A better understanding of Shari’ah Law.

A better understanding of Shari’ah Law.

When he was being sentenced in a federal court earlier this month for his failed attempt to detonate a large car bomb in New York City’s Times Square, Pakistani immigrant and Muslim terrorist, Faisal Shazad made a statement that should cause us to be disturbed by his matter-of-fact delivery. He was given opportunity to speak at various times during the hearing and Shazad made clear his low regard for civil and criminal law, particularly U.S. law. His statements indicated that U.S. law should be regarded lacking any authority over the behavior and conduct of Muslims.

In his actual statement, Shazad said, “How can I be judged by a court that does not understand the suffering of my people?” And then he said, “We do not accept your democracy or your freedom because we already have Shari’ah and freedom.”

Shari’ah and freedom? What about Shari’ah? What do we really know of Shari’ah?

Should, in the mind of reasonable thinking Muslims, Shari’ah stand separate and above any other form or concept of civil or criminal law? To the devout Muslim the answer is . . . a resounding YES. And therein lies the problem of Western societies.

Let us answer the question, “What is Shari’ah law?” While the simple answer is, “It’s Islamic, or Muslim, law,” however it is a bit more complex than that.

Shari’ah law, or Sacred Islamic Law, is derived from the two basic Islamic sacred texts, the Qur’an and the Hadith. Most of us understand the Qur’an as the holy book of Islam. When asked, most Americans would say that the Qur'an is "the Muslim Bible.” Well, sort of, but a lot more. In Islam, the Qur’an is unlike the sacred texts of Judaism and Christianity in several key areas.

First, unlike the Jewish and Christian scriptures, the Qur’an is not a collection of books, traditions, historical accounts, and revelations collected over 30+ centuries. It is a single series of revelations supposedly handed down by God (Allah) Himself, directly to Muhammad whom Muslims claim is the final prophet of all history. These revelations were told to Muhammad by the Archangel Gabriel and serve as the final instructions for the salvation of all humanity until the end of times. Any doubt of this is blasphemy. They do not complement or complete the prior revelations of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, they abrogate them, correct and erase the corruption of the Jews and the fabrications of the Christians. The Qur’an renders null-and-void all scriptures that came before, just as Islam renders all prior faiths untrue. Thus, there is no reconciling Islam to Judaism and Christianity, or the scriptures of the Jews and Christians to the Qur’an.

Next, there is the hadith. These are the customs, habits, sayings, and traditions of the prophet of Islam, Muhammad; believed by Muslims to be the only true apostle of God and the final word of all prophets before Moses, Isaac, Abraham, and Jesus, (to the Muslims, Jesus is just another prophet; not the Son of God). Simply put, the hadith are records of what Muhammad’s companions recalled of the things he said about a vast variety of issues, from using the bathroom, to praying, to washing, eating, marrying, bequeathing inheritance, legal matters and fighting unbelievers through jihad. In Islam, the question “What would Muhammad and Allah demand?” is answered by referring to the hadith, not necessarily the Qur’an. Among the strongest collections of hadith, those with the greatest authority are the Hadith Sahih of Imam Muslim and of al-Bukhari. The 9th Century Islamic jurists, Imam Muslim and al-Bukhari are regarded as the two absolute authoritative collectors of hadith. They collected, sorted, and compiled the traditions of Muhammad according to interviews with relatives and followers of Muhammad. The word “sahih” implies that these are the strongest and most reliable collections of hadith. In fact, the Hadith Sahih of al-Bukhari is, after the Qur’an, considered the most sacred collection of texts in Islam and it is used almost exclusively, together with the Qur’an for formulating shari’ah law.

From these two sources, the Qur’an and the Hadith, are constructed the instructions and prescriptions for all facets of life, conduct, and law, for both individuals and the community as a whole in Islam. To the Muslim, having been drawn from the Qur’an (the direct, undiluted “Word of God”) and the Hadith (the customs, habits, and sayings of God’s final prophet, Muhammad, the most perfect man ever created), shari’ah is the law of God (Allah), delivered by and through Muhammad all of humanity 1,400 years ago! It is complete and addresses all issues personal, spiritual, communal, criminal and civil. It is final. It abrogates all law that came before and stands above all attempts at man-made law that came after. For how, devout Muslims demand, can laws created by men and women be superior to the laws for all of humanity, for eternity, given by God (Allah) Himself?

So, in the mind and heart of a devout Muslim, when criminals like Faizal Shazad say things like,
“If I am given a thousand lives, I will sacrifice them all for the sake of Allah fighting this cause, defending our lands, making the word of Allah supreme over any religion or system,” he is right, according to the laws of God as he perceives them and as taught from birth.

