Top Menu

David Yerushalmi: Pamela Geller’s anti-democracy lawyer & “SION” senior member exposed: The facts

Original article by Jai Singh

I have recently come across some major information regarding a pivotal member of Robert Spencer & Pamela Geller’s inner circle, specifically David Yerushalmi. The main cross-published article below is from the Center for American Progress think-tank, although I’ve also included URL links for extensive further information about Yerushalmi at the end of this article. It certainly explains a lot. It is also very revealing indeed about the core anti-Muslim propagandists’ endgame.

Along with being Pamela Geller’s laywer, David Yerushalmi is a senior member of Spencer & Geller’s Stop Islamization of Nations/”SION” organisation. Yerushalmi was even one of the main speakers at Spencer & Geller’s anti-Muslim conference in New York in September 2012 (Geller enthusiastically provided video footage on her Atlas Shrugs website here).

David Yerushalmi is also General Counsel for Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy organisation, which has had a considerable influence on certain senior Republican politicians, particularly their wild claims about “extremist Muslim infiltration” in the Obama Administration. According to the New York Times, Gaffney is “Yerushalmi’s primary link to a network of former and current government officials, security analysts and grass-roots political organizations” and is also able to tap “a network of Tea Party and Christian groups as well as ACT! for America, which has 170,000 members”.

There is, however, much more. As the main article below (and the subsequent URL links) discusses, David Yerushalmi has tried to conceal a huge amount of self-incriminating information from the public. Not only are his racial and religious views self-evident, but it also raises several further questions:

1. Exactly why is Pamela Geller allying herself so closely with someone who believes that American women should not have the right to vote ?

2. Yerushalmi heads an organisation (Society of Americans for National Existence/”SANE”) whose charter explicitly states that it is “dedicated to the rejection of democracy” in the United States. It is worth noting that such actions are defined as sedition, a major offence under multiple Federal laws: See here, here, here, and here. Why is Yerushalmi not being prosecuted for sedition ?

3. Exactly who are the members of Yerushalmi’s anti-democracy “Society of Americans for National Existence” organisation, and to what extent have they penetrated the United States’ educational, legal, and political systems, government, intelligence, the media, and US military ?

4. Considering the fact that Yerushalmi heads an organisation explicitly dedicated to the rejection of democracy in the United States, why have the relevant authorities not stripped Yerushalmi of his license to practice law ?

5. To what extent are Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and David Horowitz involved in furthering Yerushalmi’s anti-democracy agenda ?

6. Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are also closely allied to John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN; Bolton was Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s senior foreign policy advisor during his campaign. As publicised by Geller, Bolton was even originally scheduled to be one of the main speakers alongside Yerushalmi at the SION conference in New York in September 2012. Bolton has also appeared on Frank Gaffney’s radio show in order to defend the aforementioned claims that extremist Muslims have “infiltrated” the US Government. To what extent is John Bolton involved in furthering Yerushalmi’s anti-democracy agenda ?

7. Following on from #6, is John Bolton himself a member of Yerushalmi’s “Society of Americans for National Existence” organisation ?

8. Following on from #6 and #7, to what extent is Mitt Romney aware of all this ?

9. The other main guests & speakers alongside Yerushalmi at the SION conference in New York in September 2012 included New York State Senator David Storobin, English Defence League leader Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka “Tommy Robinson”, also see here, here, here, and here), English Defence League co-founder/British Freedom Party deputy leader Kevin Carroll, and British Freedom Party leader Paul Weston. To what extent are they aware of Yerushalmi’s anti-democracy agenda ?

10. To what extent are Frank Gaffney (also see here) and his Center for Security Policy organisation involved in furthering Yerushalmi’s anti-democracy agenda ? (Note: The CSP link includes extensive details of the organisation’s main financiers, board members, military committee members, and academic council members. The information about the level of involvement of extremely senior [and well-connected] former military officers and major weapons manufacturers is particularly startling).

11. To what extent are Newt Gingrich (also see here and here), Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Rep. Peter King (R-NY) (also see here), Rep. Allen West (R-FL), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Rep. Thomas Rooney (R-FL), Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), and other anti-Muslim members of Congress aware of Yerushalmi’s anti-democracy agenda ?

