Ulema’s Constitution

Former president Asif Ali Zardari and PPP patron-in-chief Bilawal Bhutto Zardari offer Fateha during public gathering in Garhi Khuda Bakhsh on Friday, December 27, 2013. – PPI Photo

The Pakistan Peoples Party Chairman Bilal Bhutto Zardari (son of Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari) delivered a speech that Pakistani-Christian journalist Shamim Masih believes the Zardari remarks pertaining to minorities – especially Christians – was a mere political ploy. I am unsure to which speech or written text Shamim is referring to. Bilal (or Bilwal) Bhutto Zardari gave what was considered a pivotal speech at Garhi Khuda Bux pertaining to the current political party in government and that the Pakistan government should not tolerate the terrorism of the Taliban. The reason for the speech was in honor of his assassinated mother Benazir Bhutto. In the few English language stories I read about this speech I did not detect any indications of intentions toward Pakistani minorities. However I did discover a small blurb about how Bilwal’s Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) has come up with the funding to restore the All Saints Church in Peshawar which was victimized recently by two Taliban homicidal suicide bombers. My guess is this is the possible event causing mistrust by Shamim Masih.

 

UPDATE – 1/1/14

 

Shamim updated his post by sending a tweet image capture pertaining to the reason why he mistrusts a statement of Bilwal Bhutto Zardari.

 

JRH 12/31/13

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

********************************

Ulema’s Constitution

 

By Shamim Masih

Sent: 12/31/2013 2:42 AM

 

ISLAMABAD: Throughout the Christmas celebration, 2013 Pakistan Peoples Party chairman Bilwal Bhutto Zardari [Zardari bio] claimed that [he] wanted to see some sort of Christian Prime Minister in Pakistan within my lifetime. He greeted ‘Merry Christmas’ to every Christian worldwide and particularly to Pakistani Christian believers. With his statement, the roars connected with Pakistani non-secular politicians raise at the same time the other people. Although I realize it's mentioned inside the constitution in the country that a non-Muslim cannot be the president or Prime Minister in Pakistan. But there are some certain facts I am providing how [the] section of the constitution [came to be] that the President and the Prime Minister in Pakistan need to be a Muslim.

 

Pakistan came into being in 1947 under section 8 in the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the Govt. India act, 1935. And after nine years the initial document had been served as Constitution 1956. For once, the composition of Pakistan provided definition of a Muslim which often states; Muslim means someone who believes inside unity and also oneness of Allah, inside absolute and also unqualified finality in the prophet cover of Islamic prophet, Muhammad, and won't believe within, or recognize being a prophet or maybe religious reformer, any person who claimed or maybe claims as a prophet, in a sense in the word or maybe of just about any description whatsoever, after Muhammad.

 

It had been mentioned for once that simply a Muslim may very well be qualified pertaining to election as President (male or maybe female). There was no reduction of religion for the person holding any office of the speaker in the National Assembly. Secondly, should the president resign his [Office] or a vote of no-confidence goes against him or her, then in line with the constitution the actual speaker would become the actual President in the State until the election in a new president. Under the actual special circumstances, a non-Muslim could easily get the opportunity to [ascend] to president of Pakistan. [There are] no restrictions about religion or maybe gender on any post, up to provincial governor and also chief minister. The quality presented through first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan [Blog Editor: Biography] and the resolution had been debated pertaining to five days. The leading members in the government and quite a few non-Muslim associates, especially from East Bengal [Blog Editor: East Bengal became East Pakistan of the Republic of Pakistan with the Capital City located in West Pakistan. Between West and East Pakistan lay the large expanse of newly Independent India. East Pakistan became the independent Bangladesh in 1971.], got a prominent part. Non-Muslim associates expressed grave apprehensions regarding their situation and the role inside new coverage. Hindu members in the constitutional set-up argued that the objective quality differed having Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s view in all of the fundamental points. Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya claimed, what we hear in this particular (Objectives) Resolution seriously isn't the voice in the great originator of Pakistan: the Quaid-i-Azam [Blog Editor: an honorific of Mohammed Ali Jinnah], nor actually that in the Prime Minister connected with Pakistan the actual Honorable Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, but in the Ulema in the land.

 

Birat Chandra Mandal expressed that Jinnah had "unequivocally claimed that Pakistan would have been a secular condition." Bhupendra Kumar Datta proceeded to go a stage further: “inch... was that resolution into the future before that house from the life-time in the Great Founder of Pakistan, the actual Quaid-i-Azam, it would not attend in the present shape...." Even so, Muslim scholars along with a large portion of the folks of Pakistan were in the view that was just what exactly the Quaid-a-Azam wanted [i.e. a secular Pakistan] and that it was an excellent a step forward inside constitutional heritage of Pakistan. They in addition argued that [a secular Pakistan] objective quality [would have] provided the actual minorities to have equal rights and that they [would have] simply no compulsion, whatsoever, in taking on or transforming into Islam.