When members of his faith in jihad kill in defense of Islam and shari’ah, their victims have not only gotten what they deserved, by the will of God, they will then suffer for all eternity in unimaginable pain. To Shazad, his sufferings in the Federal Prison in Colorado will be only temporary and rewarded with an eternity of pleasure in heaven. Such is the belief system that believers of shari’ah desire to see spread the world over, America being no exception.

Their success in Europe is alarming.

It is hoped that this information may be helpful to better understand Islam, Shari'ah law and the problems they create for western civilization.

This supposed 'man of God', Mohammad, who was he? He lived from a.d. 570 - 632. It should be interesting to note that the only other organized religions known to him were Christianity and Judaism and his animosity was directed at these two religions. Further, any serious study of Mohammad will show that he was a ruthless terrorist, mass-murderer, thief, slave trader, believer of genocide, rapist and pedophile.

'Messenger of God' indeed! DE

"Die weiße Rose"

An interesting video presentation worth watching.

The below video summarizes three key principles of Islam that are important, and not understood by most westerners.

This video is fully consistent with any careful reading of the Qur'an and Hadiths.

Friends,
A group calling themselves "White Roses" created a video to inform non-Muslims about Islam. The name of this video is Three Things About Islam

White Roses is headquartered in Sweden . This first version is in English. The name "White Roses" is based on a student resistance group "Die weiße Rose" in Nazi Germany . The group became known for an anonymous leaflet campaign, from June 1942 until February 1943, which called for active opposition to Adolf Hitler's regime.

I urge all of you to view this video and forward it to your E mail list. You may be familiar with the points made in this video but many Americans are not, either out of a desire to put their heads in the sand to avoid confronting the problem or just simple ignorance of the crisis we face. It may not be possible to get all the Dramatis Persona to acknowledge this Islamic road to perdition but those Americans, who just do not know, either out of ignorance or ill perceived 'political correctness', just might find the learning experience worth while.

As a person who has spent lengthy time studying Islam I can tell you this video is one of the best I have seen…it’s short and to the point and all those points are dead on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w&feature=player_embedded

Profiling In Reverse

MTV, BET and CMT are casting the audience for town hall meeting with
President Obama. Shooting Oct. 14, 4 p.m. in Washington, D.C.

Seeking—Audience Members: males & females, 18+.

To apply, email townhallaudience@mtvnmix.com and put “Town Hall” in the subject line. To ensure that the audience represents diverse interests and political views, include your name, phone number, hometown, school attending, your job and what issues, if any, you are interested in or passionate about. Also, provide a recent photo and short description of your political views. Submission deadline: Oct. 14.
No pay.

Pre-screening?? Naw! Profiling? Don't be absurd.

That question about political issues you are passionate about . . . coincidental.

The photos?? Ugly and belligerent looking people need not apply. Or then again, maybe they just want to make sure they get the pretty people. Gonna be on TV ya know.

And you better not show up wearing that 'Tea Party' or 'Fire Pelosi' t-shirt.

Follow Up

As a follow-up to my message: 'A Word Of Warning' this morning.

Unfortunately the American public and our current administration will continue on the present path of apathy and incompetence until a true catastrophy occurs.

Unless we face the problem completely, the inevitable will happen. And, regretably the necessary actions will probably not be taken unless there is a major nuclear, chemical or biological attack in this country.

Let's hope this doesn't prove to be true.

We had the necessary information to be better prepared prior to:
1. The start of WWI
2. The start of WWII
3. The invasion by North Korea in 1950
4. The conflict in Vietnam
but we failed to act accordingly . . . and paid dearly.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Pay close attention to events in Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
DE

A Word Of Warning

Just a word of warning. Pay careful attention to events in Pakistan and, in particular, the area of Waziristan.

We have obvious problems with Iran. Things are going to get worse there. Lebanon is planning to allow Ahmadenijad to visit their border with Israel (against US objections) where he is reported as going to 'throw (symbolic) rocks' at Israeli positions.

At the same time, things are escalating in Pakistan. Pakistan is an extremely unstable country with nuclear capabilities. Potential of governmental and political 'overthrow' exists and the possible consequences are dire indeed. India has not become involved directly . . . yet! But they will.

Condditions in Afghanistan are ominous at best. Political considerations exist where Gen. Patreaus, under Presidential direction (or suggestion), desires something positive to occur before the November elections here in the US. (There should be no wonder why.)

Just a word of warning. We have huge trouble staring us in the face.

An unstable and corrupt Pakistan. Afghanistan where stability and corruption may be even worse. Iran led by radical imams, ayotollahs and a extremist president ranting against the 'great satan' US and promising destruction of the Israeli state.

At the same time we have indecisive international policies made worse by our 'PC' attitude toward Islam.

We have problems. Wishful thinking and the 'ostrich' effect isn't going to work.
DE

Logic

It is evident that a lot of people either did not take Economics 101 -- or have forgotten the details.

