­ees, com­mon vic­tims of such sov­er­eign cit­i­zen tactics.

Now, thanks to Assem­bly­mem­ber Richard Bloom (D– Santa Mon­ica), who spon­sored the bill, California’s laws will extend fast track pro­tec­tion to pri­vate indi­vid­u­als and busi­nesses who are tar­gets of “paper terrorism.”

Addi­tion­ally, the new law will allow any­one tar­geted by a false encum­brance to seek civil reme­dies up to $5,000. With this leg­is­la­tion, Cal­i­for­nia joins the 25 other states that have passed sim­i­lar laws.

The Anti-Defamation League pro­posed and drafted the mea­sure and, early in the process, helped gain sup­port for it from a num­ber of orga­ni­za­tions, includ­ing the Cal­i­for­nia Dis­trict Attor­neys Asso­ci­a­tion and the Cal­i­for­nia Police Chiefs Association.

The bill received bi-partisan and unan­i­mous sup­port in both the Assem­bly and Senate.

Sov­er­eign cit­i­zens believe that gov­ern­ment has no author­ity over them because an insid­i­ous con­spir­acy infil­trated and replaced the orig­i­nal legit­i­mate gov­ern­ment with an ille­git­i­mate, tyran­ni­cal one. They claim to owe alle­giance only to the “orig­i­nal” gov­ern­ment. Con­se­quently, sov­er­eigns often claim that they are out­side the juris­dic­tion of the “ille­git­i­mate” gov­ern­ment and that they can ignore all laws and regulations.

In addi­tion to “paper ter­ror­ism” crimes, sov­er­eigns engage in other ille­gal activ­ity rang­ing from scams and frauds to deadly shootouts and standoffs.

The mort­gage cri­sis and the reces­sion of 2008 sparked a surge in the sov­er­eign cit­i­zen move­ment, who exploited the eco­nomic sit­u­a­tion to grow in num­bers and activ­ity. The Real Estate Fraud Pros­e­cu­tion Unit of the San Bernardino Dis­trict Attorney’s office, for exam­ple, has esti­mated that their cur­rent case load con­sists of 85% sov­er­eign cit­i­zen cases.

ADL tracks the activ­i­ties of the sov­er­eign cit­i­zen move­ment and has trained tens of thou­sands of law enforce­ment offi­cers, gov­ern­ment offi­cials, pros­e­cu­tors and judges about the movement’s ide­ol­ogy, activ­i­ties and ille­gal tac­tics, includ­ing ter­ror­ism and deadly violence.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 18, 2015 3

Farrakhan Promotes Anti-Semitism & Violence In Lead Up To Oct. March

Nation of Islam (NOI) leader Louis Far­rakhan has invoked hate­ful anti-Semitic con­spir­acy the­o­ries and called for vio­lence against white peo­ple dur­ing his multi-city tour to pro­mote the Octo­ber 10 “Justice…Or Else!” Mil­lion Man March (MMM) in Wash­ing­ton, DC.farrakhan-justice-or-else-miami-2015

In his August 13 remarks at a church in Mil­wau­kee, Far­rakhan accused Jews of con­trol­ling the media, gov­ern­ment and econ­omy. Far­rakhan told the con­gre­ga­tion, “I’m talk­ing about the wicked ones in the Jew­ish com­mu­nity that run Amer­ica, run the gov­ern­ment, run the world, own the banks, own the means of com­mu­ni­ca­tion. They are my ene­mies! But as sure as I’m alive, my ene­mies will be made my foot­stool and so will yours.”

Far­rakhan also invoked the canard that Jews killed Jesus stat­ing, “Would the Jew had lis­tened to Jesus…but you rebelled against him and killed him.”

In his July 30 remarks in Miami, Far­rakhan asserted “A Jew is not a Jew by the cir­cum­ci­sion of the male organ but cir­cum­ci­sion of the heart.” Farrakhan’s Miami remarks also took a par­tic­u­larly mil­i­tant tone. He stated, “If the fed­eral gov­ern­ment will not inter­cede in our affairs, then we must rise up and kill those who kill us! Stalk them! And kill them! And let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling!”

Far­rakhan employed sim­i­lar rhetoric in Mil­wau­kee, say­ing that the media have mis­rep­re­sented him as vio­lent because “white peo­ple deserve to die, and they know, so they think it’s us com­ing to do it.” He con­tin­ued, “Allahu akbar! God is great! We have no weapon! We bother nobody! Then if you come to take our life, don’t’ be sur­prised if you lose your own!”

In an effort to build sup­port for the “Justice…Or Else!” MMM, Far­rakhan has spo­ken in Wash­ing­ton, Philadel­phia, New York, Miami, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Hous­ton, Los Ange­les, Mil­wau­kee, and Memphis.

