Monday, June 28, 2010

Islam Watch - "Four Stages of Islamic Treachery: Islamist Tactics Towards Non-Islamic Societies"

lam Watch - "Four Stages of Islamic Treachery: Islamist Tactics Towards Non-Islamic Societies"
Four Stages of Islamic Treachery: Islamist Tactics Towards Non-Islamic Societies

by Anonymous

01 Sep, 2007

Based On The Evidence Of 1200 Years Of Islamic History


FACT #1:  The goal of Islam is the subjugation of the entire world to Islam through the establishment of a global Islamic rule and the eradication of all non-Islamic populations, cultures, religions, thoughts, knowledge, symbols, traditions and ways of life.

This goal is non-negotiable in fundamental doctrines of Islam and in the eyes of true Muslims.

FACT #2:   Islamists will not stop their assault (open or clandestine) on the non-Muslim world as long as they have not achieved Islamic rule.

FACT #3:  IN ISLAMIC TEACHING, THE END ALWAYS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS: Islamists have no respect for the rules, laws or values of the non-Islamic world, to them only the rules of the Islamic world are legitimate. In their mind, when they destroy the non-Islamic world then the rules will change to Islamic rules, laws and values.

FACT #4:  ISLAMISTS CONSIDER TREATIES WITH NON-MUSLIMS AS NON-BINDING. When in non-Muslim countries they will pretend a social behavior as a cover up to their true intentions of domination over the non Muslim world.

TIP: When it comes to Islamists, ALWAYS LOOK AT WHAT THEY DO, NEVER WHAT THEY SAY: Lying, treachery and deceit are the Islamists' tactic of choice in their jihad of conquest of the non-Muslim world. This tactic (AL-TAQIYYA, or religious deception, pretending to be friends of the Non-Muslims in order to strengthen themselves against them) is a commonly practiced by Islamists. DECEPTION IS THE KEY TACTIC EMPLOYED BY ISLAMISTS.

FACT #5:  As a rule of thumb to get the truth from any Islamist, simply reverse what they say to a non-Muslim.

FACT #6:  The founder of Islam, MUHAMMAD WAS AN ISLAMIST.

Whether you able to face or ignore this harsh reality is beside the point, you will inevitably face its truth on the day you find yourself within the killing zone of Islamists.

Stages of Islamization

First migration wave to target non-Muslim society.
*Appeal for humanitarian tolerance from the target non-Muslim society.
Characterized by professed tolerance of others and their beliefs. Attempts to portray Islam as a peaceful religion and Muslims as victims of misunderstanding and racism.  Images of women and children used to portray Muslims.
*Establishment of mosques as power bases (today globally funded by Gulf countries oil revenue). (Mosques are safe havens for Jihadi recruitment and subversive projects).
*Muslim leaders promote large push for increased Muslim births in target non-Muslim society to increase native Muslim population.
*Misrepresentation of their intentions or aims as a cover up for clandestine operations.

Proselytizing efforts increase.
*Establishment and recruitment of fundamentalist Jihadi cells.
*Efforts to convert alienated segments of the population of target non-Muslim society to Islam.
*Revisionist efforts to Islamize history.
*Efforts to destroy all evidence of incriminating historical evidence and sources that reveal true character of Islamism.
*Intellectual Jihad to discredit non-Muslim culture.
*Assault on cultural assumptions and icons of the non-Muslim world, such as democracy, law and science.
*Increased dissemination of anti-western propaganda and anti-western psychological warfare.
*Efforts to recruit allies who share similar goals (Communists, socialists, anti westerns activists, anti-globalists, anarchists). Forms alliances with the enemies of the Western society particularly anti capitalism leftists. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
*Attempts to indoctrinate children to Islamist viewpoint. Efforts to infiltrate education system to propagate pro-Islamic points of view.
*Increased efforts to intimidate, silence and eliminate non-Muslim intellectuals and leaders.
*Efforts to introduce blasphemy laws into non-Muslim society in order to silence critics.
*Continued focus on enlarging Muslim population by increasing Muslim births and migration to target non-Muslim society.
*Use of first and second generation Muslim citizens of target non-Muslim society as Jihadist foot soldiers and public fronts.
*Use of charities to recruit supporters.
*Use of crime and fraud to obtain funds to finance activities.
*Covert efforts to bring about the destruction of non-Muslim society from within.
*Development of Muslim political base in target non-Muslim society. Efforts to penetrate political and legal structure of country so as to support Islamic growth from within.
*Use of bribes and blackmail of non-Muslim authorities to get them to disregard establishment of subversive activities.
*Islamic Financial networks strengthened to fund political growth, large acquisition of land and resources by any means. (Today they are funded by Muslim charities; Gulf countries Oil revenue and criminal activities).
*Highly visible assassination of critics aimed to intimidate opposition.
*Tolerance of non-Muslims diminishes and greater demands are placed upon Muslims to adopt strict Islamic conduct.
*Clandestine amassing of weapons and explosives stores in hidden locations in target non-Muslim society.
*Continuous and covert attacks and challenges against target non-Muslim society leaders and religious symbols.
*Overt disregard and rejection of target non-Muslim society's legal system and culture.
*Efforts to undermine and destroy power base of non-Muslim religions such as Jews, Christians, Hindus or Buddhists in target non-Muslim society.
*Efforts to destroy the social structure of the country and bring the downfall of non-Muslim government.
*Use of Islamic gangs in campaign of fear and terror against Jews, Christians, Hindus and non-Muslims to reduce their populations and influence in the target non-Muslim society.

*Large-scale destruction of population, assassinations, killings, bombings.
*Intentional efforts to spread chaos in the target country to undermine its government and culture.
*Acts of barbarity and fierceness as a deliberate policy intended to foster submission of opponents.
*Open and covert efforts to cause economic collapse of the society.
*All opposition, no matter what kind, is challenged and either eradicated or silenced.
*Widespread ethnic cleansing with Islamic militias.
*Rejection and defiance of target society secular laws or culture.
*Murder of all opposition political, religious and intellectual leaders of target society.
*Murder of all moderate Muslim intellectuals who envision other alternatives to radical Islam.
*Toppling of government and usurpation of political power.
*Imposition of Sharia law.
*Mass execution of non-Muslims, ethnic cleansing.

*The Qur’an and the Sharia becomes the "law of the land."
*All non-Islamic human rights cancelled.
*Freedom of speech and the press eradicated.
*All Religions other than Islam are forbidden and destroyed.
*Enslavement and genocide of non-Muslim population.
*Destruction of all evidence of non-Muslim culture, groups and symbols in country.

Note: this article is not copyrighted and may be freely reproduced or published by anyone.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Beware of Interpreters in Fancy Suits and Funny Robes…..

Beware of Interpreters in Fancy Suits and Funny Robes…..