12. Peter King, previously known for his active support of the terrorist IRA, is currently Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and is also a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He has appeared on Frank Gaffney’s radio show, where he made a series of demonstrably false statements about American Muslims. More recently, Peter King has received an award from Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy organisation. Why is the Chairman of Homeland Security accepting an award from an organisation whose General Counsel is dedicated to the rejection of democracy in the United States ?

13. To what extent are Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, and American intelligence agencies aware of the fact that several of the senior politicians listed in #11 have demanded action based on dubious material from an organisation whose General Counsel is dedicated to the rejection of democracy in the United States ?

14. To what extent are Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, and American intelligence agencies aware of the fact that a disproportionate number of the senior politicians listed in #11 have direct links to the same fundamentalist Christian organisation dedicated to influencing American politicians ? Further to the recent US presidential election, updated details of some of these politicians and their activities are available here, here, and here.

15. To what extent are Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, and American intelligence agencies aware of the fact that several recent Republican presidential candidates, including one of the senior politicians listed in #11 (who is also a member of the House Intelligence Committee), have extensive links to “Dominionism” ? (Note: Dominionism is an extreme interpretation of Christian fundamentalism deriving from “Christian Reconstructionism”, which involves the belief that rule by non-Christians anywhere in the world is sacrilege, explicitly approves of the historical slavery of African-Americans, and openly advocates the replacement of American law with Old Testament injunctions including the death penalty for apostasy and homosexuality; Dominionism also claims that its adherents have a God-given mandate to infiltrate the highest echelons of power and subsequently impose their beliefs on the entire world).

16. Yerushalmi has also proposed a range of measures targeting Muslims in the United States (see ThinkProgress article below). If Yerushalmi and his main allies were given free rein to implement these measures, exactly what criteria would they use in order to identify someone as a “suspected Muslim” or a “known Muslim” ?

17. Following on from #16, exactly what measures would Yerushalmi propose in order to conclusively prove that someone is (or is not) a Muslim ?

18. Exactly what actions would Yerushalmi describe as “knowingly acting in furtherance of, or supporting the, adherence to Islam” ?

19. Considering the fact that Yerushalmi, Geller and Spencer publicly claim to be such staunch supporters of the concept of “freedom of speech” and refer to this concept when justifying their own actions, why do they keep threatening to sue people who exercise their own freedom of speech against them ?

The original ThinkProgress article is cross-published in full below:


Neocon ‘Team B’ Author Yerushalmi: ‘Islam Was Born In Violence; It Will Die That Way’

I wrote last week that the new “Team B” report from neoconservative activist Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy on the threat of Islamic sharia law is notable for, among other things, the fact that its authors consulted with no actual Muslims or Islamic scholars in writing it.

A key “expert” behind the report’s interpretation of Islamic law is a man named David Yerushalmi. In addition to running a DC law practice, Yerushalmi serves as General Counsel of the Center for Security Policy. Yerushalmi is also a contributor to Andrew Breitbart’s Big Peace. On his law office website, Yerushalmi claims to be “considered an expert on Islamic law.”

The release of the sharia report was hailed last week by three leading Congressional conservatives — Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), and Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) — so it’s worth looking into what one the report’s key contributors actually believes about Muslims and Islam.

Here’s what Yerushalmi wrote in the American Thinker in 2006:

”Islam was born in violence; it will die that way. Any wish to the contrary is sheer Pollyannaism. The same way the post World War II German youth were taught by their German teachers and political leaders to despise the fascism of their fathers, with strict laws extant still today restricting even speech that casts doubt on the Holocaust, so too must the Muslim youth be taught from the cradle to reject the religion of their forebears.”

Yerushalmi also wrote in 2006 that the Muslim Brotherhood “has succeeded in penetrating our educational, legal, and political systems, as well as top levels of government, intelligence, the media, and U.S. military, virtually paralyzing our ability to respond effectively.” He criticized President Bush for his “fatal, but well-intentioned ideological whim to build democracies among a ruthless people who believe in a murderous creed falsely labeled a ‘religion of peace.‘”

Yerushalmi heads an organization called Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE), whose charter — now hidden behind a paywall but shared here by Talk to Action’s Brian Wilson — states:

“America is a unique people bound together through a commitment to America’s Judeo-Christian moral foundation and to an enduring faith and trust in G-d and in His Providence… America was the handiwork of faithful Christians, mostly men, and almost entirely white, who ventured from Europe to create a nation in their image of a country existing as free men under G-d. The founding fathers understood that party-led parliaments and democracy were the worse form of government and sought to resist the movement that was soon to find fertile ground in France with the French Revolution…

…at its core, SANE is dedicated to the rejection of democracy and party rule and a return to a constitutional republic…

…Any world view, ideology, or -ism that promotes directly or indirectly the elimination of national existence and the establishment of a world state is our foe. So you can know at the start that liberalism (and this includes libertarianism) and Islam are in our sights.”

