Reawaken 4th Amendment Due to Govt. Corruption

John R. Houk

© October 30, 2013

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,  against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (Amendment IV – U.S. Constitution)

I have been a huge supporter of the Patriot Act (Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) due to the reason that this law came into existence; viz. an Islamic terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 (911) on American soil that resulted in the deaths of about 5,000 people. To the extent that the Patriot Act is a tool to examine foreign activity that results in the nefarious acts of terrorism or is a supply line monetarily to foreign terrorism is something I still support. The key is the term “foreign.”

Since 911 the Islamic terrorist paradigm has an adaptive agenda to circumvent the nature of “foreign” as related to the American Homeland. Foreign Radical Islamic global Caliphate-minded Muslims have been working for years to plant their theopolitical ideology as a homegrown paradigm. The more homegrown a Radical Islamic organization or Mosque the less the claim of ties to foreign terrorism. Currently most Islamic organizations in the USA can be traced to a foreign Saudi or Muslim Brotherhood hand in a large degree. There are actually lesser known Radical Islamic organizations associated with foreign Islamic terrorism that are not Saudi or Muslim Brotherhood; however it is less likely that those organization will separate from their parent foreign Radical Islamic connection. Inevitably the Radical Islamic homegrown planted organizations will attain a self-sufficient operation independent of foreign ties. When that happens use of the Patriot Act laws would legally be ineffective to monitor domestic criminality and will be subject to the traditional ingrained Constitutional framework of the Fourth Amendment that protects Americans from unwarranted searches of private property including snail-mail, email, telephone, Internet and so on. A Radical Muslim network divorced from their foreign founders will essentially operate mafia-style to Islamize America using the U.S. Constitution to terminate Constitutional Law in favor of Sharia Law.

I am certain the Patriot Act has been abused by stretching the reach of its mandate in protecting Americans from foreign terrorism. The Patriot Act must be updated to better accommodate the Fourth Amendment especially on a domestic level. For one thing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) needs more precise language so that relating information, broad undefined information or just plain no defined information cannot be used to acquire a FISA Court Search Warrant. The lack of specificity in legal language has made the marriage of the Patriot Act and the FISA Courts a Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies, a paradigm of an abuse-of-power waiting to happen. Such abuse is in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. If Congress fails to add specificity in the Patriot Act and the Courts based on FISA, then those tools need to be scraped OR just plain be ruled unconstitutional due to the Fourth Amendment.

The ability of the devotees of Radical Islam to use the Constitution to undermine the Constitution is a reason for some kind of Surveillance Act on a foreign and domestic level to exist. In the past I have favored Security to trump Civil Rights directly in the aftermath of 911; however it has become evident the truism of ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ has swayed me back to emphasize Civil Rights. Again, I am still a supporter of the Patriot Act, BUT not as it is codified today. There must be a balance in the use of security and Civil Rights with any erring to come down on the side of constitutionally mandated Civil Rights. Check out Judge Andrew Napolitano:

VIDEO: Is the FISA Court constitutional?

Here is an excerpt from the article by Judge Napolitano in which the above video was located:

The case or controversy requirement demands that there be real adversity between two or more distinct entities each of which has a stake in the outcome of a dispute before a federal court can exercise any jurisdiction. Federal courts can only resolve disputes; they cannot rule with finality in the abstract or when approached by only one party. They can grant preliminary temporary relief to one party -- in order to freeze the status quo and in anticipation of an adversarial contest on the merits -- but they cannot rule when only one party is noticed and shows up.

This is precisely how the FISA court functions, and yet we have no merit-based ruling by the Supreme Court on its constitutionality. …

But this is just what Congress did with FISA. In the FISA court, only the government appears, seeking a generalized search warrant without regard to the facts of any specific case. There is no case or controversy in the constitutional sense as there is no adversariness: No plaintiff is suing a defendant, and no defendant is being prosecuted by the government. Absent adversariness, the federal courts have no jurisdiction to do anything.

This flawed system is complicated even further by the fact that should the FISA court deny an application for a general warrant because it believes the government’s procedures to be illegal or unconstitutional, those court orders are non-binding and the government has ignored them. Unenforceable rulings that may be disregarded by another branch of the government are not judicial decisions at all, but impermissible advisory opinions prohibited by the Framers.