When Lawyers, Constitutional Scholars, and Judges in their high-minded, high-browed way, ask their enlightened questions for we illiterate simpletons, “What did the Founding Fathers Mean” by one thing or another in The Constitution, I get suspicious.

The first thing that comes to my mind, is “What makes you think they didn’t write exactly what they intended to write? Do you think they were stupid or incompetent, maybe you think they were inebriated, or someone was forcing them to write something they didn’t agree with. This doesn’t seem to be the case, according to all recorded versions of the event these were men that had no problem expressing themselves, put a lot of careful consideration into what they wrote, and weren’t being blackmailed into writing something they didn’t agree with. The same thing could be said for the state Legislatures that ratified it. In fact, evidence of what happened points to exactly the opposite conclusion all around. Every clause and word seemed to be painstakingly chosen and debated, after all the document is only a four-pager and it took a small army several months to write it. If they weren’t debating the constitution, what exactly were they doing?

According to history, direct evidence, and the wording it is pretty clear that our Constitution was not written in a high-minded or high-brow way at all. The wording is extremely simple and was intended to be the people’s constitution not out of reach of anyone’s comprehension. The fact that it begins with the phrase “We the People of the United States” is another pretty good clue that the Constitution was the voice of the people speaking and people write and speak in a plain way, when compared to lawyers.

Reading the Constitution is much easier than reading a typical cell phone contract or the US Tax Code for instance, and there isn't a lot of living-contract conversation relative to either of those.  Try suing the IRS or your phone company and justifying your position by claiming they didn't write what they intended to write in the contract that you signed.  That's exactly what the US Government, Supreme Court of the United States, Federal Courts, Law Schools, and a handful of other extremely confused citizens believe.

As if the point wasn't already obvious enough, we are supposed to believe that the complete absence of highbrow-lawyer-words in the Constitution, happened by accident.  The reason lawyers use their “fancy” words is because they are practical and convey very specific and useful meanings. Those “fancy” words would have been a welcomed addition to the writers without a doubt, but they avoided all of the “heretofore”, “aforementioned”, “said”, “pursuant to”, “bona fide”, “prima facie”, and other tempting lawyerly favorites.

The truth of the matter is, the answer to the original question depends only on who asks you the question. If the person asking is one of the aforementioned fancy-suit or funny-robe crowd then you can be almost certain that the answer they are going to give to their own question is wrong; very, very wrong. The reason that nobody asked that silly question that the self-appointed geniuses asked on our behalf is because everyone else understood exactly what was written the first time they glanced at it. The question of a legitimate student is obvious, by the lack of a prepared incorrect, unsupportable, and illogical response to the their own question.
The simple fact is that not everyone agrees with what the obvious meanings codified into law in the Constitution, which is a very normal situation. It doesn’t make them criminals, traitors, or cast any other form of dispersion on them. The problem is when they invent complicated (untruthful) explanations to twist the clear meanings to match their personal preferences. This deceitful misconstruction hides behind numerous facades today, it’s not necessary to learn all of the names that lies and evil hide behind in fact it’s a fools errand to even try. Illegal and immoral enterprises are famous for changing their names to hide their ugly baggage.  What is necessary, is to realize that when members of the government (Judicial, Exectutive or Legislative branch) misconstrue the Constitution they are in violation of criminal laws, their oaths of office, are depriving the people of the United States of our Form of Government, and the requirement to use the Article V amendment process to alter it.

Don't fall into the trap that has been laid, all that is necessary is to read it yourself, you don’t need any help, and you don’t need anyone to explain it to you.

My last suggestion is that if for some strange reason if you find yourself at odds with Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the Constitution you might want to rethink your position, because the words didn’t get onto the parchment by accident.

Rule #1 for interpreting the Constitution: It means exactly what it says.
Rule #2 for interpreting the Constitution: When in doubt refer to rule #1.

Written by a guy wearing a holey teeshirt an old pair of bermuda shorts, tennis shoes, and recycled socks....

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Weblog Geertwilders - Actions to Impede Islam from Destroying Western Culture

Weblog Geertwilders - Speech House of Lords, London, Friday the 5th of March 2010

Geertwilders suggest the following actions to impede Islam, excerpted from his speech at the House of Lords in London, May 5th, 2010

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in another policy, it is time for change. We must make haste. We can’t wait any longer. Time is running out. If I may quote one of my favourite American presidents: Ronald Reagan once said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. That is why I propose the following measures, I only mention a few, in order to preserve our freedom:

First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. In Europe and certainly in the Netherlands, we need something like the American First Amendment.

Second, we will have to end and get rid of cultural relativism. To the cultural relativists, the shariah socialists,  proudly say: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Don't be affraid to say it. You are not a racist when you say that our own culture is better.

Third, we will have to stop mass immigration from Islamic countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.

Fourth, we will have to expel criminal immigrants and, following denaturalisation, we will have to expel criminals with a dual nationality. And there are many of them in my country.

Fifth, we will have to forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe. Especially since Christians in Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia are mistreated, there should be a mosque building-stop in the West.

And last but not least, we will have to get rid of all those so-called leaders. I said it before: Fewer Chamberlains, more Churchills. Let's elect real leaders.

Slave Rebellion: How long have our masters been conspiring and with whom?

How long will the slaves remain quiet? The revelations, and confirmations of suspicions long hidden continue to become more apparent and prevalent. Our masters are the Leftists, and before rebelling, it is necessary that we record an honest description of our oppressors.

There is no honest justification for the behavior of Leftists. Enslaving an individual whether part of a larger group or not is a crime against Nature, Humanity, and God Natural Order.

The most trivial analysis of Leftist’s actions and motivations reveal them to be nothing more than a sham of purported good intentions covering a mountain of immoral and illegal activities. At the same time, they are killing, stealing, lying, and manipulating everything they can gain control of in order to entrench themselves as a tyrannical elite ruling class; they are destroying the very things, which they hope to control.

We, Tolerant Religious Conservatives, Free Market Economists, and Libertarians are their enemy. Although, we have small differences we are in agreement on the fundamentals of the equality of all men and inalienability of Life, Liberty, and Property.

While, we are debating the need for drastic actions to disestablish and reestablish our government in order to restore our true calling, Leftists decided long ago that they are opposed to the fundamentals on which our system was constructed and have every intention of destroying it and implementing a tyrannical system of governance by elitists.

Destroying that which is right and legally constituted is wrong and criminal behavior. Where Leftists seek to destroy to implement an illegal and immoral system, we seek to restore the original intention and plans rightly and legally constituted. The Leftists have infiltrated and polluted the blood of our government so extensively that it has ceased to serve its principle purpose of preserving the aforementioned rights and has become the enemy of its original intent.