The following statement is so astute that you must consider it carefully and admit that it is factual.

"What about the politician who tells us that he's not going to raise taxes on the middle class; instead, he's going to raise corporate income taxes as means to get rich corporations to pay their rightful share of government? If a tax is levied on a corporation, and if it is to survive, it will have one of three responses, or some combination thereof. One response is to raise the price of its product, so who bears the burden? Another response is to lower dividends; again, who bears the burden? Yet another response is to lay off workers. In each case, it is people, not some legal fiction called a corporation, who bear the burden of the tax." --economist Walter E. Williams

Trouble In Pakistan

President Truman once said the invasion at Anzio was bungled by squirrel-headed generals.

The Constitution established that the over-all command of the military should remain in civilian control so as to, I suppose, prevent a potential military take-over. Squirrel-headedness, however, exists in both the civilian and military sectors.

Witness the following report relative to the growing and continuing fiasco in Pakistan.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis208.html

We may be seeing the beginning of 'history revisited'.

Immigration Cannot Solve World Poverty

Roy Beck of 'Numbers USA' has prepared a video that everyone, especially our Senators and Congressmen, should see. It demonstrates the futility of current 'liberal' thinking relative to immigration.

It is a brilliant video. Extremely clear and with a good use of visuals to illustrate the point.

Simply stated - the USA can't solve all of the worlds problems. When the USA becomes bankrupt, through poorly thought-out immigration and fiscal policies, the USA won't be able to solve ANY country's problems. When that happens we will all be much worse off and indebted beyond all possibility of recovery.

Roy said that he developed the presentation after being invited to talk to his son's 7th grade class about immigration. He looked for a way to easily communicate proportionality in a visual way. To his credit, he found a graphic and rational way to describe the problem.

Here's the link to view this video. You are urged to view it.

www.numbersusa.com/content/resources/video/educational/immigration-world-poverty-and-gumballs-updated-2010.html

Elections

The American political system is broken. Gimmickry is involved in the Primary Election process (by both parties) and, as a result, a true measure of the will of the voting public is defeated or obscured.

A partial cure to Primary and General Elections is so simple and obvious.

First of all, the Primaries should be actual public elections . . . none of this 'caucas' stuff that may or may not reflect the will of the people.

Second, the Primaries should be required by law to be held within a specific time 'window' . . . say, for instance, no sooner than 8 months prior to the General Election and no later than 6 months prior.

Third, it should be required that one must mandatorily qualify eligibility for the General Election by voting in the Primary Election. It would negate the fact that Primary Elections always have a much lower turn-out than the General Election. Thus, if one doesn't vote in the Primary . . . they can't vote in the General.

Will this completely 'fix' the problem? Of course not. Sadly we will still have the problem of 'ignorance' and 'apathy'. The general media will not help us in that area either (with the possible exception of FOX). Then there is the crowd that says, "Don't confuse me with facts. My mind is made up?"

This places the burden on us . . . you and me . . . and people like us. Nobody said it was going to be easy. But we sure can try.
DE

We The People

As the rednecks down here in the South say, "Who'd have thunk it?"

About a year and a half ago we saw the beginning of the 9/12 and Tea Party movements. We were accused of being 'astro-turf', racist, trouble making folks inciting to riot and social unrest. In actuality we were people who recognized incompetence and arrogance in our elected officials who were seemingly bent on installing a Socialist - Marxist government. We were appalled by the misdirected 'stimulus' and bail-out programs and growing power of big government and unions. We were dismayed by the increasing manipulation of Obama's 'Chicago' politics and cronies. The disrespect of our Armed Forces, misuse of our Judicial System, failed Middle East policies, continued high unemployment and a poorly conceived and unconstitutional HealthCare program only made us more determined to increase our efforts. We evidenced a fiscal and housing policy compiled overnight that will take us years with undue hardships from which to recover. We saw an immigration policy completely in disarray with the administration pandering for latino votes and, of course, an increased pandering for gay and lesbian votes.

We clearly saw an administration with utter disregard for our Constitution and recognized that only 'We, The People' could solve the problem.

The 9/12 groups and Tea Parties have accomplished much as witnessed by the shocking election results so far in unlikely places like New Jersey, Massachusetts, Virginia and Florida just to name a few. In just five more weeks the people will speak again. Recent polls show that more people would prefer to support the candidates favored by the Tea Parties than those supported by the administration. And rightly so.

We cannot, and must not, relent. The results of Election Day 2010 will change the face of the political landscape but, with our continued efforts, will be nothing compared to Election Day 2012.