When a FISA court judge rules that the NSA has the constitutional power to spy on Americans about whom it has no evidence of wrongdoing, as one judge did two weeks ago, because that ruling did not emanate out of a case or controversy -- no one was in court to dispute it -- the court is without authority to hear the matter, and thus the ruling is meaningless.

By altering the constitutionally mandated requirement of the existence of a case or controversy before the jurisdiction of the federal courts may be invoked, Congress has lessened the protection of the right to be left alone that the Framers intentionally sought to enshrine. But don’t expect the government to wake up to this threat to our freedom. Its consistent behavior has demonstrated that it doesn’t care whether it violates the Constitution. Instead, expect the president’s secret agents and the politicians who support them to hide their wrongdoing behind more layers of secrecy. (Is the FISA Court constitutional? By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano; FoxNews.com; 9/26/13)

Marxist principles as espoused by Russia’s Lenin and Stalin and China’s Mao Zedong (or Mao Tse Tung) is a Communism that overthrows the government by means of a transforming ideological revolution. Early American Communists were enamored by Lenin’s revolution that overthrew Czarist Russia that transformed Russia into the illusory delusion of a utopia. The reality is Russia was transformed from an elitist oligarchy of nobles in which huge amounts of citizens were regarded in low estate into a Leninist-Communist oligarchy of top-down transformist police state. In Russia’s case the removal of a royal oligarchic autocracy to a Communist dictatorship did not produce individual Civil Rights. Conformity was the centrality of Russian culture under the Czars and the new Communist government. That Russian Revolution which affected American Constitutional government was the desire of Russian/Soviet Marxists to export their transformational revolution to the entire world. In America’s case too many closet Communists became a part of positions of influence in both government and culture.

Senator Joseph McCarthy in the beginnings of the Cold War went from a hero exposing Communists and/or Soviet-Communist sympathizers in these places of influence to being painted as a nut-job witch-hunter that ruined lives more than protecting the government and Americans from Marxist transformationism. History has shown that Joe McCarthy was closer to being correct than being a witch hunter that destroyed innocent lives. Bipartisan powerful politicians and Executive Branch Establishment-minded leadership began to fear the stigma of hiring Communist sympathizing functionaries. A Left oriented Mainstream Media sympathetic to a Socialist paradigm also began assaulting McCarthy. A better a truism might drove McCarthy to alcoholism thus ruining a patriot’s life.

There are bad people who desire to destroy America and our way of life initiated in the great experiment of a Constitutional Republic initiated by our Founding Fathers. The primary assault on America in the 20^th and 21^st centuries has been interpretations of Marxism and Caliphate-minded Muslims. We as Americans need to get behind some kind of balance between National Security and Constitutional protections we call our Civil Rights. Since 911 the government has evolved from a protective nature to ignoring the Rights ingrained in the U.S. Constitution. I believe government abuse caused by a misplaced enthusiasm to hunt down Islamic Terrorists (I guess our fearless leader would call them Enemy Combatants). That government abuse has filtered into policing domestic criminals such as thieves, bank robbers, various levels illicit drug distribution, murderers and so on.

Domestic policing ALSO has led to ignoring the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment pertaining warranting search, seizure and attacking personal property. Yesterday I managed to get to an old email from the Rutherford Institute written by John W. Whitehead. The email begins by relating true incidents in which police have erroneously invaded homes of innocent citizens which resulted in deaths. I am not talking about police officer deaths. I am talking about police officers shooting to death citizens who believed their home was being invaded by criminals.

And this is how I am going to end my thoughts on the Fourth Amendment. Read Whitehead’s article and be prepared to be outraged by the abuse of power.