This wrong behavior, of Leftists when knowingly engaged in, is frequently justified by claims that everyone does it. A prolonged participation in such wrong behavior requires a substantial and not short-term justification. There are several telltale signs of such involvement in wrong-doing. Projection of self-hatred onto others, disrespect for laws, good behavior, and the Rights of others are just a few of the ugly signs Leftists self-righteously exhibit.

As proof of the long-term participation in this conspiracy of evil we look for accusations of conspiracy against the innocent. One well known vile accusation of this type occurred when Hillary Clinton declared the existence of a, “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”. This was actually acknowledgement of a ”Vast Left Wing Conspiracy” delivered by Hillary Clinton in an emotional loss of control in 1998. Coincidentally, Barry Soetoro of Kenya was elected to the United States Senate in 1996.

Electing a Senator or Co-opting a president is no trivial matter and an alliance of organizations capable of doing such a thing is not established overnight. Considering the declarations and accusations we have suffered, it now seems clear that the evil conspiracy of Leftists, Environmentalists, and Islam have been in bed together for at least the last 14 years.

Why didn’t President Clinton pursue the war on terror? He chose turned down at least three offers involving foreign governments to help to seize Osama Bin Laden after being identified as a terrorist threatening America. President Clinton is the point where leftist dogma started to prevail in Liberal governance. President Clinton’s responses to attacks on the US transitioned from muted and ineffective to turning a blind eye toward evil. As expected, the payoffs from Arabs to American Politicians have only gotten bigger over the years and neither party is innocent in this crime. The Arab payoffs now become plainly cases of hush-money for not leaking the relationships between Islam, Leftists, and Environmentalists.

So, it is now clear that we should have recognized that Hillary’s accusation as a telling sign to look for a “Great Left Wing Conspiracy” which actually existed at the time and the accusers projecting their own guilt at a minimum were aware of it at that time if not significantly beforehand. Justifying unjustifiable behavior requires a suspension of reality, this has been accomplish by a brainwashing dogma that renders the victim illogical and emotionally unstable. These people harbor so much hatred that their only intention is to strike out at anything, which impedes their evil plan. As they are all lying to themselves, the use of misinformation and subterfuge is their stock and trade.

The truth of the matter is that Leftists are part of a huge criminal empire that have unified themselves based on hatred of Conservatives and Free Market Economists. They have committed or participated in conspiracy to commit countless crimes, including impeding investigation of their crimes and that of their co-delusional partners. They are a Trojan horse band of pirate-traitors with a big prize in their sights. Their organization and militancy is impressive while they are on the prowl, but they will certainly turn on each other as soon as they conquer their prize. When the real looting begins and the tyrants have absolute control we will also be treated to a battle to determine who will rule over the devastation.

The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy intends to destroy our government after using it against us that we can be sure of. They have elected a Presidents, they have infiltrated and destroyed Traditional Liberalism, they have Brainwashed millions of people, and have created an enormous class of dependants, all of this the pay for by enslaving those that oppose them.

The fact that the slaves have elected leaders to positions of authority has not slowed this ever quickening headlong plunge towards destruction. The slave leaders having made nothing more than cosmetic changes pat themselves on the back and try to make us believe that plugging one tiny hole in the sinking ship has made a difference and we should continue to trust them. Our best recent leaders have accomplished nothing more than trivial cosmetic changes and all at apparently great sacrifice. Their purported great changes have been immediately undone and superseded with ever more radical policies as soon as we turn our attention to the next issue.

The problem with evil plans is that the victims eventually catch on and the generally they are none to happy about it when the full truth is revealed. If the slaves are already rebelling under the burden of taxes, imagine what will happen when they put all of the pieces of this evil scheme together?

Friday, June 25, 2010

The American Dream: Equality, Life, Liberty, and Property

The American Dream: Equality, Life, Liberty, and Property

This is what made American great, and can make America great again. With each passing generation, our understanding of the American Dream becomes more obscured and confused. Fortunately, for us, it is an extremely simple dream and requires almost no explanation. The American Dream found in the Declaration of Independence is America’s greatest treasure. These simple concepts frequently are referred to as Natural Rights, because people inherently understand them to be right.

Equality in the sense of the American Dream and Natural Rights was a declaration that the Natural Rights of Life, Liberty, and Property were Rights of All men, nothing more nothing less.

Life in the sense of the American Dream and Natural Rights implied several things. First it implied that your life could not be taken from you. This clearly implied the Right to self-defense was a natural Right. The only recognized limitation on this Right is by Due Process of Law. Violation of this right by either depriving a person of life or of the right to defend them self other than by an individual trial is illegal, and immoral.

Liberty in the sense of the American Dream and Natural Rights signified more than just physical freedom to move about without restriction, it also signified the right to believe and say what you wanted. Violation of this right by depriving a person of Liberty of thought, expression, and movement is illegal and immoral. Like Life, a person’s Natural Right to Liberty can only be deprived by Due Process of Law, which means an individual trial. It doesn’t mean a law passed by congress, judicial dictate, or executive order.

Property in the sense of the American Dream and Natural Rights is the easiest to understand and debatably the most violated. Simply stated, that which is your is yours and no one can take it from you. You have the right to defend what is yours, as your life is yours and you clearly have the right to defend yourself. The biggest offender of the Right to Property are taxes. Taxes in their current Direct form can deprive you of not only your property but also your liberty without due process. Properly formed, taxes will and should never deprive a person of Property.

When John Locke recorded these Natural Rights he cast a powerful condemnation on all governments that failed to accept these undeniable principles. That condemnation falls on our own government today as well as on every other government of the world. If we ever hope to rise to the station that the Declaration of Independence claimed for us, we must understand the simple, powerful, undeniable truths that it contained.

Failure to recognize the right answer when it is directly in front of our own noses and is so obvious that it barely requires explanation, is a large part of what ails the United States and puts her lamp of freedom under a table where its light not only fails to illuminate our own land, but also fails to serve as guide for a world desperate to find this same path.

Monday, June 21, 2010

Abolish The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 Petition

Abolish The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 Petition

This act created a private, for profit, central Banking Corporation owned by a cartel of private banks. Who owns the FED? The Rothschilds of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel Moses Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany; and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York.

Did you know that the FED is the only for-profit corporation in America that is exempt from both federal and state taxes? The FED takes in about one trillion dollars per year tax free! The banking families listed above get all that money.

Please read and sign this petition.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Fixing America’s Foreign Policy Disaster…

Fixing America’s Foreign Policy Disaster…

American foreign policy is a disaster.  In addition to fighting wars with the apparent intention of losing; we make allies out of some of the most unethical governments on earth, because it's convenient. To make matters worse, we lack consistency due to sophomoric thinking, and flip-flopping with every administration change.  Our foreign policy appears to be schizophrenic at best.