Malik Zulu Shabazz, the racist and anti-Semitic for­mer leader of the New Black Pan­ther Party and cur­rent leader of Black Lawyers for Jus­tice, has also actively been pro­mot­ing the event for the NOI in var­i­ous parts of the country.

The NOI has also orga­nized other local events led by African-American reli­gious and com­mu­nity lead­ers. Some MMM events have fea­tured sup­port from national, state, and local elected offi­cials, celebri­ties, and others.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 13, 2015 2

Where We Stand on the Iran Deal

By Jonathan Green­blatt
National Direc­tor of the Anti-Defamation League

This arti­cle orig­i­nally appeared on The Huff­in­g­ton Post Blog

The debate about the Iran nuclear deal has com­pelled us to con­sult with mem­bers of Con­gress and Admin­is­tra­tion offi­cials as well as to engage numer­ous experts to elicit a deeper under­stand­ing of the Joint Com­pre­hen­sive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and its impli­ca­tions for the United States.

From the begin­ning, we raised a series of ques­tions to Con­gress. Based on what we know now, our deep reser­va­tions expressed on July 24 remain. Indeed, because our pro­found con­cerns with the agree­ment have not yet been sat­is­fac­to­rily addressed, ADL believes that Con­gress should vote no.

Nev­er­the­less and regard­less of the out­come of a vote in Con­gress, we see an oppor­tu­nity for all sides to find new ground based on bipar­ti­san col­lab­o­ra­tion to con­sider a new way to approach the Islamic Repub­lic. This is cru­cial because, despite the nuclear accord that has been struck, Iran clearly con­tin­ues its nefar­i­ous behav­ior in the region. It must be addressed head on.

Yes, the deal offers sig­nif­i­cant bar­ri­ers in Iran’s nuclear path, for at least a decade that will keep Iran from acquir­ing a nuclear weapon, con­straints not cur­rently avail­able through any other means. But, as noted by many experts, these lim­i­ta­tions come to an end within 15 years in the best case. The poten­tial loop­holes in these con­straints con­tribute to our unease. We admired the clar­ity of the rea­son­ing offered by one of the Senate’s most respected, long-standing mem­bers, Sen. Chuck Schumer which crys­tal­ized those concerns.

To be clear, we respect and appre­ci­ate the com­mit­ment of the Admin­is­tra­tion and Mem­bers of Con­gress who have engaged in a seri­ous and sus­tained effort over many years to neu­tral­ize the Iran­ian nuclear threat. We do not pur­port to pos­sess expert knowl­edge of the com­plex­i­ties of nuclear physics or sanc­tions. How­ever, ADL has had pol­icy on this issue for over a decade because of our mis­sion: to fight the defama­tion of the Jew­ish peo­ple and to secure jus­tice and fair treat­ment for all. And, for decades, Iran repeat­edly has pro­moted anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism; killed Amer­i­can civil­ians; threat­ened to oblit­er­ate the Jew­ish State; and insti­tu­tion­al­ized illib­er­al­ism. So we are con­cerned not only that the agree­ment appears to offer Iran a legal and legit­i­mate path­way to become a nuclear thresh­old state in just over a decade, but more imme­di­ately, stand­ing as a nor­mal­ized mem­ber of the inter­na­tional community.

In exchange for paus­ing rather than per­ma­nently ter­mi­nat­ing its nuclear pro­gram, Iran will receive bil­lions of dol­lars that, con­trary to the argu­ments offered by admin­is­tra­tion offi­cials, will almost cer­tainly allow it to advance its agenda of big­otry, expan­sion­ism and sup­port for ter­ror­ism. Indeed in recent days, we have seen com­mer­cial del­e­ga­tions flood into Tehran even as its lead­ers flout inter­na­tional sanc­tions by vis­it­ing for­eign cap­i­tals; its judi­ciary represses reli­gious minori­ties at home; and its incite­ful rhetoric becomes even more sophis­ti­cated and stri­dent. These are omi­nous signs.

We want diplo­macy to work, and we fully accept there are times when our lead­ers must forge agree­ments with coun­tries whose ambi­tions we oppose. We are aware, how­ever, that this deal walks past many of the red lines orig­i­nally drawn by the United States and embold­ens the Iran­ian regime even as it con­tin­u­ally threat­ens the U.S. and our allies. That is why the United States must work to ensure that the ulti­mate red line, as stated by suc­ces­sive U.S. Pres­i­dents, that Iran will never acquire a nuclear weapon, is made crys­tal clear not only in words, but through con­crete steps taken both uni­lat­er­ally and in con­cert with our allies.

Indeed, there are poli­cies and actions relat­ing to Iran’s aggres­sion that Repub­li­cans, Democ­rats and the White House might actu­ally agree upon. As such, we urge all sides to move beyond a sim­ple “yes” or “no” vote to affirm our shared val­ues as the basis for new efforts to cur­tail the threat­en­ing activ­i­ties of the Islamic Republic.