Yerushalmi’s group suggests the following measures for dealing with America’s Muslim problem:

“- It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam.
– The Congress of the United States of America shall declare the US at war with the Muslim Nation or Umma.

– The President of the United States of America shall immediately declare that all non-US citizen Muslims are Alien Enemies under Chapter 3 of Title 50 of the US Code and shall be subject to immediate deportation.
– No Muslim shall be granted an entry visa into the United States of America.”

Unsurprisingly, Yerushalmi’s antipathies extend beyond Muslims. In a 2006 article, “On Race: A Tentative Discussion” [Note: Despite Yerushalmi’s efforts to destroy the online evidence, his full article in PDF form can still be accessed directly here] — tentative because, as Yerushalmi laments in the article, one cannot engage in “a discussion of Islam as an evil religion, or of blacks as the most murderous of peoples (at least in New York City), or of illegal immigrants as deserving of no rights” without being labeled a racist — Yerushalmi writes that the American founders were on to something when they limited the vote to white men:

“There is a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote. You might not agree or like the idea but this country’s founders, otherwise held in the highest esteem for their understanding of human nature and its affect on political society, certainly took it seriously. Why is that? Were they so flawed in their political reckonings that they manhandled the most important aspect of a free society – the vote? If the vote counts for so much in a free and liberal democracy as we ‘know’ it today, why did they limit the vote so dramatically.”

So Yerushalmi isn’t crazy about Muslims, African-Americans, immigrants, or women. But wait, he also strongly dislikes liberal Jews:

“Jews of the modern age are the most radical, aggressive and effective of the liberal Elite. Their goal is the goal of all “progressives:” a determined use of liberal principles to deconstruct the Western nation state in a “historical” march to the World State……one must admit readily that the radical liberal Jew is a fact of the West and a destructive one.”

I contacted Mr. Yerushalmi to give him an opportunity to explain these writings. He declined.


[Note 1: This is just the tip of the iceberg. Extensive further information on David Yerushalmi’s real views & agenda here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here]

[Note 2: As discussed by Richard Silverstein here, Yerushalmi is also on record as making the following anti-democracy statements: “Our constitutional republic was specifically designed to insulate our national leaders from the masses, democracy has seeped up through the cracks and corroded everything we once deemed sacred about our political order.”]

[Note 3: As discussed here, other articles on Yerushalmi’s website included openly racist statements such as the following: “Race matters and affects your intelligence. Jews are the smartest white people around. Orientals smarter than Whites. Latinos next. Then Blacks.”]

[Note 4: As discussed here, Yerushalmi has also written articles claiming that “most of the fundamental differences between the races is genetic.” In the aforementioned article “On Race: A Tentative Discussion”, Yerushalmi described African-Americans as a “relatively murderous race killing itself” and stated: “If evolution and the biologists who espouse the theory are correct, then the idea that racial differences included innate differences in character and intelligence would[,] it seem[,] be more likely than not.”]

[Note 5: Yerushalmi tried to silence Richard Silverstein by threatening to sue him for defamation when he referred to Yerushalmi as a “white supremacist”. However, Yerushalmi withdrew the threat after Silverstein publicly presented the mass of information supporting his allegation and refused to back down.]

[Note 6: As discussed here, Yerushalmi is also on record as making the following Robert Spencer/Julius Streicher-style statement in his own defence: “I have never written anything that calls for discrimination against…Muslims qua Muslims.”]

[Note 7: Yerushalmi, Spencer, Geller, Gaffney and Horowitz are part of the core anti-Muslim propaganda network. Extensive further information on the main US-based individuals, organisations and financiers involved in this network is available here, here, here and here.]