With a foreign policy varying from moments of courage, moral-purpose, and integrity to moments of weakness, self-servitude, and betrayal, being America's ally has become a dangerous business.  It's particularly dangerous for those that are in the most desperate situations.  America's flip-flopping internal politics driven foreign policy has left millions of once allies out in the cold when they needed us most.

Against all odds there are still millions of oppressed people worldwide waiting for America to live up to her true calling. The simplicity and power of the American dream albeit forgotten, ignored, abused, and ridiculed is easily seen and understood in the dark corners of the world where what we take for granted and allow to escape like chaff in the wind, is but a distant dream.  These oppressed peoples are waiting and praying because they know full well, that no other country has moral authority and courage to help them free themselves from their plight.  While there is little hope that the current administration will give them reason for courage, at least we can show them that we still understand the right way to conduct foreign policy.

The most basic thing about foreign policy is establishing a simple framework for evaluating foreign governments and subsequently establishing the limits of our relationships with them. 

It is important to clarify and reinforce that any government formed or maintained without the continuing consent of their people are illegally constituted governments and nothing more than sophisticated criminal organizations.

The fewer the classifications and the more simple and clear the rules the better.  America must clearly and plainly categorize foreign governments into:
  • Allies- Countries having a legal form of government that share our core values and never support our enemies.
  • Friends- Countries that may or may not have a legal form of government, or share our core values, but never support our enemies.
  • Enemies- Countries with governments that choose to be our enemies, independent of form or core values. 
The simplicity of the rules is their strength.  To be our Friend, or better yet our Ally, you need to meet the requirements.  Much as we must meet the requirements to be considered an Ally or Friend.  If you choose to be our Enemy, that is your choice not ours.  If your government is the enemy of your own people or the enemy of our Ally acting in good faith, then we your government is our enemy as well.

When we treat, should-be Enemies as Friends for economic reasons, or treat should be Allies as simple Friends, or establish any other situation inconsistent with these simple guidelines our foreign policy becomes a worthless and dangerous mass of confusion which suppresses the cause of Equality and Natural Rights worldwide and causes great detriment to our National Identity, and Security.

Since Allies must share our core values, we need to summarize what that means. Americans like most European and Western countries believe that all men are created equal, and have unalienable rights including Life, Liberty and Property.  Furthermore, we believe that governments are established by and derive their just powers from the consent of the people.  The implication of our core values is that we consider illegal any government that doesn’t hold these same fundamental beliefs or wasn’t instituted by action of the people.  Simply declaring that you hold these beliefs doesn’t make it true.

Economic ties have nothing to do with the relationship we share with foreign a government and shouldn’t guide our foreign policy.  Globalism is not a force for world peace, it has proven to strengthen bad governments and which are willing to enslave their people for their own advantage.  I disagree that strengthening evil has been or will ever be anything more than appeasement.

In relationships with our Allies:  We seek to strengthen our ties and to advance their causes to the extent that they are mutually beneficial.  We seek mutual defense agreements and partnerships with them for international actions.  There is no need to withhold our support for mutually beneficial causes to impel them to improve their standing with us. With our allies we seek the most open commerce of people, capital, knowledge, culture, and equipment possible.

In relationships with our Friends: We seek to convert them into Allies. Using every opportunity to correct the discrepancy in their ways, this discrepancy will always be a consideration before aligning with them for any international action.  We do not seek mutual defense agreements with them until such time as they rectify the error of their ways.  We will withhold support for mutually beneficial projects in order to impel them to improve their standing with us.  With our friends we seek limited commerce, to the extent that it is beneficial to us.

As for our Enemies: We seek to convert them to Allies.  When ever approached for we will insist that they rectify their violations before we initiate dialogue with them.  We shall withhold all support and trade with them, and we seek no commerce, even to the extent it is beneficial to us.  In the event that we take military action against our Enemy, we look forward to the day where we can be Friends and Allies again.

Instead of meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations randomly and capriciously, we need to act clearly, morally, and ethically.

Why would we trade with those who support our enemies? Have we come to love luxury so much that we are willing to sacrifice our freedom or that of our allies for it?  Have we come to love luxury so much that we are willing to allow ourselves to support a holocaust against women for it?  Even if we have, at some point those enemies that we have been strengthening will be sufficiently courageous to attack us. At that moment, we will be facing our own economic resources handed over to our enemies.

Doing things, right isn’t hard, it just take courage. Do the right thing always, you may not know how powerful your actions are but there is someone who does.

Friday, June 18, 2010

UK: New Report on Sharia Law in Britain | Women Living Under Muslim Laws

The following article provides an excellent look at how Sharia law has already been implanted in the United Kingdom!  It is operating through a tribal justice system, and it violates the basic principle of equality (man is superior to women according to Sharia).  The article reccommends closing all of the Councils.  I have repeatedly suggested that we need to close all Islamic Organizations; these tribal councils could be held virtually anywhere...  It's already out of Control in Europe, will we wait until it's out of control here also before we act?  Will you wait until your sister, daughter or granddaughter is the victim to act?

UK: New Report on Sharia Law in Britain Women Living Under Muslim Laws

UK: New Report on Sharia Law in Britain

Source: One Law for All

A new report by One Law for All has found Sharia Councils and Muslim Arbitration Tribunals to be in violation of UK law, public policy and human rights (see report here). The report is being launched to coincide with a 20 June 2010 rally on the issue of Sharia law.

Based on an 8 March 2010 Seminar on Sharia Law, research, interviews, and One Law for All case files, the report has identified a number of problem areas:

- Sharia law’s civil code is arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular. With the rise in the acceptance of Sharia courts, discrimination is being further institutionalised with some UK law firms additionally offering clients advice on Sharia law and the use of collaborative law.

- Sharia law is practiced in Britain primarily by Sharia Councils and Muslims Arbitration Tribunals. Both operate on religious principles and are harmful to women although Muslim Arbitration Tribunals are wrongly regarded as being of more concern because they operate as tribunals under the Arbitration Act 1996, making their rulings binding in law.

- Sharia Councils, on the other hand, claim to mediate on family issues but in practice often this differs little from arbitration: they frequently ask those appearing before them to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions; they call themselves courts, and the presiding imams, judges. Their decisions are then imposed and regarded as having the weight of legal judgements.

- There is neither control over the appointment of “judges” in Sharia Councils or Tribunals nor an independent mechanism for monitoring them. Clients often do not have access to legal advice and representation. The proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgements, nor any real right of appeal.

- Sharia law cannot be compared to secular legal systems because it is considered sacred law that cannot be challenged. There is no scope to look at the interests of the individuals involved, as required by UK family law.

- These legal processes ignore both common law and due process, far less Human Rights, and provide little protection and safety for women in violent situations.