JRH 10/30/13

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

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

Who Will Protect You from the Police? The Rise of Government-Sanctioned Home Invasions

By John W. Whitehead

October 21, 2013

Rutherford Institute

“Democracy means that if the doorbell rings in the early hours, it is likely to be the milkman.”—Winston Churchill

It’s 3 a.m. You’ve been asleep for hours when suddenly you hear a loud “Crash! Bang! Boom!” Based on the yelling, shouting and mayhem, it sounds as if someone—or several someones—are breaking through your front door. With your heart racing and your stomach churning, all you can think about is keeping your family safe from the intruders who have invaded your home. You have mere seconds before the intruders make their way to your bedroom. Desperate to protect your loved ones, you scramble to lay hold of something—anything—that you might use in self-defense. It might be a flashlight, your son’s baseball bat, or that still unloaded gun you thought you’d never need. In a matter of seconds, the intruders are at your bedroom door. You brace for the confrontation, a shaky grip on your weapon. In the moments before you go down for the count, shot multiple times by the strangers who have invaded your home, you get a good look at your accosters. It’s the police.

Before I go any further, let me start by saying this: the problem is not that all police are bad. The problem, as I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, is that increasing numbers of police officers are badly trained, illiterate when it comes to the Constitution, especially the Fourth Amendment, and, in some cases, willfully ignorant about the fact that they are supposed to be peacekeepers working for us, the taxpayer.

Unfortunately, with every passing week, we are hearing more and more horror stories in which homeowners are injured or killed simply because they mistook a SWAT team raid by police for a home invasion by criminals. Never mind that the unsuspecting homeowner, woken from sleep by the sounds of a violent entry, has no way of distinguishing between a home invasion by a criminal as opposed to a government agent. Too often, the destruction of life and property wrought by the police is no less horrifying than that carried out by criminal invaders.

Consider, for example, the sad scenario that played out when a SWAT team kicked open the door of ex-Marine Jose Guerena’s home during a drug raid and opened fire. Thinking his home was being invaded by criminals, Guerena told his wife and child to hide in a closet, grabbed a gun and waited in the hallway to confront the intruders. He never fired his weapon. In fact, the safety was still on his gun when he was killed. The SWAT officers, however, not as restrained, fired 70 rounds of ammunition at Guerena—23 of those bullets made contact. Guerena had had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home.

Seven-year-old Aiyana Jones was sleeping on her living room sofa, which was positioned under a window, when suddenly, the silence of the night was shattered by a flash grenade thrown through the living room window, followed by the sounds of police bursting into the apartment and a gun going off. Rushing into the room, Aiyana’s father, Charles, found himself tackled by police and forced to lie on the floor, his face in a pool of his daughter’s blood. It would be hours before Charles would be informed that his daughter was dead. The 34-year-old suspect the police had been looking for would later be found elsewhere in the apartment building.

Then there was the time police used a battering ram to break into the home of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnson, mistakenly believing her house to be a drug den. Fearing that burglars were entering her home, which was situated in a dangerous neighborhood, Johnson fired a warning shot when the door burst open. Police unleashed a hail of gunfire, hitting Johnson with six bullets. Johnson died.

Eighty-year-old Eugene Mallory suffered a similar fate when deputies with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, claiming to have smelled chemicals related to the manufacture of methamphetamine, raided the multi-unit property in which Mallory lived. Thinking that his home was being invaded by burglars, Mallory allegedly raised a gun at the intruders, who shot him six times. Mallory died. “The lesson here,” observed the spokesman for the sheriff’s department, “is don’t pull a gun on a deputy.”

In Fort Worth, Texas, two rookie police officers sent to investigate a possible burglary circled 72-year-old Jerry Waller’s house with flashlights shining. Waller, concerned that his home was being cased, went to his garage, armed with a gun for self-defense. The two officers snuck up on Waller, who raised his gun on the intruders. When Waller failed to obey orders to lower his gun, the officers shot and killed him. It turned out the officers had gone to the wrong address. They blamed the shooting death on “poor lighting.”

During a raid in Ogden, Utah, police dressed in black and carrying assault rifles charged into a darkened home. Upon entering the hallway and encountering a man holding a shiny object that one officer thought was a sword, police opened fire. Three shots later, 45-year-old Todd Blair fell to the floor dead. In his hands was a shiny golf club.