To all of those who are now with us, Thank You. To all others, please join us in a return to Constitutional government and a better America.
DE

Response To Fear

All of us, except possibly the 'brain dead', have noticed that following all acts by Islamic terrorists there is not even one voice raised in the Muslim communities that condemn such acts. Many, in fact, go as far as to publicly rejoice. That is because these deplorable acts are justified to all Muslims by their Koran with regards to their never ending conflict with 'infidels' . . . which, by their definition, is everyone not of the Islamic faith.

As a civilized society we are expected to be tolerant. Devout Muslims are, on the other hand, tolerant only to 'believers of Islam and Allah'.

Today Americans are afraid. And well they should be. The entire Muslim world is, to one degree or another, at war with all of us 'infidels' and our perceived decadent way of life. We must fear them like we fear fire. Fires are uncaring and can be destructive, even fatal. Fire has no choice but to burn. Humans, however, have choices. In this comparison Muslims are similar to unthinking flames. Rational people have every reason to fear Muslims the same way they fear fire.

The simple truth is the devout Islamist extremists who behead, riot and become human bombs do have a choice. They want to kill. All they want is an excuse, and they'll find one no matter what. The atrocities will continue until we confront the issue with definitive actions.

But first we must understand the threat posed by the devout Muslim mind and ideology.

Just like a cancer, left untreated it can be fatal.
DE

The Dangers of Radical Islam

If we can’t understand our enemies, how can we develop a strategy to defeat them? Also if we cannot energize and mobilize the American people and our world allies to face our common challenge, what chance do we have for victory?

A common failing of our leaders in the past and even in the present has been that we have not known or understood our enemies. It was true in WWI, WWII, Korea and a glaring example was the unfortunate experience in Vietnam.

We face similar challenges today with extreme Islamic jihad. We must, therefore, know more about Islam.

Radical Islamists are people who want to impose Sharia (or Islamic law) on the entire world. Radical Islamists’ are determined to impose an extraordinarily different system on us. There is a sharp distinction between Muslims who want to live in America as a free country, and Radical Islamists who seek to destroy America. Indeed, Islam means submission and almost all Muslims, especially those in the Middle East who have not known western culture, find all other societies and religions to be decadent, sinful, and obnoxiously populated with infidels. Radical Islamists view their struggle as a religiously inspired and enthusiastically approve jihad.

In addition to the violent Radical Islamists who would use force to destroy America, there are stealth Radical Islamists who use our political system and our commitment to free speech and liberty to undermine our democracy through infiltration, intimidation, and propaganda.

Both the violent Radical Islamists and the stealth Radical Islamists represent a mortal threat to the American system of Constitutional Law and political freedom.

We should be aware that the dangers start right here in the USA:
*There were fourteen young Americans arrested last month for plotting terrorist activity.
*Five Americans from Northern Virginia were arrested in Pakistan trying to attend a terrorist training camp.
*An American born imam condemned for advocating the killing of Americans from a website in Yemen.

The evidence of violent Radical Islamist activity is in the news on a regular basis – the Detroit Christmas Day bomber, the Fort Hood massacre, and the Times Square car bomber.

In Detroit the entire national security system, including Homeland Security, failed completely even though forewarned by the bomber’s own father who had gone to the American Embassy in Nigeria and briefed US officials on his son’s radicalism. That he failed can only be attributed to pure 'luck'.
At Fort Hood, the Army (demonstrating 'Political Correctness' and a reported desire to obtain 'diversity' in our Armed Forces) failed to recognize the warning signs from a troubled Army psychiatrist who carried a card identifying himself as a “Soldier of Allah,” who attended a mosque that preached violence, and who routinely corresponded with a violent American religious leader in Yemen who preached the killing of Americans. He was allowed to continue unmolested until he yelled “Allahu Akbar” and killed 13 American soldiers and wounded many more.

Then there is the instance of the Times Square car bomber. Had not a street vendor reported to the police that he saw smoke coming out of a car he may have succeeded. He was a Pakistani who had acquired American citizenship, moved his family back to Pakistan, gone to a terrorist training camp for two weeks and came back to to New York to build a car bomb.

The desire to deny reality among many liberals is so great that Mayor Bloomberg’s first reaction was that it might be the work of someone opposed to President Obama’s healthcare reform bill. With the unwillingness to face the truth about who wants to kill us, is it any wonder our national security systems find it difficult to develop a strategy for victory?

These examples of attempts by violent Radical Islamists should cause alarm with Americans and force a national debate about what we need to do to defend America and defeat our enemies.

This is not a new problem. 
The Iranian dictatorship has considered itself at war with the United States since October 1979 when it illegally seized the American Embassy and kept 52 American hostages for 444 days. 

Iranian leaders have financed and led efforts to kill Americans. The Marine barracks in Lebanon and the Khobar Towers attack are two prime examples of Iranian funded and directed attacks that killed many Americans. 
Today, Iranian leaders openly express their desire to eradicate Israel and defeat America. We must take them seriously and implement a strategy to counter them before they develop and use nuclear weapons. And most experts consider that this will likely become a reality.