As Dr. Robert Sat­loff, Direc­tor of the Wash­ing­ton Insti­tute for Near East Pol­icy, noted in an online essay in The Atlantic, a vote to dis­ap­prove the deal can actu­ally open up space for the Admin­is­tra­tion and Con­gress to address many, if not all, the seri­ous con­cerns expressed about the short­com­ings of the JCPOA and the chal­lenges Iran­ian behav­ior pose to the region and the world. In Dr. Satloff’s words, “‘No’ doesn’t nec­es­sar­ily mean ‘no, never.’ It also can also mean ‘not now, not this way.’”

This is impor­tant because Amer­i­cans of all polit­i­cal per­sua­sions agree on the intrin­sic dig­nity of all peo­ple. As such, the United States should ratchet up the costs to Iran for its oppres­sive poli­cies and regional med­dling even as we offer an out­stretched hand when it finally ceases such activ­i­ties. There is a clear oppor­tu­nity for a non-ideological con­sen­sus around three related points that can take us forward.

We believe a con­sen­sus can be cre­ated to address Iran’s bru­tal human rights record. No one in any polit­i­cal camp here in the U.S. would excuse the insti­tu­tion­al­ized dis­crim­i­na­tion fac­ing eth­nic and reli­gious minori­ties in Iran, includ­ing Baha’is, Chris­tians, Jews, and Sunni Arabs. Their treat­ment ranges from quiet intim­i­da­tion to sys­tem­atic impris­on­ment. LGBT cit­i­zens fare far worse. The U.S. should be vig­i­lant in using exist­ing sanc­tions tar­get­ing these prac­tices and explore new tools that might be needed. Seri­ous con­sid­er­a­tion also should be given to tak­ing action against Iran in inter­na­tional fora, for its repres­sive poli­cies toward its own peo­ple sim­ply because of what they believe or who they love.

Another impor­tant point of con­sen­sus is the broad under­stand­ing that Israel has a lot to worry about con­cern­ing Iran. Sup­port for ever-deepening mil­i­tary and strate­gic coop­er­a­tion between the U.S. and Israel is broad, con­sis­tent, and bipar­ti­san. We pro­pose that the U.S. deepen its intel­li­gence coop­er­a­tion with Israel and work with the Jew­ish state to ensure it has suf­fi­cient defense arrange­ments, such that the President’s oft-stated recog­ni­tion that “Israel has the right to defend itself by itself” can match Israeli capa­bil­i­ties. Some have sug­gested that the deliv­ery to Israel of the Mas­sive Ordi­nance Pen­e­tra­tor (M.O.P.), and the means to deploy it would demon­strate this regard­ing the Iran­ian nuclear infra­struc­ture; how­ever, this prin­ci­ple should be acted upon with regard to all aspects of the Iran­ian threat. And it would be con­struc­tive for the Israeli gov­ern­ment to begin to engage with the Admin­is­tra­tion on these issues as soon as possible.

As a third con­sen­sus point, all par­ties know that Iran con­tin­ues to desta­bi­lize the region and expand its sphere of influ­ence using mili­tias and ter­ror­ist prox­ies. Time and again, the words and actions of the Islamic Repub­lic have reflected a ten­dency toward war­mon­ger­ing and worse. We would like to see the Admin­is­tra­tion and Con­gress artic­u­late a regional strat­egy to counter desta­bi­liz­ing Iran­ian activ­i­ties across the Mid­dle East, includ­ing work­ing with regional allies. This could involve inter­dict­ing the flow of Iran­ian weapons as well as engag­ing the Gulf Coor­di­nat­ing Coun­cil (GCC) directly in dis­cus­sions around neu­tral­iz­ing the Assad regime in Syria and coun­ter­ing Iran­ian inter­ven­tion in Yemen. It could encom­pass a new mul­ti­lat­eral arrange­ment to address Iran’s increas­ing use of cyber-terrorism to threaten its neigh­bors and attack our own institutions.

Finally, we implore all sides to tone down the heated rhetoric. The debate about the JCPOA and addi­tional dis­cus­sions should be con­ducted by all par­ties in a civil man­ner. No one needs to resort to innu­endo or coarse attacks.

We stress that ADL can­not sup­port the JCPOA in its cur­rent form. With­out offer­ing a robust set of mea­sures to account for its vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties, the JCPOA presents too great a risk to the U.S. and for our crit­i­cal allies like Israel. Until the admin­is­tra­tion acts to address these con­cerns, and whether or not it is approved by Con­gress, we urge a new path for­ward that con­vinces Iran to eschew its agenda of big­otry and vio­lence. We should come together around smart pol­icy approaches to enable this out­come and rebuild the con­fi­dence of our allies and those around the world who rightly feel uneasy about liv­ing in a Mid­dle East in which an embold­ened Iran has new resources and new stand­ing to empower it.

Tags: , , , , , ,