- There is a general assumption that those who attend Sharia courts do so voluntarily and that unfair decisions can be challenged in a British court. Many of the principles of Sharia law are contrary to British law and public policy, and would in theory therefore be unlikely to be upheld in a British court. In reality, however, women are often pressured by their families into going to these courts and adhering to unfair decisions, and may lack knowledge of English and their rights under British law. Moreover, refusal to settle a dispute in a Sharia court can give rise to threats and intimidation, or at best being ostracised.

According to Maryam Namazie, spokesperson of the One Law for All Campaign and an author of the report, “The existence of a parallel legal system that is denying a large section of the British population their fundamental human rights is scandalous. Our findings show that it is essential to abolish all religious courts in the UK. Their very existence and legitimisation puts pressure on vulnerable women not to assert their civil rights in a British court. As long as Sharia Councils and Tribunals are allowed to continue to make rulings on issues of family law, women will be pressured into accepting decisions which are prejudicial to them and their children.”

The report recommends that Sharia courts be closed on the grounds that they work against rather than for equality, and are incompatible with human rights. Recommendations include:

1.initiating a Human Rights challenge to Muslim Arbitration Tribunals and/or Sharia Councils

2.amending the Arbitration Act under which the Muslim Arbitration Tribunals operate in a similar way to which the Canadian equivalent of the Arbitration Act was amended in 2005 to exclude religious arbitration

3.launching a major and nationwide helpline and information campaign to inform people of their rights under British law

4.proposing legislation under the EU Citizens Rights Initiative to address the issue EU-wide, and

5.strengthening secularism and the separation of religion from the state, the judicial system and education, in order to more fully protect citizenship rights.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Islam, Hitler's last Ally is still fighting....

Excerted from "The Nazi connection to Islamic Terrorism " by Chuck Morse

The Mufti and Hitler

Post WWI, the enlightened vision of sovereign Arab nations co-existing with a sovereign Jewish State was eclipsed by the radical pan-Arab designs of Haj Amin al-Husseini, named as Mufti of Jerusalem by the British Governor of the Palestine Mandate, Sir Herbert Samuel, in 1921. This was after al-Husseini had been convicted in absentia for his involvement in a slaughter of Jews in Jerusalem in 1920, known in Israel today as Bloody Passover. The liberal Samuel, himself a British Jew, pardoned al-Husseini, returned him from exile, and chose him as Mufti and head of the political Supreme Muslim Council in Palestine in spite of the fact that he had been opposed by the Palestinian Arab population who placed him in fourth place in a field of four Arab candidates for the position of Mufti.

Fleeing Bagdad, and passing through Tehran, Istanbul, and Rome, the Mufti made his way to Berlin where he was met with all the pomp and circumstance of a visiting head of state. The Nazis gave the Mufti a mansion to live in, on fashionable Klostock Street in Berlin, one that had been confiscated from a Jew who was sent to a concentration camp, and the Nazis gave the already wealthy Mufti a hefty salary, which he received up until the last weeks of the war. The Mufti was given access to the SS controlled Sonderfund. These were monies and properties that had been confiscated from Jews as they were sent off to the ovens.

The Mufti used the sonderfund to support a Palestinian Arab expatriate community living in wartime Nazi Berlin, to train pro Nazi European Muslim militias in Bosnia and Russia, and to foment anti Jewish and pro Nazi activities in the Middle East where he maintained an extensive network of contacts. The Sonderfund financed the Mufti's Nazi-Muslim government in exile and was used to fund an Islamic Institute in Dresden under the Mufti. The purpose of the institute was to inspire an elite cadre of Nazi- Muslim leaders. More research is required to trace the career paths of these Nazi Muslim leaders after the war.

Monies derived from the sonderfund continued to flow into the Middle East, from Swiss bank accounts and with the involvement of Swiss-Nazi banker François Genoud and the Mufti, years and even decades after the end of World War II with the funds going to terrorists. Genoud committed suicide in 1996 at the age of 81 before a committee, investigating Nazi money laundering in Swiss banks and headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker, had the opportunity to interview him. More research is required to follow the Nazi money trail after the war.

The Mufti recorded several radio broadcasts, transmitted from a large tower in Bari, Italy into the Arab world, calling for Arabs to ""Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, History and Religion. This saves your honor. God is with you."

It should be noted that the main line of propaganda used by Hitler and the Mufti against the Jews was that there was a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. This was the basic thesis used against the Jews by Hitler in Mein Kampf and previously, in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a Russian forgery that was widely disseminated in those years.

History indicates that those who pointed the finger of accusation at the Jews, Hitler's Nazis, Stalin's Communists, the Muftis pan-Arabists, and today's Jihadists were, and are, in fact, movements that were, or in the case of the Jihadists presently are, conspiring to rule the world.

Zionism, on the other hand, was, and remains, a movement that seeks to fulfill the modest national aspirations of the Jewish people in the tiny and inscrutable sliver of land known as Israel, nothing more and nothing less. It was the Nazis and the Communists who sought a new world order with themselves in charge, and who murdered hundreds of millions of human beings perceived as standing in the way of their demented goal. It was the Mufti who sought to annihilate the tiny State of Israel as a stepping-stone toward a Arab Caliphate on vast and oil rich Arab lands. The Jihadists of today are the inheritors of the world conquering conspiracy.

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Islam vs. The American Dream

The concept of natural rights received one of its most forceful expositions in the writings of Englishman John Locke (1632-1704), who argued that man was originally born into a state of nature where he was rational, tolerant, and happy. In this original existence man was entitled to enjoy the rights of life, liberty and property.

However, not all men chose to live within the confines of the natural laws and presented threats to the liberties of the others. At this stage man entered into a social contract (compact) in which a state (government) was formed to guarantee the rights of the members of society.

Locke believed that the only reason for the existence of government was to preserve natural rights and, by extension, man’s happiness and security.

These ideas were eagerly accepted by many American colonists in the 18th century, an age when political philosophy was widely read and discussed. James Otis made an eloquent appeal to natural rights in his argument against the writs of assistance in 1761 and Thomas Jefferson offered a classic restatement in the Declaration of Independence.

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.

A Right is valid and exercisable in all circumstances and when exercised causes no material damages to others; free speech, privacy, and practice of religion are good examples. As Rights are always valid and enforceable, it is obvious that demanding health care, nutrition, shelter, clothing, or any other form of sustenance will cause material damage to those from which exacted and cannot be Rights, although these things may be necessary, they are not Rights. The key issue here is that of causing damage, it is not necessary that the damage caused be immediate.

Our founding fathers recognized that Rights could be abused. Free speech, taken to extremes can certainly do damage. Accusing a person falsely or scurrilously with the intention of damaging that person’s reputation can be quantified and the responsible party can be held liable for damages caused, all states have laws permitting civil suits for slander and libel.

Privacy also has limits. If what you do in private causes damage to others either in the immediate moment or in the future; you lose the right to privacy.