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Sir David ( aged 13 3/4 )

    Ah Susanna
    Back again I see
    What do you think about this chaps views on women or on black and Asian people?
    As I ,for one am not an American, I will accept your view that the USA is not a democracy.
    Or is this all whiny because your boy Mit came second in a two horse race?

    Sir David

  • Susanna

    Maybe the writer of this so called article did not know his history or read the Federalist Papers, because he is so concerned about defaming SANE.

    “Is the first statement about rejecting “democracy and party rule” to you an extreme statement or a remaking of America? Have you not read the Federalist Papers or taken a rudimentary college course in political theory? Do you not suppose that our form of government was a rejection of what was later to be developed in Europe? Our form of government, at least as set out in our Constitution, is not democracy in any Athenian or parliamentary sense nor is it party-rule as in the parliamentary systems adopted in the main on the Continent. Do you not understand the differences between our system of a constitutional republic with the separation of powers (not present in the typical parliamentary system) dominated by two parties historically and the multi-party parliamentary system developed in other Western democracies?”

  • Xithurel

    You know no matter what he comes up with, it just sounds like a hustle. It’s all just regurgitated crap now, he simply renames and changes the wording around his rambles. Really if you took the time to look at the history of his touched mind – it’s actually a hustle. It’s laughable. He’s literally run out of material – they all have.

  • @Ali

    I’m certain loon Watch could do an excellent job debunking that, assuming someone else hasn’t done so already. That was posted around a half a year ago. Maybe we could find something someone wrote refuting it.

  • Ali
  • These islamaphobes are worshipping their god israel….in the u.s. and europe as more and more muslims start engaging in the political process these islamaphobes fear less support for israel will be the result…they are determined to stifle moslems in the west growing political power. They fear the political activist muslim more than the jihadi.

  • I have mixed feelings about this article – particularly the ‘questions’ in the first part. I definitely despise most of the positions taken by David Yerushalmi, Geller, Spencer, et. al. Their positions defy the Constitutional principles of the Constitutional Republic they claim to defend (particularly Article 6 section 3 which forbids requiring a religious test for those seeking public office; and the First Amendment prohibition of establishment of religion and protection of freedom of speech, the press, public assembly, and the right to express grievances against the government). I won’t say I completely despise Yerushalmi and his fellows, because there are undoubtedly good things about them. They’re probably good and loving towards their families and friends. Shucks, it’s been said that even Hitler loved dogs! 😀 But the racism and Jewish supremacism expressed by Yerushalmi, and the extreme Islamophobia expressed by all of his ilk, I do find despicable.

    However, a good portion of the ‘questions’ dealt with Yerushalmi’s opposition to democracy, as if it is somehow “treasonous” to oppose the democratic form which our government now has. The problem with this is that despite all of his ‘evils’, Mr. Yerushalmi is quite correct about the fact that many (at least) of the ‘founding fathers’ were very leery (to put it mildly) of democracy. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who rather famously defined democracy as two wolves and one sheep deciding on what to have for dinner! 😆 They did come to the conclusion that any good government had to have at least some elements of democracy; but they deliberately placed strong limitations on the extent of that democratic influence.

    A number of the governmental principles of the ‘founding fathers’ have since been changed by Constitutional Amendment – because they were seen to be inconsistent with other basic principles found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (such as equality of all humans, and liberty for all humans) – and those principles of the ‘founders’ were in fact contrary to what we today think of as democratic. Some of these principles which were either contrary to democracy, or at least limited it, are:

    (1) Representative government – Government is not by direct popular vote on all matters; rather, “the people” elect representatives to act in their behalf. Obviously, a government by direct popular vote on all matters would be very ‘unwieldy’ and unfeasible.

    (2) As originally set up, the ‘electorate’ was quite limited. Women and black people (both male and female) were excluded from participation in voting. Only free white males were allowed to vote; and if I remember correctly, not even all free white males were eligible – only those who owned property could vote. That is quite a limitation on the concept of democracy; some perhaps may rightly question whether such a limited electorate constitutes democracy at all.

    (3) This very limited concept of “the will of the people”, (limited electorate choosing representatives to act for them) was further limited by drawing up a Constitution containing a Bill of Rights which placed major restrictions on the “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” as expressed through their representatives. The AUTHORITY of “the people” was greatly restricted by a just enforcement of the RIGHTS of individuals and minorities.