It is a fact that most al Qaeda and other terrorist activities can be traced to Radical Islamist teaching, preaching and propaganda. That they will act is a certainty. So far US policy has only been reactive. It would seem that a proactive approach would have saved many American lives and stopped most of the danger at the source. In fact, not counting casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have lost 4,190 killed and 5,727 injured to Islamic terrorist since 1979 and the hostage crisis in Iran.

It is imperative that we start a national dialogue about the threats we face today and how to achieve victory.

It appears every politician hides behind the facade of 'political correctness' and religious tolerance and denies the possible dangers. We must have the courage to tell the truth and to act on that truth. It’s time to be honest with ourselves.
DE

The Truth About Islam

This is 'scary' information. Please read carefully.

The public is still in the 'dark' about Islam and it's guiding principle . . . Sharia Law. This is absolutely critical information. With White House aid and assistance, coupled with our over indulgence in 'Politically Correct' attitudes, the possibility of future domination of the Islamic faith could have a ominous beginning allowed by our ignorance and apathy.


There is a term which you may have seen or heard mentioned in the news, the internet or on talk radio lately that you should know more about: Shariah. (Sometimes spelled Sharia or Shari’a, as well as some other variations.)

Background: What Exactly Is Shariah?

Recent polls done by established services in 2008 indicated that only 3% of Americans were even aware of the term Shariah—and an even less actually knew what it was.

Here is a basic description of Shariah.

Shariah, usually referred to as “Islamic Law,” is in actuality a legal doctrine based on the Quran and Hadiths (sayings and acts of Mohammed), but far beyond what Western civilization (read: non Muslims) would regard as simply religious matters or legal matters.

Shariah covers all aspects of life, including criminal law, domestic law, statecraft and warfare (Jihad). Shariah encompasses personal ethics and legal issues, religion and state administration, this world and the afterlife. Shariah is said to enforce the will of Allah, as opposed to the will of humans. Shariah regulates belief, speech and religious practice, criminal and legal matters, and other fields including finance and war. There is not a separate secular authority or secular law under Shariah, since religion and state are considered as one.

Shariah is a code which is the law of the land in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan, three nations with the most horrible human rights records in the world. It should come as no surprise or coincidence that these three nations are also heavily involved in Jihadist terrorism.

Shariah can be accurately described as reactionary, deliberately vague and, as universally administered, barbaric.

Shariah mandatorily demands a religious obligation:

• Violent jihad against non-Muslims to establish Islam’s rule worldwide (referred to the 'Caliphate').
• The killing of apostates from Islam.
• The killing of adulterers and homosexuals.
• Severe discrimination against women. This includes persecution of women and execution by stoning of women who are suspected of adultery. Often these women are in reality victims of rape.
• Barbaric punishment (limb amputations, gouging out of eyes) for petty crimes such as theft.
• Severe discrimination against, and the subjugation of, all non-Muslims.
• For those Muslims who cannot engage in physical jihad using force, shariah absolutely demands that they support jihad financially.

Shariah and all of its points are clearly and completely at odds with everything America and Western Civilization stand for: freedom, equality, tolerance and justice. The promotion of shariah represents a commitment to the replacement of secular political orders. In other words, shariah sets as its goal the destruction of documents like the US Constitution and the basic liberties set out therein.

The purpose of Shariah is submission. Shariah seeks to establish that Allah is the divine lawgiver and that no other law may properly exist but Allah’s law.

Shariah tries to attain this objective using non-violent methods. However when required, and under specified sets of conditions, the use of violence and outright war to establish the supremacy of Shariah is not just allowed, but unconditionally required. This use of force or war is called 'Jihad'.

A key objective of Shariah is to establish submission to Allah’s law by either converting people to Islam or subjugating them to rule under Shariah law.

The doctrine of Jihad is fundamental under Shariah because it is based upon unambiguous verses in the Quran and Hadiths. Jihad is regarded as key in Islamic total law: until the kafir (unbelievers: infidels and polytheists) are converted, subjugated, or eliminated, their existence and power will seriously harm or destroy the Islamic world. Jihad is waged chiefly through violence and war but it also includes other non-violent methods such as infiltration, subversion and psychological warfare. Blatant lying is permitted and encouraged in furthering their cause.

A most important point: Shariah is very different from other forms of religious law, such as Jewish halacha law or Catholic canon law in that neither of the latter is meant to apply to non-Jews or non-Catholics respectively. In contrast, much of Shariah is explicitly meant to apply to non-Muslims.

Shariah requires that it be dominant and it is an outright crime under Shariah for a Muslim to adhere to a secular law system that does not explicitly state and make clear that Shariah is the “highest law of the land”.