Free exercise of religion, like privacy and free speech also can be and has been abused. When expression of a religion causes damage to others, it no longer enjoys the protection of a Right. This is the case of Islam, which teaches and promotes Sharia Law; they are one and the same and inseparable. Sharia law, does not recognize that all Persons are created equal, it separates male humans as superior and with more Rights that females, and in so doing is in direct opposition to the founding principles of the United States of America. Wherein, we believe that all men are created equal, Sharia teaches and promotes an unacceptable concept in direct opposition to our beliefs.

Until such times as Islam is separated from Sharia Law, or ceases to exist; it presents a threat to the safety of the communities where it grows. The federal government may not be able to pass a law, prohibiting the practice of Islam, but state and local government are well within their powers and in fact are obligated morally to take such action to protect their innocent citizens.

Contact your state and local elected officials, tell them you are opposed to the growth of Islam in your region and that they need to take action to prevent it. Declaring all Islamic Organizations in your area to be Public Safety hazards and closing them, is the legal and correct thing to do. We are at war after all (two declarations of war are in-vigor currently) and the unifying thread of our unconventional enemy is the religion of Islam. Allowing them to build organizations in our country is nothing less than allowing them to build enemy military installation within our land.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Treasure Map for All Oppressed Peoples: Free!

This is a Treasure Map to the American National Treasure.  It is directed to and dedicated to ALL of the oppressed people of the world, looking for a better life.

America still is and for quite some time has been the best place on earth to live. America isn’t the best place to live because of our standard of living, our standing of living is a result of being the best place to live. This situation is not God given and if we don’t protect it we could lose it just as easily as it has been lost in countless other places.

The poor and oppressed people of the world, don’t need to be convinced of this fact, they still come to America for a better life. Rich people, on the other hand, live well independent of where they live. Don’t get me wrong, I love rich people and Americans by most worldly standards are all rich people, it’s just that they have no idea what they are talking about and create a lot of problems for oppressed peoples

The problem with being rich is that you take for granted that which allowed you to escape poverty and rise to a better standard of living. When a highly educated, successful, powerful or wealthy American tells you that money and power is all that matters, that Judeo-Christian principles are for right wingers; ignore them like we do, they are wrong.

The apathetically well-off and content slaves are as dangerous as the would-be Kings and Slave Masters. Be careful of these people, they will betray you to curry favor with their Kings and Slave Masters.

Here’s the truth! The most important principles of the United States and the treasure that funds the American Dream are quite simply those found in the Declaration of Independence:

That all men are created equal,
That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
That Governments are instituted to secure these Rights,
That Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,
That when ever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.

Here's what that means:
When I read, “That all men are created equal”, I hear this: No man is greater than any other man, to the extent of having more rights, or the authority to remove the rights of others. Kings, Dictators, Rulers, Slave-Masters, and Tyrants are all criminals as their existence is directly in conflict with the principle of equality.  No man can force his will on another man, end of story.  Men willingly follow that which is good, and follow that which is evil only when afraid, tricked, obliged, threatened, or unaware.

When I read, “That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”, I hear this: Don’t allow anyone to oppress you, tell you can’t speak your mind, defend yourself, pray, complain about injustice, or demand change. You are a sovereign human being, you belong to you and to God only. If you don’t like your situation change it. Although freedom is not free, the cause of freedom is a common cause, and you have more allies than you know. Reach out to us, we are here praying for your courage to rise up, please pray for the courage of our leaders to support this common cause. Form groups with your friends to pray and the solutions will come to you.

When I read, “That Governments are instituted to secure these Rights”, I hear this: The role of government is a very important, specific, and limited one of securing the Rights of its citizens and nothing more. Governments dedicated to anything else will fail in their only actual responsibility. Good intentions pave the road to hell, and losing sight of an organization’s mission is sure way to loose control of it. When this happens to governments they become tyrants, and instead of securing Rights they infringe and trample over them.

When I read, “That Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed”, I hear this: That only governments that are created by their citizens, and maintained by their continued consent, are just governments. All others are tyrants independent of how they justify their power. Each new tyrant will invariably invent a justification for his tyranny and a new name: Supreme Leader, President for Life, Premier, King, Sultan, Prince, Duke, Queen, call them what you will they are all tyrants. Powers derived in any other way are illegally obtained, null, and void. The continuance of this wrong enterprise is dependent on acceptance by others.  I like most Americans reject these lies.

When I read, “That when ever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it”, I hear this: How we live is the choice of the sovereign individual and not the would-be Master. This principle above all others is the hope of all mankind, in my opinion. It is justification that resisting wrong, oppression, and evil is a legal and correct enterprise. Your local laws may declare it illegal, but the immutable laws of man, those of right and wrong, will show those who act on behalf of good to be heroes and their adversaries to be villains and tyrants.

Specificially in the case of Muslim Women:  If you were married against your will, before you were old enough to understand, then you haven’t given your consent and your marriage is null and void independent of the documents and local laws. By the same token, even if you consented to marriage but no longer consent to stay married, and you are forced to do so your marriage is null and void.

The action to separate yourself from that which you don’t accept follows the principle of Secession a concept well known to Americans. The Declaration of Independence justified the United States seceding from England. It is one of the most important, revered, and respected documents and it is the map to Freedom, the real American Treasure.

The beauty of this treasure is that it is a model for creating your own National Treasure. Declarations of Independence are produced to consolidate the reasons and justifications for one group to secede from another. The power of it, is to convince oppressed peoples that their cause is just, and there are many oppressed people in their situation that want to be free.

If you are oppressed, take this document and mold it into one that explains your situation and what you must do. Circulate it, generate support for it, find allies for your cause inside and outside your country, then act on it! You may have to fight, you will not be the first nor the last, and God willing you will not be alone.

Freedom isn’t obtained or maintained for free. Your own Declaration of Independence is the way to free yourselves!

Remember to ignore (liberals) the apathetically well-off, they have forgotten that: It's the soldier, not the reporter who has given us Freedom of the Press; It's the soldier, not the poet, who has given us Freedom of Speech; It's the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the Freedom to Demonstrate; It's the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the Right to a Fair Trial.

We all die eventually, will you chose to risk all like the countless heroes we love and cherish long after they are gone, or will you pass from this world and leave the job for someone else to do, and allow the suffering to continue.

God Bless You and Good Luck. We are here, reach out to us. Our cause is one and the same and it is a just cause. Better to sacrifice in your time and be declared a hero for all posterity than to pass from this world as a slave and a coward.

Hollywood and liberals may believe that there is a map to our National Treasure on the back of our founding documents, but as usual they are looking in the wrong place. Our national treasure is on the front, written in plain English. Feel free to create your own National Treasure and make your corner of the world a better place.