 

In October 1958, President Iskander Mirza abrogated the actual constitution. Soon afterwards Ayub Khan deposed Iskandar and also declared himself President.

 

Then the constitution drafted with the government connected with Z A. Bhutto, with the additional assistance of the country’s competing parties, it turned out to be approved with the legislative set-up on April 10 and also ratified on 14 August 1973. Unlike the prior legal papers of 1956 and also 1962, the 1973 constitution cannot be changed. Alternatively, constitutional efficiencies are added to it, altering its impact. He [i.e. Bhutto (?)] added that a Muslim could simply end up being the President or maybe the Prime Minister in Pakistan. No legislation repugnant to Islam should be enacted and the present legislation shall in addition be Islamized. No restriction about religion or maybe gender on any post, up to provincial governor and also Chief Minister.

 

The Amendment (w.e.f. 1974) in the 1973 Composition declared for once the Ahmadiyya Community or the actual Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement to the Propagation connected with Islam (Lahoris) as non-Muslims, and also their leader, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who claimed to become a prophet connected with God, to which often mainstream Muslims tend not to agree having.

 

This had been Mr. Z A. Bhutto himself who placed inside the constitution that [both the] president [and] Prime Minister [can only] be a Muslim. [There were] no restrictions about religion or maybe gender on any post, up to provincial governor and also chief minister. In this Islamic atmosphere neither Christian nor any minority member can be able to become the provincial governor or maybe chief minister.

 

Internationally everyone is turning to interfaith dialogue and agreeing to other faiths but [the government] should not impose this rigid Islamic Jihadist [ideology on non-Muslim Pakistani minorities in political representation]. This is simply not constitution connected [originally by the Founders] with Pakistan, but [it is the] constitution connected with Mullahs. Precisely how [does the] young Bilawal Bhutto Zardari think [the Islamic centered constitution could include the possibility of non-Muslims to attain the high Office of President or Prime Minister]? This is merely a way to [gain the] sympathies of Christians [politically and this is] just [the only reason for such public remarks]. 

 

Be Blessed,

Shamim Masih

________________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All brackets and links are from the Editor with the hope greater clarity exists for American readers.

 

© Shamim Masih

Special Correspondents

Daily Khabrian (PakBiz.com description) & Channel - 5

Human Rights Activist

 

Snapshot of Human Rights Activism from 2011

Christian Rights Activist
Freelance Journalist 

Secretary General 

REAP

Shamim Masih’s Donate/Support info:

 

Editor: For Americans especially, I have discovered the best way to donate to Shamim Masih is via Western Union sending to a Western Union agent in Islamabad.

 

FOR USD TRANSFER.
Intermediary Bank:                         MASHREQ BANK, NEW YORK
Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC:         MSHQUS33
Beneficiary Bank:                         JS BANK LIMITED
Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC:                 JSBLPKKA
Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank:         70008227
Title Of a/c                                Shamim Masih
Beneficiary Account Number:                 405527

Top of Form

IBAN #                                        pk80jsbl9530000000405227


FOR GBP TRANSFER.
Intermediary Bank:                         MASHREQ BANK, LONDON
Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC:         MSHQGB2L
Beneficiary Bank:                         JS BANK LIMITED
Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC:                 JSBLPKKA
Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank:         00010855
Title Of a/c                                Shamim Masih
Beneficiary Account Number:                 405527
IBAN #                                        pk80jsbl9530000000405227



FOR EURO TRANSFER.
Intermediary Bank:                         MASHREQ BANK, LONDON
Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC:         MSHQGB2L
Beneficiary Bank:                         JS BANK LIMITED
Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC:                 JSBLPKKA
Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank:         10847
Title Of a/c                                Shamim Masih
Beneficiary Account Number:                 405527
IBAN #                                        pk80jsbl9530000000405227 Bottom of Form

 

President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013

Ilya Shapiro has put together an article looking at ten violations of the U.S. Constitution committed by President Barack Hussein Obama.

JRH 12/30/13 (Hat Tip: CATO at Liberty)

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

******************************************

President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013

By Ilya Shapiro

12/23/2013 @ 3:38PM

Forbes

One of Barack Obama’s chief accomplishments has been to return the Constitution to a central place in our public discourse.

Unfortunately, the president fomented this upswing in civic interest not by talking up the constitutional aspects of his policy agenda, but by blatantly violating the strictures of our founding document. And he’s been most frustrated with the separation of powers, which doesn’t allow him to “fundamentally transform” the country without congressional acquiescence.