In Sarasota, Florida, a mixture of federal and local police converged on the apartment complex where Louise Goldsberry lived after receiving a tip that a child rape suspect was in the complex. Unaware of police activity outside, Louise was washing dishes in her kitchen when a man wearing what appeared to be a hunting vest pointed a rifle at her through her window. Fearing that she was about to be attacked, Louise retrieved her revolver from her bedroom. Meanwhile, the man began pounding on Louise’s front door, saying, “We’re the f@#$ing police; open the f@#$ing door.” Identifying himself as a police officer, the rifle-wielding man then opened the door, pointed a gun at Goldsberry and her boyfriend, who was also present, and yelled, “Drop the f@#$ing gun or I’ll f@#$ing shoot you.” Ironically, the officer later justified his behavior on the grounds that he didn’t like having a gun pointed at him and because “I have to go home at night.”

These incidents underscore a dangerous mindset in which civilians (often unarmed and defenseless) not only have less rights than militarized police, but also one in which the safety of civilians is treated as a lower priority than the safety of their police counterparts (who are armed to the hilt with an array of lethal and nonlethal weapons), the privacy of civilians is negligible in the face of the government’s various missions, and the homes of civilians are no longer the refuge from government intrusion that they once were.

It wasn’t always this way, however. There was a time in America when a man’s home really was a sanctuary where he and his family could be safe and secure from the threat of invasion by government agents, who were held at bay by the dictates of the Fourth Amendment, which protects American citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Fourth Amendment, in turn, was added to the U.S. Constitution by colonists still smarting from the abuses they had been forced to endure while under British rule, among these home invasions by the military under the guise of writs of assistance. These writs were nothing less than open-ended royal documents which British soldiers used as a justification for barging into the homes of colonists and rifling through their belongings. James Otis, a renowned colonial attorney, “condemned writs of assistance because they were perpetual, universal (addressed to every officer and subject in the realm), and allowed anyone to conduct a search in violation of the essential principle of English liberty that a peaceable man’s house is his castle.” As Otis noted:

“Now, one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.”

To our detriment, we have now come full circle, returning to a time before the American Revolution when government agents—with the blessing of the courts—could force their way into a citizen’s home, with seemingly little concern for lives lost and property damaged in the process.

Actually, we may be worse off today than our colonial ancestors when one considers the extent to which courts have sanctioned the use of no-knock raids by police SWAT teams (occurring at a rate of 70,000 to 80,000 a year and growing); the arsenal of lethal weapons available to local police agencies; the ease with which courts now dispense search warrants based often on little more than a suspicion of wrongdoing; and the inability of police to distinguish between reasonable suspicion and the higher standard of probable cause, the latter of which is required by the Constitution before any government official can search an individual or his property.

Indeed, if Winston Churchill is correct that “democracy means that if the doorbell rings in the early hours, it is likely to be the milkman,” then it’s safe to say that we no longer live in a democracy. Certainly not in a day and age when the Fourth Amendment, which was intended to protect us against the police state, especially home invasions by government agents, has been reduced to little more than words on paper.

WC: 1638

__________________________

Reawaken 4^th Amendment Due Govt. Corruption

John R. Houk

© October 30, 2013

________________________

Who Will Protect You from the Police? The Rise of Government-Sanctioned Home Invasions

Support The Rutherford Institute

Attorney

Intro to Masih’s ‘Attorney’

John R. Houk

© February 4, 2013

Shamim Masih writes about equal justice in Pakistan. He admires some men that have exercised responsible action in the rule of Law in Pakistan. Frankly I have my reservations about who Masih admires because they are all Muslims. Masih reserves special praise for Sajid Ilyas Bhatti a Muslim attorney and President of the District Bar Association (DBA) in Pakistan.

I am guessing Shamim Masih’s admiration of Bhatti is based on his willingness to take on cases that include Christian Civil Rights in the face of Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws. Apparently Bhatti is an expert in the workings of Pakistan’s Shariat Court on a local and Federal level. Here is Wikipedia’s description of Pakistan’s Shariat Court:

The Federal Shariat Court (FSC) of Pakistan is a court which has the power to examine and determine whether the laws of the country comply with Shari'a law. It consists of 8 Muslim judges appointed by the President of Pakistan after consulting the Chief Justice of this Court, from amongst the serving or retired judges of the Supreme Court or a High Court or from amongst persons possessing the qualifications of judges of a High Court. Justice Agha Rafiq Ahmed Khan is the current Chief Justice of the court. Of the 8 judges, 3 are required to be Ulema who are well versed in Islamic law. The judges hold office for a period of 3 years, which may eventually be extended by the President.