Shariah and Violent Jihad

The connection between Shariah and violent Jihad is important because it represents the most apparent—although far from the only–threat from Shariah.

A detailed review of Jihadi literature reveals that, in fact, Shariah is the enemy’s threat doctrine.

Shariah is the basis for everything the Jihadists do and it is also their main goal.

Don’t take my word for it, here it is in their own words:

• The sharia has forbidden us from taking infidels as confidants, inducting them into our secrets.


• The sharia forbids us from appointing infidels to important posts.


• The sharia forbids us from adopting or praising the beliefs and views of the infidels.


• The sharia forbids us from assisting infidels against Muslims; even the one who is coerced has no excuse to fight under the banner of the infidels.


• The sharia commands us to battle infidels–both original infidels and apostates, as well as hypocrites. As for waging jihad against the infidels who have usurped the lands of Islam, this is a duty considered second only to faith, by ulemaic consensus.


• The sharia does not accept the excuses made by hypocrites–that they befriend the infidels because they fear the vicissitudes of time.


• We are duty-bound by the sharia to help Muslims overcome the infidels.

- Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda Ideologue and 2nd in Command

“Democracy is based on the principle of the power of creatures over other creatures, and rejects the principle of God’s absolute power over all creatures; it is also based on the idea that men’s desires, whatever they may be, replace God absolutely, and on the refusal to obey God’s law. In Islam, when there is a disagreement or a difference of opinion, one refers to God, his Prophet, and the commands of sharia.”

- Ayman al-Zawahiri

“From the point of view of ideology and sharia, we are required to establish God’s rule over any part of this earth, regardless of particularities and details. This can only happen, however, if the nation adopts this ideology and safeguards it.”

- Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Commander of Hizballah

“The laws of the shari’a embrace a diverse body of laws and regulations, which amounts to a complete social system. In this system of laws, all the needs of man have been met: his dealings with his neighbors, fellow citizens, and clan, as well as children and relatives; the concerns of private and marital life; regulations concerning war and peace and intercourse with other nations; penal and commercial law; and regulations pertaining to trade and agriculture.”

- Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic Of Iran 1979-1989

“Reason also dictates that we establish a government in order to be able to ward off aggression and to defend the honor of the Muslims in case of attack. The shari’a, for its part, instructs us to be constantly ready to defend ourselves against those who wish to attack us.”

- Ayatollah Khomeini

“It will be the duty of the Muslims to engage in an armed jihad against the ruling group in order to make the policies ruling society and the norms of government conform to the principles and ordinances of Islam.”

- Ayatollah Khomeini

“If the enemy attacks the lands of the Muslims or their borders, it is the duty of all Muslims to defend them by any means possible, including the sacrificing of one’s life and the expenditure of one’s wealth. With respect to this matter, there is no need to seek the permission from a shari’a judge.”

- Ayatollah Khomeini

“Our whole struggle is for the enforcement of Shariah law.”

- Muslim Khan, Taliban spokesman

“Practically everything valued by the immoral West is condemned under sharia law. The sharia provides a true and just path, securing Muslims, and providing peace to the world. Muslims, and especially the learned among them, should spread sharia law to the world–that and nothing else. Not laws under the “umbrella of justice, morality, and rights” as understood by the masses. No, the sharia of Islam is the foundation.

They say that our sharia does not impose our particular beliefs upon others; this is a false assertion. For it is, in fact, part of our religion to impose our particular beliefs upon others.

Thus whoever refuses the principle of terror[ism] against the enemy also refuses the commandment of Allah the Exalted, the Most High, and His sharia.”

- Osama Bin Laden

Whenever an attempted Jihadi attack occurs or terrorist plot surfaces here or in the US, it is important to realize that there is a doctrine underlying these actions.

Stealth Jihad: The Civilizational Threat

The threat from Shariah extends far beyond that of violent Jihad. The threat also manifests itself in other ways. This threat is sometimes referred to with three interchangeable terms:

• “Creeping Shariah”

• “Stealth Jihad”

• “Civilizational Jihad”

When Jihadist forces are not powerful enough to impose Shariah by force, Shariah slowly infiltrates a target society and culture over time.

This has already occurred in much of Western Europe:

• In the United Kingdom, 85 Shariah courts operate openly with the force and authority of common law. Originally meant to strictly settle disputes between Muslims, 15% of the cases they hear now involve disputes with non-Muslims.

• In several nations, including Sweden and France, Muslim enclaves have developed which are essentially autonomous zones that are ruled by Shariah law.

• In the United Kingdom and South Africa, due to the “necessity” of accommodating Muslims into the welfare system and succession and inheritance laws, polygamous Muslim marriages are now de facto recognized by the respective governments.