    (4) As originally set up, another restriction on democracy was that the office of Senator (as opposed to the House of Representatives) was not directly elected even by the limited ‘electorate’. U.S. Senators were chosen by the Congresses of the States they represented.

    (5) And of course, in the election of our President, we have the ‘electoral college’. It’s not necessarily the result of the popular vote that determines who will be President. The voters in each State actually are voting for ‘electors’, who then in turn cast their votes for President. While the winner of the popular vote in each State is supposed to get all of the electoral college votes from that State, in theory at least some or all of the electors could rebel and cast their votes for the candidate who lost in the popular vote in their State. Though I may be mistaken, I think that there in fact has been a time or two when one or more ‘electors’ voted contrary to the ‘popular vote’ in his State. Generally speaking, though, the winner in each state (no matter by how small a margin) gets all of the ‘electoral votes’ from that State. This can result in a candidate winning the national popular vote, but losing the election.

    This ‘electoral college’ has its defenders and its detractors; but it was deliberately established originally as one more step of separation from pure democracy.

    So although the ‘founding fathers’ recognized that at least some basic principles of democracy were necessary, they did in fact do their best to distance themselves as much as possible from it. How then can it be ‘treason’ for anyone today to oppose democracy? Frankly, I’m glad that we have moved a good distance from some of the limitations the ‘founding fathers’ placed on democracy – though I still defend the limitations represented by the Bill of Rights. But I would hardly call it ‘treason’ to advocate the ideas that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, etc. espoused, even though I don’t agree with some of those ideas.

    Really, how in the world can any ‘American’ consider it ‘sedition’ or ‘treason’ to oppose the U.S. Government – or any of its laws and enactments – and to seek to change it? Were not the “heroes of the Revolution” in fact guilty of such ‘sedition’ and ‘treason’? They even enshrined the RIGHT to such ‘sedition’ and ‘treason’ in that ‘founding document’ known as “The Declaration of Independence”! Consider the first few sentences of the second paragraph of that document, and tell me that’s not ‘sedition’ by any normal definition of the term:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — THAT WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR TO ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE NEW GOVERNMENT, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    If it is the RIGHT of the people to alter or abolish their Government and replace it, how in the world can it be ‘treason’ to oppose the Government and advocate changing it? No; I may strongly disagree with some of the ‘undemocratic’ ideas of the ‘founding fathers’, and perhaps with David Yershalmi’s opposition to democracy; but I certainly don’t consider it ‘treason’ or ‘sedition’ to AGREE with those founding fathers’ beliefs and to actively oppose democracy in favor of a “Constitutional Republic”.

  • mindy1

    @Xithurel that is sadly true 🙁

  • Xithurel

    This whole Petraeus crapfest is so much like the Lewinsky imbecility in the 90’s. I mean you want to talk moral bankruptcy – Clinton’s presidency was rampant with it.

    When he got caught for his affair, the Kosovo War was happening – how many people here remember the Kosovo war?

    Once again, innocence was being slaughtered in front of the whole world, people screaming for help; and the Europeans were literally dragging their feet. While EVERYONE in the media, were STILL so fixated on Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky; his dick size, past affairs and ‘poor Hilary and little Chelsey’ than actually covering the utter calamity happening in ‘Never Again’ Europe.

    Then when NATO FINALLY got involved – how many people in the media actually covered the utter DISASTER that ‘intervention’ became?

    Who can forget the talk of impeachment of Bill Clinton? Over what?

    Twin Towers bombing?
    USS Cole?
    ‘War’ on drugs?
    Derivatives on Wall Street?


    In a moral and civilized world, his inaction to intervene during Rwanda’s genocide alone should have been grounds for impeachment. He actually knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April of 1994 and BURIED it to justify his inaction – he instead would later blame Somalia for his inaction.

    Nope, none of that ever happened – no sir. And ‘come back kid’ Bill Clinton gets re-elected. While to this day he’s still regarded as the ‘ best’ president. While Jimmy Carter on the other hand gets thrown under a bus – go figure.

    Yet the second he get’s caught having an affair – here comes the talk of impeachment. Over a %$#@^&! blow job.