But that hasn’t stopped him. In its first term, the Administration launched a “We Can’t Wait” initiative, with senior aide Dan Pfeiffer explaining that “when Congress won’t act, this president will.” And earlier this year, President Obama said in announcing his new economic plans that “I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way.”

And so, as we reach the end of another year of political strife that’s fundamentally based on clashing views on the role of government in society, I thought I’d update a list I made two years ago and hereby present President Obama’s top 10 constitutional violations of 2013.

1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps. The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible—insurers and employers need time to comply with rapidly changing regulations—but changing the law requires actual legislation.

2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate. The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself.

3. Delay of Obamacare’s insurance requirements. The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurance companies started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare’s requirements. President Obama called a press conference last month to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans in 2014—despite Obamacare’s explicit language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.

4. Exemption of Congress from Obamacare. A little-known part of Obamacare requires Congressmen and their staff to get insurance through the new healthcare exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. In the quiet of August, President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous congressional benefits.

5. Expansion of the employer mandate penalty through IRS regulation. Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule ignoring that plain text and allowed subsidies (and commensurate fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.”

6. Political profiling by the IRS. After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May of this year.

7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law. They had nothing in common other than the government’s view that federal power is virtually unlimited. As a comparison, in the entire Bush and Clinton presidencies, the government suffered 15 and 23 unanimous rulings, respectively.

8. Recess appointments. Last year, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In January, the D.C. Circuit held the NLRB appointments to be unconstitutional, which ruling White House spokesman Jay Carney said only applied to “one court, one case, one company.”

9. Assault on free speech and due process on college campuses. Responding to complaints about the University of Montana’s handling of sexual assault claims, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the university a letter intended as a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urges a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

PAGE 2

10. Mini-DREAM Act. Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, President Obama, contradicting his own previous statements claiming to lack authority, directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits to the so-called Dreamers. The executive branch undoubtedly has discretion regarding enforcement priorities, but granting de facto green cards goes beyond a decision to defer deportation in certain cases.

It was hard to limit myself to 10 items, of course—Obamacare alone could’ve filled many such lists—but these, in my judgment, represent the chief executive’s biggest dereliction this year of his duty to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution, and to “take care that the law be faithfully executed.”

Alas, things may get worse before they get better. New presidential “counselor” John Podesta’s belief in governance by fiat is no secret; in a 2010 report, he wrote that focusing on executive power “presents a real opportunity for the Obama administration to turn its focus away from a divided Congress and the unappetizing process of making legislative sausage.”

Happy New Year!

________________________

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.

2013 Forbes.com LLC™   All Rights Reserved

DNC sends email defending Obama from impeachment possibility

It is apparent the lying Leftist Democrats are concerned of losing the Senate and losing more House Seats to the Republicans. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has been caught sending out an email urging their comrades to get busy in electing Democrats if there is a GOP win in both Houses of Congress it is feared a successful bid to Impeach Obama will take place. Check it out!

JRH 12/29/13 (Hat Tip: TPNN)

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

****************************************

DNC sends email defending Obama from impeachment possibility

By Patrick Howley

7:11 PM 12/28/2013

Daily Caller

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) sent out a paranoid email Saturday evening urging supporters to vote for Democrats so that Republicans can’t impeach President Obama.

The email, subject line “Impeachment,” was sent to Obama for America supporters, imploring them to contribute to the DNC’s 2014 efforts. “What do these people all have in common?,” the email asked, featuring quotes from Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan, and Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas discussing the possibility of impeaching Obama for one of his numerous instances of presidential misconduct.

The DNC email discussed the “I-Word” and said that “Republicans are actually excited about the idea.”

“Show these Republicans that they are way, way off-base, and give President Obama a Congress that has his back,” according to the DNC email, noting that Democrats need to win 17 GOP House seats to reclaim a majority.

The DNC, which recently expanded its political tactics to include boycotting independent news outlets, previously supported the last president to be impeached: Bill Clinton.

Obama’s staff changed key talking points on the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack; his Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups during the 2012 election cycle; and Obama personally lied to the American people when he told them that they could keep their existing doctors and health insurance plans under Obamacare.

Obama’s expansion of executive branch authority is “setting the stage for something very dangerous in the future” according to Republican Rep. Justin Amash.

Follow Patrick on Twitter

__________________________

Copyright 2010 - 2013 The Daily Caller.

Government tells us, ‘Gun Control is for the Greater Good’

John R. Houk

© December 28, 2013

Leftists/Liberals have blamed gun ownership for the last decade or so for the tragic massacres that have occurred at schools, movie theaters and public locations in general. Left Wing Elitists used this hysteria over guns as a means to attempt maximum gun control legislation contrary to the 2^nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. (2^nd Amendment; U.S. Constitution; via Legal Information Institute [LII] of Cornell University Law School)

Leftists argue that a “well regulated militia” implies government control of an organized military perhaps something like the National Guard today. The well-meaning utopian Leftists (as opposed to the Liberty-stealing power hungry Leftists) point to the wording of “being necessary to the security of a free state.”