Appeal against its decisions lie to the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of 3 Muslim judges of the Supreme Court and 2 Ulema, appointed by the President. If any part of the law is declared to be against Islamic law, the government is required to take necessary steps to amend such law appropriately.

The court also exercises revisional jurisdiction over the criminal courts, deciding Hudood cases. The decisions of the court are binding on the High Courts as well as subordinate judiciary. The court appoints its own staff and frames its own rules of procedure.

Ever since its establishment in 1980, the Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan has been the subject of criticism and controversy in the society. Created as an islamisation measure by the military regime and subsequently protected under the controversial 8th Amendment, its opponents question the very rationale and utility of this institution. It is stated that this court merely duplicates the functions of the existing superior courts and also operates as a check on the sovereignty of Parliament. The composition of the court, particularly the mode of appointment of its judges and the insecurity of their tenure, is taken exception to, and it is alleged, that this court does not fully meet the criterion prescribed for the independence of the judiciary. That is to say, it is not immune to pressures and influences from the Executive.

Essentially Shariat Court is a judiciary based on Sharia Law. If you are an American you must become aware that Sharia is absolutely inimical to the principles of the American Constitution. Nevertheless, Christians in Pakistan are forced to deal with Sharia because that nation is an Islamic nation. It is actually a brave thing to take a stand to dilute Sharia to bring greater Civil Rights to Pakistani Christians. It is brave because it is dangerous. It is dangerous because standing for greater Civil Rights for Christians can be perceived as an insult to Islam. In a Muslim nation in which Free Speech and Religious Freedom is subservient to the principles of Islam and Sharia.

JRH 2/4/13

Please Support SlantRight 2.0 With Your Contribution.

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

Attorney

History is ours, and People make history

By Shamim Masih

Sent: 2/3/2013 12:53 PM

Once upon a time we were privileged to have barristers and lawyers like Justice M.R Kayani, Justice A.R Cornelius, Justice Dorab Patel and Mohammed Ali Jinnah - men who were the very embodiment of brilliance, hard work and gravitas. They were circumspect in their personal as well as public dealings and were a credit to the nation. Now our icons of the past must be turning in their graves at the unsightly spectacle of  furious lawyers attacking and ransacking Judge Pervez Ali Shah’s courtroom in Rawalpindi because of their opposition to the death penalty handed down to Salman Taseer’s assassin Mumtaz Qadri.

Aside from the religious sentiments being provoked of such ‘Aashiq-e-Rasool’ (lovers of the Prophet) amongst the legal fraternity, this situation begs the question: if lawyers themselves do not respect judicial verdicts, then who will?

 Are they not bound by the tenets of their profession to pay heed to court decisions? Surely, discipline and dignity are the two essential pillars upholding a major state institution like the judiciary. Far from being censured and suspended for their ridiculous behavior, the District Bar Association has asked for Judge Pervaiz Ali Shah’s transfer because “it can create a law and order situation”. Lawyer Farooq Sulehria has proclaimed that lawyers would boycott Shah’s court because of the “unacceptable” sentencing.

But the situation is not the same all the time; I have seen the courts hearing during a minor Christian girl Rimsha, accused of blasphemy case. During the case, where Roa was out- spoken lawyer to apposing Rimsha, there was Abdul Hameed Rana (Rimsha’s lawyer) defending her.

Few days back, I met Sajid Ilyas Bhatti - Advocate Supreme Court, who started his career in 1994-95 from the district bar Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Sajid Bhatti was voted by his peers’ one of the best of the bar, and was also named as Secretary General of the High Court Bar, Rawalpindi, an honor given to less than one percent of the lawyers in the state. He has been involved in numerous “High-profile” matters throughout his career.

Sajid Bhatti is a member of many professional and community service organizations. He is member of Supreme Court Bar and District Bar, Rawalpindi where he served as executive member.  Mr. Bhatti has tried countless jury trials and numerous “Bench trials”. He has obtained many acquittals and produced hundreds of positive results for clients in both state and Federal Shariat Court as a result of his experience as both a trial attorney and a negotiator.