Friday, June 4, 2010

American Defense League (ADL): Founded June 3, 2010

Yesterday, I founded the American Defense League, for the moment it is only a facebook page, albeit a fast growing one.  I write this article in support of the, “American Defense League” dedicated to resisting Islam, the Cult of Death and Terror and founded to protect the Unalienable Rights of all Men and to Preserve the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America. God Bless America!

Our motto, “In God We Trust.”

Mosques are the point where the disease of terrorism is spread most readily.  In addition to mosques, all Islamic Organizations, Schools, and other meeting places facilitate the spread of hatred from one infected person to the next.  We are in a war with Islamic Terrorism, and there are few people that don't recognize that Islam and Islamic Terror are one and the same, just at different stages of the sickness.  If this were a pandemic virus we would close the places where it spreads, and that is exactly what we must do in order to prevail in the War on Terror.

Make no mistake, my proposal is that all mosques, Islamic organizations, schools, and other meeting places be designated as public safety hazzards and closed by force of law.

Everyone knows that local and state governments prohibit undesirable and unsafe activities every day.  We have zoning laws, public safety laws, noise ordinances, health ordinances, and countless other state and local restrictions; culminating with private property rights wherein the property owner decides what is and isn't permitted.  So clearly, state and local governments have the power to decide what is and isn't permissible within their territories.  Ordinances exist designating areas as commercial and residential which restrict where houses, churches, schools and can be constructed and operated.  Similarly, local, state, and federal authorities close and even seize organizations and businesses which are deemed to be public safety hazards every day.  You can't build an explosives factory next to a school, or in a residential neighborhood, for the same reasons that we don't want hate spewing, terror spreading mosques, Islamic organizations and schools in our communities.

But don't churches or religions have some special protection under the first amendment?  Actually, they do have limited protection under the first amendment, here's what the First Amendment actually says:

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.”

This is clearly a restriction on Congress only, there is no way to read the word "Congress" and imagine that what was intended was "Congress nor any other governmental organization".  So only "Congress" the only part of the government empowered to pass laws, is forbidden from passing a law relative to religion.  This restriction on Congress in no way implies a restriction on State or Local Government. Applying the 10th amendment further reinforces this point, and we understood the first amendment to mean that not only does this restriction on Congress prevent them from interferring passing laws relative this issue, they have no power to impede the States from doing so.

So, be forewared, the supporters of the terror and death cult of Islam are trying to hide behind the first amendment, the same way they use children and women as human shields for their cowardly attacks worldwide.  DON’T FALL FOR THIS, IT’S A LIE!

If you are facing a tough adversary, they may claim that you are forgetting the 14th Amendment, which states:  "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

At first glance they seem to be right, but if you read both the First and Fourteenth Amendments carefully, you’ll recognize that what they are describing is actually an abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment. Again, the wording of the first amendment is clearly directed only at Congress, and State or Local Actions in no way abridges this restriction against Congress in favor of all citizens. Applying the fourteenth amendment is unneccesary as the restriction against Congress is not being abriged by and State or Local Government and the argument is incorrect and illogical.  Furthermore, there is no way to read the 14th amendment to understand that any restriction on the Federal Government is also a restriction on State and Local Governments.

Eventhough, some perhaps all States have written a similar clause into their own laws, specific local ordinances easily trump state laws and federal laws for general protections of religion and speech.  That’s exactly the position that Thomas Jefferson declared in the Kentucky Resolutions which became law in Kentucky, but in truth are little more than clarifications of several widely misinterpreted clauses of our Constitution.

Don’t take my word for it, here’s what Thomas Jefferson said on the subject:
“Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, our prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, 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”: thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, arid that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.”

So what should we do? Find the mosques in your community, document their abuses of our laws and register complaints against them with your local government officials. Find out what they are preaching and publish it and inform everyone near the mosque of the dangers they present.  Educate your local elected officials and public safety and judicial officers about the dangerous pattern of behaviour that mosques, Islamic organizations, schools, and other meeting places present and your refusal to allow that in your neighborhood.

Read about the violence that leading Imams advocate and foment. The same religion that invariably causes widespread violence in predominantly Muslim countries, and unrest and terror in countries with growing populations, will do the same thing in your community if you don't stop them.

Start a Community Defense League and Associate with the American Defense League study the attrocities permitted and committed by Islamic Law (Sharia) and use the truth and the power of the law to resist the spread of the cult of violence and death. America is a peaceful country, let’s keep it that way. We have religious tolerance, and our tolerance for this false religion has ended.

Winston Churchill said it best, in rebuttal to Neville Chamberlain's politically correct appeasment of Adolf Hitler which caused millions of deaths and destroyed most of Europe.

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fights with all the odds against you with only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is not hope of victory at all, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

I'm with Winston Churchill, I chose to fight now when we can win easily without bloodshed.  Join us and the American Defense League.

Updated: June 3rd, 2011

Here are the logos that we have used since our inception

God Bless America.

Walter L. Brown Jr.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Thomas Jefferson On: Freedom of Expression, Sedition, Deportation, Nullification and More

Thomas Jefferson discussed age old questions of National Security in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798; this is Thomas Jefferson at his best. Mr. Jefferson's short but powerful resolutions are directly relevant to many problems we face today.

A few words on importance and relevance: When Americans have gone to war, measures to protect national security have often conflicted with civil liberties guaranteed in the Constitution. This conflict, inherent in American political culture, first appeared in 1798 during America's quasi-war with France. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were part of the Democratic Republican response to the Adams administration's attempts to curb civil liberties during that war. Drafted secretly by Thomas Jefferson (the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799) and James Madison (the Virginia Resolutions of 1798), the Resolutions were a formal protest by the legislatures of Kentucky and Virginia against the Alien and Sedition Acts that the Federalist-dominated Congress had passed in 1798 in the name of protecting national security.

Background -Virginia and Kentucky Resolves: The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed as internal security laws, restricting ALIENS and limiting FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, based on the assumption in 1798 that the United States might soon be at war with France. Though the acts were widely popular, THOMAS JEFFERSON (then vice president in the administration of JOHN ADAMS) and JAMES MADISON (one of the primary architects of the U.S. Constitution) opposed the measures. They expressed their opposition through the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves. Madison drafted the Virginia Resolves (December 21, 1798), and Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolves (November 10, 1798, and November 14, 1799), though their roles were not disclosed to the public for twenty-five years.

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolves were expressions of opposition by the Jeffersonian Republicans against the Federalist-sponsored Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Besides opposing these particular measures, the legislative resolutions proposed a "compact" theory of the U.S. Constitution that contended that state legislatures possessed all powers not specifically granted to the federal government and gave the states the right to rule upon the constitutionality of federal legislation. The resolutions became the basis for the STATES' RIGHTS movement.