Lest you think that this will not become a problem in the United States, think again. Shariah is already starting to appear in our courts, especially in the area of family law:

• You probably didn’t know that there is something called the “Texas Islamic Court.” It decides cases according to Shariah and its rulings sometimes end up in actual state court:

• The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood organization and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing conviction in US history (United States versus Holy Land Foundation), runs arbitrations here in the US according to Shariah:

• There have been dozens of instances in which Shariah has been invoked in US courts, mostly unsuccessfully, but not always. Here are two of the most infamous cases, brought to our attention by Stephen Gele of Lawyers Against Shariah:

In S.D. v. M.J.R. in the state of New Jersey, a New Jersey judge saw no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife — not because he didn’t do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs:

In a Maryland case, Hosain v. Malik, 108 Md.App. 284, 671 A.2d 988 (Md.1996), a Maryland Court granted comity and enforced a Pakistani custody order turning a child brought to the US by the mother over to the father. The Maryland Court held that: the burden was on the mother to prove the Pakistani court did not apply law in “substantial conformity with Maryland law” by a preponderance of the evidence.

State lawmakers across America are starting to take action to prevent the US from ending up like Western Europe, a victim of Creeping Shariah. Potential presidential candidate and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich recently addressed the issue in a policy speech:

Video: Newt Gingrich: Ban Sharia - It is" totally abhorrent to the Western World"

http://thehayride.com/2010/08/louisiana-at-leading-edge-in-fight-ag...

We desperately need, all of us, to forward this information to everyone we know because at present less than 1 out of every 50 Americans have even the slightest idea about these facts. Otherwise we are truly doomed.

Anchor Babies

Original intent of the 14^th Amendment

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency.

The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. There were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14^th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration specifically in the amendment. Immigration was not an issue at that time and was not subject to legislation in this instance.

We are now over 8 generations removed from that ratification and conditions have long existed that make this law completely unnecessary and poorly (indeed wrongly) interpreted.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14^th Amendment by stating: "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, . . . . "

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated: "[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance with with them and their children. Thus, the satisfaction of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore negates automatic citizenship.

Supreme Court decisions

The correct interpretation of the 14^th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)].

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14^th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. The ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14^th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14^th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense.

Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. Parkland Hospital in Dallas ALONE has stated that over 11,000 babies were delivered there last year to 'illegal' mothers.

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals. An illegal alien is someone who has violated our laws and should be treated accordingly.

Every other country in the world has laws regarding 'illegals' that are far severe and restrictive than that of the U.S. and quite a few are even extremely draconian and punishing.

"Just The Facts, Ma'am!"

The purpose of my blog is to disseminate information --- to educate. In this effort here is an interesting video presentation worth watching.


The below video summarizes three key principles of Islam that are important, and not understood by most westerners.

This video is fully consistent any careful reading of the Qur'an and Hadiths.


A group calling themselves "White Roses" created a video to inform non-Muslims about Islam. The name of this video is 'Three Things About Islam'.

White Roses is headquartered in Sweden . This first version is in English. The name "White Roses" is based on a student resistance group "Die weiße Rose" in Nazi Germany . The group became known for an anonymous leaflet campaign, from June 1942 until February 1943, which called for active opposition to Adolf Hitler's regime.

I urge all of you to view this video and forward it to your E mail list. You may be familiar with the points made in this video but many Americans are not, either out of a desire to put their heads in the sand to avoid confronting the problem or just simple ignorance of the crisis we face. It may not be possible to get everyone to acknowledge this Islamic road to perdition but those Americans, who just do not know, either out of ignorance or ill perceived 'political correctness', just might find the learning experience worth while.

As a person who has spent lengthy time studying Islam I can tell you this video is one of the best I have seen…it’s short and to the point and all those points are dead on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w&feature=player_embedded

WWIII began in 1979

This is critical.

Consider that this illustrates REALITY. This is not fiction or poorly supported facts. REALITY!

Consider the consequences, both short and long range, if we do not take action. Please do not be naive.

We have slept far too long.


When WW III Started - 1979

This is not very long, but very informative You have to read the catalog of events in this brief piece. Then, ask yourself how anyone can take the position that all we have to do is bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan , reset the snooze alarm, go back to sleep, and no one will ever bother us again.

In case you missed it, World War III began in November 1979...

This is a summary by US Navy Captain Ouimette, the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida. Here is a copy of the speech he gave last month. It is an accurate account of why we are in so much trouble today and why this action is so necessary.

AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!

That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been 'Get Out of Bed!' In fact, the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. Embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 25 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism.

America's military had been decimated and down sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.

Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.

Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber.
The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.

Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rheine-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.

Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the 'Achille Lauro' is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.

The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia

The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran , Saudi Arabia . It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.

They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.

In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high official in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.

I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to 'Get out of Bed' and act decisively now. America has been changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues.