He is known for his ability to provide innovative and powerful legal representation in all his criminal cases. His years as a prosecuting attorney and legal analyst give him a unique insight into the various strategies used by the District Attorney’s office and avoid those pitfalls and traps that other lawyers with this experience routinely fall into. Bhatti’s firm belief in the presumption of innocence has led him to take on criminal defense cases of all sizes and complexities. There is no case too small or too “hot” for him to work.

Areas of Practice: He handles a wide array of both State and Federal Shariat Court offenses. The list would be long but it matters that he deals you the best possible attorney for your needs.

People who know what they believe, but who are never afraid of other people’s opinions, who invite dialogues rather than diatribes, and who are mature enough to always seek more knowledge and curious enough to want to understand others.

________________________

Intro to Masih’s ‘Attorney’

John R. Houk Editor

© February 4, 2013

______________________

Attorney

Shamim Masih

Christian Rights Activist
Freelance Journalist 

President

REAP
+92-300-642-4560

Learn Islam to STOP Islam

John R. Houk

© January 29, 2011

The increasing hostility from Muslims toward non-Muslims is further evidence that Americans should begin to view Islam in a light that is beyond religion. Sharia Law has become the political enforcement to religious laws derived from the Quran, Hadith and Sira. The word “politics” means the hands of the State receive a religious mandate to utilize the power of the State to infiltrate on the very lives of individuals providing an Orwellian Big Brother mentality on a local community level. This Islamic Orwellianism ends personal liberty for all actions of society must submit to the cult of Islam. This means repression executed on individuals that do not submit to Islam.

In Western governments this Orwellian Sharia Law has not invaded the secular-political arm – yet. Western governments in Europe are actually allowing Sharia Law to be practiced as a rule of law where Islam dominates the community. This gives rise to assault on non-Muslims when Muslims utilize Sharia as an excuse to vandalize, dehumanize, physically attack, rape or even murder. The last three I mentioned – physical attack, rape and murder – might be exacted by a Muslim on a fellow Muslim or a non-Muslim alike. It would depend on what portion of Sharia is broken by a Muslim and the multitudinous calls to protect the honor of Islam against the non-Muslim which excuse reprehensible acts in the name of Islam.

European nations are slowly allowing this de-Westernizing of their culture. Americans must prevent allowing the insidiousness of Islamic Sharia from gaining any acceptance as a force of the rule of law in America. Sharia means the termination of American citizens’ rights as defined by the Constitution’s First Amendment.

First Amendment:

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.

How does Sharia Law contradict the First Amendment:

Sharia is based on the principles found in the Koran and other Islamic religious/political texts. There are no common principles between American law and Sharia.

Under Sharia law:

o   There is no freedom of religion

o   There is no freedom of speech

o   There is no freedom of thought

o   There is no freedom of artistic expression

o   There is no freedom of the press

o   There is no equality of peoples—a non-Muslim, a Kafir, is never equal to a Muslim

o   There is no equal protection under Sharia for different classes of people. Justice is dualistic, with one set of laws for Muslim males and different laws for women and non-Muslims.

o   There are no equal rights for women

o   Women can be beaten

o   A non-Muslim cannot bear arms

o   There is no democracy, since democracy means that a non-Muslim is equal to a Muslim

o   Our Constitution is a man-made document of ignorance, jahiliyah, that must submit to Sharia

o   Non-Muslims are dhimmis, third-class citizens

o   All governments must be ruled by Sharia law

o   Unlike common law, Sharia is not interpretive, nor can it be changed

o   There is no Golden Rule (Source: Sharia Law for the Non-Muslim; Bill Warner; PDF Document published by Center for the Study of Political Islam © 2010; Introduction p. 3)

Before American Leftists and Muslim-Americans demand the First Amendment right of Religious Freedom, adherents of Islam MUST deal with the political nature built into Islam that contradicts the rest of the First Amendment (which includes Religious Freedom for non-Muslims). If Islam cannot transform theologically to eschew the political mandates of Sharia, then at worst Islam needs to be defined as a political ideology and at best Sharia must be defined as a political ideology. Political ideologies can still be a part of First Amendment rights; however when the ideology seeks to act extra-constitutionally or is defiant of the U.S. Constitution the groups acting subversively can be monitored for illegal activities and prosecuted if the law is broken.