    Same thing here, yet again Petraeus’ failures in Iraq and Afghanistan are totally irrelevant; but when he has an affair – he resigns.

    While his failures in Iraq and Afghanistan were not failures at all – nope. Even though every single Human rights organization in the world to this day talk about how, and why Petraeus ‘solution’ was an absolute travesty. Nope, once again the Media, totally barbaric in it’s mentality, and utterly bankrupted of any sort of conscience; ignore the facts and focus on the benign and utterly irrelevant.

    Top headline as of RIGHT NOW?

    Oh would you look at that: ‘Jill Kelley near the heart of a scandal’

    There is something seriously wrong with humanity.

  • Benjamin Taghiov

    The Sweden Democrat Party (SD) suffered a major political blow today, when the party’s economic policy exponent had to resign due to leaked racist slurs, caught on tape. Erik Almqvist has been viewed as the Party chairman, Jimmie Åkesson’s, crown prince. He will likely not be inheriting any political assignments after this. The film shows how Mr. Almqvist, in the company of two fellow SD members, attacks a heavily intoxicated man, by kicking him and calling him racially degrading names.

    Just prior to this, Mr Almqvist gets into a discussion with a known Swedish comedian, Soran Ismail, calling him a “dark skinned foreigner” and that “he will get in trouble in the future”: implying that SD, at some point in the future, will gain the political strenght to crack down on him (and his peers- i.e: immigrants).

    He then ends the whole charade by calling a female witness a “whore”, which no doubt, will effect the party’s female constituency.

    The Sweden Democrats has also publicly maintained that “Muslims are the biggest threat to Sweden”.


    Top Sweden Democrat quits after racist film

    Sweden Democrat MP Erik Almqvist will step down as the party’s economic policy spokesman over racist statements he made on a film clip and his subsequent denials, party leader Jimmie Åkesson announced on Wednesday.

    “I’ve spoken with Erik Almqvist today and he’s accepted leaving his position as our economic policy spokesperson as well as his place in the executive committee,” Åkesson told reporters.

    “I’ve also urged him to consider leaving his position in the Riksdag.”

    Åkesson called the day “the worst day in his political life”, emphasizing he thought it was important the party react forcefully to the incident, which follows just weeks after the Sweden Democrat leader unveiled plans to clean up the party’s image as a group of “angry young men”.

    The announcement comes after Swedish tabloid Expressen published a film clip from 2010 which features Almqvist, along with justice policy spokesman and MP Kent Ekeroth, as well as Christian Westling, who sits on the Stockholm city council.

    In the clip, Almqvist is heard making racist comments to an inebriated man, using words like “darkie”, “cunt” and “darkie-lover” in connection with a scuffle involving the three prominent Sweden Democrats.

    The episode was filmed by Ekeroth – a clip later obtained by Expressen.

    Almqvist then proceeded to call a 21-year-old woman who tried to get the three men to stop harassing the drunken a man a “little whore”.

    When Expressen confronted Almqvist with allegations about his statements, he denied everything.

    But after Expressen published the complete footage of the incident in which Almqvist’s statements can be heard clearly, the party leadership called a crisis meeting which resulted in the decision for Almqvist to step down.

    “We’ve seen statements and behaviour which are totally unacceptable,” Åkesson said of the film clip, adding that he no longer has confidence in Almqvist

    Åkesson added that Ekeroth will keep his leadership positions within the party for the time being, but hinted the party may review Ekeroth’s place in the Sweden Democrats in the future.

    He also said that Almqvist’s future as a member of the party was also in question, but that the issue would be decided later.

    At his own press conference later on Wednesday, Almqvist said it was “the worst day of my life”.

    “I’m incredibly regretful. I’m going to take a step back,” he told reporters.

    While explaining that he has agreed to abandon all of his leadership posts within the party, Almqvist said he wasn’t going to leave the party or give up his seat in the Riksdag.

    “I am a Sweden Democrat,” he proclaimed.

    “I have no ambition to be a political independent.”

    In explaining the incident caught on film, Almqvist said he was “very drunk” at the time. He claimed he had hazy memories of the confrontation and that he has never seen the clip in its entirety.

    “I wasn’t doing very well at the time,” he said, admitting that he had been drinking too much for months prior to the incident.