If the 2^nd Amendment ended with that which I just quoted they would have a decent argument. BUT the 2^nd Amendment DOES NOT END THERE. The rest of amendment clause adds clarification by letting WE The People know are the well regulated militia by saying “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The Revolutionary War that liberated the 13 American Colonies from British rule occurred because citizens from everyday life of the day banded together and organized as a paramilitary group and then received a bit of on the job training as a soldier. Even during the Civil War the Union Army consisted of volunteer militias that would then be organized under the auspices of the U.S. Army but often retaining the name of the State from whence the Army Unit came.

The Declaration of Independence gives us excellent reasons as to why Americans should have the right to own and bear arms independent of government control.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

… READ ENTIRETY (Transcript of Declaration of Independence (1776); OurDocuments.gov)

The Founding Fathers did their best to craft a Constitutional government in which the people were not exploited by government despotism. The same Founding Fathers prior to the Constitution laid the potential that good government is not infallible and go down the road of despotism for some or all its citizens. Sometimes the ONLY recourse to throw off the bands of a despotic government is by the citizens rising up by reason of arms to change the power structure of government.

AND SO BEWARE, when our government tells you must give up your guns for the safety of the greater good, something nefarious toward Liberty is undoubtedly soon to follow. A Michael Dorstewitz article I found on Right Wing News wrote down reminisces of Katie Worthman a survivor of NAZI occupied Austria pertaining to guns. She warns, “Don’t give up your guns”. Here is the article.

JRH 12/28/13

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

*********************************

Nazi survivor’s warning to Americans: ‘Keep your guns and buy more guns

By Michael Dorstewitz

December 28, 2013

Right Wing News

A survivor of Nazi-occupied Austria who sees parallels between that dark period and the United States of today has a word of warning and advice to Americans: “Keep your guns and buy more guns.”

Katie Worthman spoke earlier this year of what she witnessed as a child in Austria during Adolph Hitler’s rise to power, which was followed by Soviet occupation of the country. She said the Nazi takeover happened gradually, as opposed to media accounts to the contrary, according to NRA News, which reported that Worthman said:

In 1938, the media reported that Hitler rode into Austria with tanks and guns and took us over. Not true at all. The Austrian people elected Hitler by 98 percent of the vote by means of the ballot box. Now you might ask how could a Christian nation… elect a monster like Hitler. The truth is at the beginning Hitler didn’t look like or talk like a monster at all. He talked like an American politician.

Worthman said gun control also began gradually, before the Nazis eventually confiscated every firearm. According to NRA News, she said:

We also had gun registration. All the Austrian people… had guns. But the government said, “the guns are very dangerous. Children are playing with guns. Hunting accidents happen and we really have to have total controlled safety. And we had criminals again. And the only way that we can trace the criminal was by the serial number of the gun.”

So we dutifully went to the police station and we registered our guns. Not long after they said, “No, it didn’t help. The only way that we won’t have accidents and crimes [is] you bring the guns to the police station and then we don’t have any crimes anymore and any accidents. And if you don’t do that: capital punishment.”

So that’s what we did. So dictatorship didn’t happen overnight. It took five years. Gradually, little by little to escalate up to a dictatorship.

Worthman quoted Thomas Jefferson make her biggest point.

“When the people fear the government, that’s tyranny. But when the government fears the people… that’s liberty,” she said. “Keep your guns. Keep your guns and buy more guns.”

_________________________

Government tells us, ‘Gun Control is for the Greater Good’

John R. Houk

© December 28, 2013

________________________

Nazi survivor’s warning to Americans: ‘Keep your guns and buy more guns

© Copyright 2001-2012 John Hawkins

About Right Wings News

John Hawkins runs Right Wing News, Linkiest and is the co-owner of The Looking Spoon. He also does weekly appearances on the #1 in it’s market Jaz McKay show, writes a weekly column for Townhall and his work has also been published at the Washington Examiner, The Hill, Hot Air, Pajamas Media, and at Human Events.

Additionally, he’s also the blogosphere’s premier interviewer and has interviewed conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Mark Levin, Victor Davis Hanson, Mark Steyn, G. Gordon Liddy, Dick Morris, Karl Rove, Michael Steele, Milton Friedman, Ron Paul, Jim DeMint, Jonah Goldberg, Jim DeMint, Walter Williams, Robert Novak, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, & Michelle Malkin among others.

Additionally, John Hawkins’ work has been linked and discussed in numerous publications and on TV and radio shows including … READ THE REST