American Nazis can hate Jews in America, but they cannot kill or prevent the civil rights of Jews in America. The Ku Klux Klan can hate African-Americans, Jews and Catholics, but they cannot kill or prevent their civil rights. Violent Communists like Bill Ayers can write about the hatred and the overthrow of the United States, but they cannot exact acts of violence, terrorism or rebellion against the U.S. government under the rule of law of the U.S. Constitution. Neither can Muslims act against their women, honor kill their daughters, sisters and wife (polygamous wives are illegal in America); persecute Jews, Christians and other non-Muslim religions; kill the kafir; rape the kafir women and Muslims cannot do any other thing that is protected by the U.S. Constitution or subvert the U.S. Constitution because Islam demands resistance to non-Muslim practices.  

The next time a Muslim tries to tell you that Islam is a religion of peace, the person is self-deceived or a deceiving liar. You need to educate yourself on the teachings of Islam. Even though there may be a truth that a majority of Muslims are peaceful, the earliest remembrances of Mohammed’s words that became written down as the Quran are ONLY partially peaceful. If a Muslim tells you Quranic violence is understood out of context much like the Old Testament might be accused of violence out of context to today’s practice, know that it is a misleading accusation by Muslims and that Quranic violence is totally in context with the intent of its message to spread Islam establishing supremacy over non-Muslims to the point of humiliating them, converting them or killing them. That is absolutely NOT the context of the Old Testament.

The Biblical imagery of the Hebrew tribes conquering Canaan’s Land under Divine direction was a bloody enterprise. The directive by God to conquer and exterminate was based on the indigenous Canaanites and the various other tribal peoples such as Amorites, Philistines, Moabites, Amalekites, Hittites, Midianites, and Hivites and so on. These Canaan people were has religious and moral practices were reprehensible. Their sins had come to full course in that God deemed them beyond saving. This is much like in the days of Noah in which the sins of humanity had become collectively so evil that God wiped out humanity saving eight humans including Noah, Noah’s wife, their sons and their sons’ wives. The salvation of the eight by returning from the flood of water became a type of Christ’s Redemption announced to all. The new Believer is baptized or immersed in water with the sins of the old nature and resurrecting from out of immersion with their sins washed away to begin a new life journey with a new creation nature.

The slaughter ordered by God upon sinful people beyond redemption to be repopulated by the twelve tribes of the Israel nation is far different than the Quranic edict to spread Islam first by telling non-Muslims of the mercy of Allah followed by brutal conquest if Allah and his prophet Mohammed are rejected. The Israel conquest was localized to an area of land promised to the descendants of Abraham. The Muslim conquest is an ongoing path until the whole earth’s population submits to the will of Allah with violent repression if necessary.

Don’t be fooled by  Muslim apologists who vainly compare Islam’s early bloody empire acquired by brutal conquest to a localized land conquest promised to the descendents of Abraham through the bloodline of Isaac that essentially can be traced down to the son of Mary and the Son of God Jesus the Christ. Salvation is of the Jews because the son of Promise to Abraham would eventually lead to the birth of Jesus who has the equal nature of man and of God in simultaneous union. Mohammed’s lineage is NOT of the child of Promise Isaac. If anything Mohammed’s lineage MIGHT be traced to Abraham and the Egyptian slave of Sarah known as Hagar which gave birth to Ishmael. Ishmael the son of a slave was cast out of Abraham’s camp because the son of promise was born to the free woman and wife of Abraham – Sarah. Salvation is not of the Ishmaelites. You need to know your Islam. Mohammed’s words rewrote the timeless Scripture of the Old Testament by transferring Ishmael as the promised child even though Ishmael’s mother was a slave and not a free woman. In essence Mohammed replaced Isaac with Ishmael in order to make the accusation that Jews and Christians warped the true word of God that due to Mohammed only came into existence in the 7^th century AD. The Pentateuch (the Torah to the Jews) was written circa 1400 BC. Even if one buys into the secular humanist theories of the JEPD Document writing of the Pentateuch of 400 BC; that is still over a thousand years before Mohammed’s companions collated their collective memories into a written Quran.   

ACT for America’s Guy Rodgers lays out very desirable reasons for Americans to get involved on a grassroots level to combat the portions of Islam that contradict American and so also American culture.