    “I had a lot of anger inside me. I’d been subjected to violence and had my home trashed. I lost it in my drunken state.”

    He described his behaviour in the film as “stupid” and “drunkenness” and admitted that the statements he made could be described as racist, although they weren’t intended to be so.

    Almqvist also claimed that he “never lied” to reporters about the incident, defending his previous denials by explaining he didn’t remember the incident and hadn’t seen the footage.

    “If I’d known of the film I would have known what was there and then I wouldn’t have responded to questions about the film as I did,” he told reporters.

    Despite Almavist’s intention to stay in the Riksdag, University of Gothenburg political scientist Johan Martinsson doubted the Sweden Democrat could remain an MP.

    “If the film is right, it’s going to be very hard for him to remain in the Riksdag,” he told TT prior to the press conferences with Åkesson and Almqvist.

    “It’s enough with the line ‘that little whore’. But denying it makes it even worse.”

  • sir David (aged 13 3/4)

    The FBI seem more interested in who is sleeping with who.

    Than really protecting the USA from nuts

    Sir David

  • sir David (aged 13 3/4)

    I suspect that Mr Lennon cares for democracy as much as his hero Hitler did .

    Sir David

  • Xithurel

    Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the shedim mistresses of Samael and Azazel – abominations upon the Earth.

  • Jai Singh,

    You ask some excellent questions, questions that unfortunately Geller or Spencer or David Yerushalmi himself will probably never answer.

  • @Sarah Brown,

    I agree, “SANE” is insane.

  • Peter Hockley

    Tommy wouldn’t be able to follow any of the ideas espoused by these lunatics. That poor simpleton can’t find his own arse with both hands and a road map!
    I sincerely hope someone in your criminal and intelligence agencies have got their eyes on these frightening scumbags, anybody want to try and make a connection between Yerushalmi and those freaks in Mossad?

  • Ali
  • Haddock

    GREAT article, Jai Singh!

  • Reynardine

    Sedition is a difficult crime to indict for, let alone convict. The reason is that the statutes in question require that advocacy for the overthrow of the United States Government must be through “force or violence” and case law requires that such advocacy not be in the abstract, but a call to imminent action. Treason consists of a U.S. citizen joining forces with an identifiable enemy sovereign *already at war with the United States*, or with giving them *aid and comfort*, to wit: material aid or active propaganda on their behalf. Its bar is further raised by the Constitutional requirement that either two competent witnesses testify to the same overt act, or that the accused himself confess to his actions in open court. Nonetheless, the intent of these people is seditious and worse. I hope they are being watched *very carefully*. Keep up the good work!

  • Sarah Brown

    Wow. SANE seems – insane.

    David – I don’t want to seem to defend Stephen Yaxley-Lennon but I don’t believe he would find this agenda congenial.

  • Pingback: David Yerushalmi: Pamela Geller’s anti-democracy lawyer & “SION” senior member exposed: The facts | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper()

  • Garibaldi

    Great compilation of facts and questions. It’s good to have it one place.

    I urge everyone to share this with news media and social networking sites. Yerushalmi and his cohorts have gotten a free pass for far too long.

  • mindy1

    These people are out there, frightening 🙁

  • sir David (aged 13 3/4)

    Great stuff
    I would add some other questions

    “English Defence League leader Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka “Tommy Robinson”, ), English Defence League co-founder/British Freedom Party deputy leader Kevin Carroll, and British Freedom Party leader Paul Weston. To what extent are they aware of Yerushalmi’s anti-democracy agenda ?”

    If they are aware to what extent would they care ?

    “On his law office website, Yerushalmi claims to be “considered an expert on Islamic law.”

    By whom ?


    Is this file not enough evidence for an investigation by the FBI?
    If they have not started already why not ?

    Sir David

  • mjasghar

    Horowitz is the key – he is the main mover and shaker in terms of channeling funding to these people
    As to all those questions : its politics
    Remember that the MEK is funding us politicians despite its being a terrorist organisation. Of course the fact the Israelis are using the MEK has nothing to do with this ……
    Right wing groups routinely post about overthrowing the us gov but get away with it, but a Muslim in another country who even criticises the us gov risks extradition on the basis of us servers or having used a foreign exchange once in their lives

Powered by Loon Watchers