Read more: Virginia and Kentucky Resolves - Federal, Acts, Government, Constitution, Legislatures, and Sedition

"There were actually four separate laws making up what is commonly referred to as the "Alien and Sedition Acts"

1.The Naturalization Act (officially An Act to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization; ch. 54, 1 Stat. 566) extended the duration of residence required for aliens to become citizens to 14 years. Enacted June 18, 1798, with no expiration date, it was repealed in 1802.

2.The Alien Friends Act (officially An Act Concerning Aliens; ch. 58, 1 Stat. 570) authorized the president to deport any resident alien considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." It was activated June 25, 1798, with a two year expiration date.

3.The Alien Enemies Act (officially An Act Respecting Alien Enemies; ch. 66, 1 Stat. 577) authorized the president to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States of America. Enacted July 6, 1798, and providing no sunset provision, the act remains intact today as 50 U.S.C. § 21–24. At the time, war was considered likely between the U.S. and France.

4.The Sedition Act (officially An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States; ch. 74, 1 Stat. 596) made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials. It was enacted July 14, 1798, with an expiration date of March 3, 1801 (the day before Adams' presidential term was to end)."

Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled “An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled “An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States,” (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.

3. Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, 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”: thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, arid that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

4. Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

5. Resolved. That in addition to the general principle, as well as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are reserved, another and more special provision, inserted in the Constitution from abundant caution, has declared that “the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808” that this commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends, described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens: that a provision against prohibiting their migration, is a provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory: that to remove them when migrated, is equivalent to a prohibition of their migration, and is, therefore, contrary to the said provision of the Constitution, and void.

6. Resolved, That the imprisonment of a person under the protection of the laws of this commonwealth, on his failure to obey the simple order of the President to depart out of the United States, as is undertaken by said act intituled “An Act concerning aliens” is contrary to the Constitution, one amendment to which has provided that “no person shalt be deprived of liberty without due progress of law”; and that another having provided that “in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense;” the same act, undertaking to authorize the President to remove a person out of the United States, who is under the protection of the law, on his own suspicion, without accusation, without jury, without public trial, without confrontation of the witnesses against him, without heating witnesses in his favor, without defense, without counsel, is contrary to the provision also of the Constitution, is therefore not law, but utterly void, and of no force: that transferring the power of judging any person, who is under the protection of the laws from the courts, to the President of the United States, as is undertaken by the same act concerning aliens, is against the article of the Constitution which provides that “the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in courts, the judges of which shall hold their offices during good behavior”; and that the said act is void for that reason also. And it is further to be noted, that this transfer of judiciary power is to that magistrate of the general government who already possesses all the Executive, and a negative on all Legislative powers.

7. Resolved, That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction, at a time of greater tranquillity, while those specified in the preceding resolutions call for immediate redress.

8th. Resolved, That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, who shall have in charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States: to assure them that this commonwealth continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their late federal compact, to be friendly, to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the general government may place any act they think proper on the list of crimes and punish it themselves whether enumerated or not enumerated by the constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance to the President, or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction: that a very numerous and valuable description of the inhabitants of these States being, by this precedent, reduced, as outlaws, to the absolute dominion of one man, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no ramparts now remains against the passions and the powers of a majority in Congress to protect from a like exportation, or other more grievous punishment, the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors and counsellors of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States and people, or who for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views, or marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their election, or other interests, public or personal; that the friendless alien has indeed been selected as the safest subject of a first experiment; but the citizen will soon follow, or rather, has already followed, for already has a sedition act marked him as its prey: that these and successive acts of the same character, unless arrested at the threshold, necessarily drive these States into revolution and blood and will furnish new calumnies against republican government, and new pretexts for those who wish it to be believed that man cannot be governed but by a rod of iron: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Alien and Sedition acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits, Let him say what the government is, if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our choice have con erred on our President, and the President of our choice has assented to, and accepted over the friendly stranger to whom the mild spirit of our country and its law have pledged hospitality and protection: that the men of our choice have more respected the bare suspicion of the President, than the solid right of innocence, the claims of justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and substance of law and justice. In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this commonwealth does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on the acts concerning aliens and for the punishment of certain crimes herein before specified, plainly declaring whether these acts are or are not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, weather general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this commonwealth in considering the said acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States (not merely as the cases made federal, casus fœderis but), in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories.

9th. Resolved, That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conference, at any times or places whatever, with any person or persons who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of Assembly.

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Nancy Pelosi's Policies in Keeping with the Values of Jesus... Let's see!

Pelosi Says She Has a Duty to Pursue Policies in Keeping With The Values of Jesus, 'The Word Made Flesh'

Nancy Pelosi, like most Democrats, virtually all Leftists, and Liberals is a Humanist, even if she doesn’t recognize it. The concept of relying on good intentions and ignoring the law exactly fits the definition of Humanism.

Humanism is a moral philosophy that gives humans primary importance. It attaches importance to highly relativistic concepts such as human dignity, concerns, and rationality. Its philosophical meaning is best understood when contrasted with belief in higher authority.

Humanism is characterized by an anti-religious doctrine that claims to:

endorse human rights, although they support killing unborn children;
endorse gender equality, although they implant laws beneficial to one gender and prejudicial to the other;
endorse social justice, although the implant laws beneficial to certain groups at the expense of others;
endorse separation of church and state, although they implant laws limiting the free expression of religion;
the list of contradictions is almost endless.

 Relying on the goodness of man and logic has proven pretty risky; recall that millions of humans are dead worldwide after having bought into humanism schemes presented under names like women's-rights:abortion (50 million in the US since 1973), socialism, fascism, and communism (110+ million killed since 1900). In addition to being the victims of humanistic philosophies the only other thing that all of these victims shared was the inability to protect themselves.

In fairness, the fallacy that humans are good, and logic is all we need, is pervasive in our government. Our elected and appointed leaders believe they can ignore The US Constitution and the specific limitations enumerated therein and do whatever they want so long as they mean to do good things and their plans makes sense to them.

Declaring every human necessity and whim to be Rights and using that justification to invade every aspect of American life, causing ever more instability and problems to fix, is certainly a powerful political strategy albeit an evil one. The results: death, poverty, suffering, and slavery are the same whether done intentionally or not.

Al Paccino’s famous line from the 1997 film “The Devils Advocate”, while playing the “John Milton” i.e. the Devil summarizes humanism:

“I'm here on the ground with my nose in it since the whole thing began. I've nurtured every sensation man's been inspired to have. I cared about what he wanted and I never judged him. Why? Because I never rejected him, in spite of all his imperfections. I'm a fan of man. I'm a humanist. Maybe the last humanist."   “They don't see me coming.”

Nurturing man's every desire and sensation is not a good leadership strategy. I would say that we have had about as much humanism as we can take; any more and we will be back in the Stone Age.