JRH 1/29/11

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

Rising Worldwide Jihad

By Guy Rodgers, Executive Director

Sent: 1/28/2011 12:46 PM

Sent by: ACT for America

A recent column by Jeffrey Kuhner in The Washington Times reported the following:

·       “The Vatican estimates that from Egypt to Iran there are just 17 million Christians left.” Why? Persecution by Muslims.

·       “Nearly two-thirds of the 500,000 Christians in Baghdad have fled or been killed.” Why? Persecution by Muslims.

Other reports that have come across my desk in recent weeks report increased Islamic terror activity in Sweden. Thousands of Hindus have fled Pakistan’s Sind province due to increased persecution by Muslims.

 
While the church bombing in Egypt received some worldwide press, none of these developments I refer to above have received much worldwide attention.

 
Meanwhile, after Pakistani’s Punjab governor Salman Taseer was assassinated because he opposed Pakistan’s anti-blasphemy laws, over 500 Muslim clerics defended the actions of the murderer. What’s more, when Pope Benedict XVI urged Pakistan to repeal these laws, the leader of the nation’s most powerful Islamic party declared “The Pope’s statement is an insult to Muslims across the world.”

 
Crime perpetrated by Muslims against non-Muslims throughout Europe is accelerating. Terrorist threats are on the rise. Counterterrorism forces in Great Britain are tracking some 30,000 potential Islamic terrorist suspects in that country alone. Jews are fleeing Europe in response to increased persecution.

 
All of this is occurring against the backdrop of decades of appeasement and accommodation extended by European governments to militant Muslims.

Lebanon’s government was recently toppled by Hezbollah. Now, for all practical purposes, Hezbollah is in control of Lebanon.

Throughout history Islamic jihad has ebbed and flowed – but it has never completely ended. Today we are witnessing an emboldened and empowered worldwide jihad the likes of which has not been seen since before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

 
In the face of this reality Rep. Bennie Thompson criticizes Rep. Peter King’s plan for hearings on Muslim radicalization, foolishly arguing that Muslim radicalization shouldn’t be singled out when we have mass shootings like the one recently in Tucson.

 
Organizations like CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, insist that terror and violence around the world, perpetrated by Muslims, has nothing to do with any doctrines of Islam. This in spite of the fact that since 9/11 over 17,000 incidents of Islamic terror have been documented worldwide. CAIR’s contentions would be laughable if this weren’t so tragic.

 
Over the past two years we saw more homegrown terrorists arrested than in the previous eight years since 9/11. Yet the Obama administration can’t even bring itself to use terms like “jihad” and “radical Islam” in its assessment of this worldwide threat.

The good news is the 2010 elections elevated Members of Congress like Peter King to chairmanships of key committees. Many of the new freshman class are more aware of the threat of radical Islam – and more willing to define it as such. More Americans than ever have heard of sharia law.

 
While issues like jobs, the economy, and exploding federal deficits dominate the headlines and are the top concerns of most Americans, we who understand the seriousness of the threat of rising worldwide jihad must continue to be the voices of warning to America. We must be the modern-day Paul Revere’s, who sound the alarm while most people don’t see what’s coming. We must connect the dots so that people understand why we are threatened by both cultural and violent jihad.

 
This year we have many big plans to ensure this happens. Our TV program premieres February 5th at 2:30 PM Eastern Time on Family Net and on February 6th at 4:00 PM Eastern Time on ALN.

 
Our National Conference and Legislative Briefing will take place in Washington, DC, June 22 – 24.

We will conduct several Citizens in Action training conferences.

We will host webcast training sessions for our chapter leaders.

Early next month we will announce a new initiative: Open the Qur’an Day.

 
I believe that, in spite of rising worldwide jihad, the tide is turning. Leaders and citizens in Europe are pushing back. ACT! For America doubled its membership in 2010. More and more Americans are rejecting the foolishness of political correctness.

 
This is not a year to lose hope. This is a year to build on what we have accomplished thus far.

 
Yours for a safe and free America,

Guy Rodgers

___________________________

Learn Islam to STOP Islam

John R. Houk

© January 29, 2011

________________________

Rising Worldwide Jihad

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.