We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said '... it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant.' This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.

This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year, this is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children in years to come.

If you believe in this please forward it to as many people as you can especially to the young people and all those who dozed off in history class and who seem so quick to protest such a necessary military action.

If you don't believe it, just delete it and go back to sleep. And if this is your reaction . . . . with the current Administration . . . .

THE END IS MUCH NEARER THAN YOU THINK!

The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon

The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon

Many voters are looking forward to 2011, hoping a new Congress will put the country back on the right direction. But unless something's done soon, with the start of the new year we will also see a large number of tax hikes — including a return of the death tax. More tax increases (in spite of our President's claim) than you can imagine. Read on.

Through the end of this year, the federal estate tax rate is zero — but as of midnight Dec. 31, the death tax returns — at a rate of 55% on estates of $1 million or more. Estates that our parents and grandparents toiled to acquire and the intervening years increased with the growth of real estate value. And, don't forget, they paid taxes during that time.

The return of the death tax, however, isn't the only tax problem that start on Jan. 1. Many other tax cuts from the Bush administration are set to disappear and a new set of taxes will take their place. And if you think it is justt the rich who will pay . . . . you're wrong.

The lowest bracket for the personal income tax, for instance, moves up 50% — to 15% from 10%. The next lowest bracket — 25% — will rise to 28%, and the old 28% bracket will be 31%. At the higher end, the 33% bracket is pushed to 36% and the 35% bracket becomes 39.6%. If you doubt this, please feel free to check it out.

The marriage penalty also makes a comeback (please tell me what is 'fair' about that?), and the capital gains tax will jump 33% — to 20% from 15%. The tax on dividends will go all the way from 15% to 39.6% — a 164% increase.

Both the cap-gains and dividend taxes will go up further in 2013 as the health care reform adds a 3.8% Medicare levy on individuals making more than $200,000 a year and joint filers making more than $250,000. Other tax hikes include: halving the child tax credit to $500 from $1,000 and fixing the standard deduction for couples at the same level as it is for single filers.

Letting the Bush cuts expire will cost taxpayers $115 billion next year alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and $2.6 trillion through 2020.

But even more tax headaches lie ahead. This "second wave" of hikes, as Americans for Tax Reform puts it, are designed to pay for ObamaCare and include:

The Medicine Cabinet Tax. Americans "will no longer be able to use health savings account, flexible spending account, or health reimbursement pretax dollars to purchase nonprescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)."


The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. "This provision of ObamaCare increases the additional tax on nonmedical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% to 20%.

Brand Name Drug Tax. Makers and importers of brand-name drugs will be liable for a tax of $2.5 billion in 2011. The tax goes to $3 billion a year from 2012 to 2016, then $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018. And guess who pays the new drug tax? We do in the form of higher prices.


Economic Substance Doctrine.
The IRS is now empowered to disallow perfectly legal tax deductions and maneuvers merely because it judges that the deduction or action lacks 'economic substance.'

A third and final (at least as presently known) wave consists of the alternative minimum tax's widening net, tax hikes on employers and the loss of deductions for tuition:

• The Tax Policy Center, certainly not a right-wing group, says that the failure to index the AMT will subject 28.5 million families to the tax when they file next year, up from 4 million this year.

• Small businesses can normally expense (rather than 'depreciate') equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be 'depreciated'.

• Further there are "literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place, plus the loss of some tax credits. The research and experimentation tax credit will be the biggest loss. This will inevitably cost jobs.

• The deduction for tuition and fees will no longer be allowed and there will be limits placed on education tax credits. Teachers won't be able to deduct their classroom expenses and employer-provided educational aid will be restricted. Students and families will no longer be allowed to deduct student loan interest.

Then there's the tax on Americans who decline to buy health care insurance (the administration loudly claims this wasn't a tax but now argues in court that it is) plus a 3.8% Medicare tax beginning in 2013 on profits made in real estate transactions (this new tax hidden in the ObamaCare Bill).

Not all Americans may fully realize what's in store come Jan. 1. Most are simply not informed on this issue but they should have a pretty good idea by the mid-term elections.

Fifty-one percent of respondents favored making the Bush cuts permanent vs. 28% who didn't. Republicans were more than 4 to 1 and Independents more than 2 to 1 in favor. Only Democrats were opposed, but only by 40%-38%.
The cuts also proved popular among all income groups — despite the Democrats' oft-heard assertion that Bush only provided "tax breaks for the wealthy. Fact is, Bush cut taxes for everyone who paid them.


Maybe, just maybe, Americans will remember that — and hopefully will not forget come Nov. 2.

To everyone who believed that 'no more taxes on anyone earning less that $250,000 --- not one dime more' ---

---------Just how naive can you be-----???

A Time To Pay Attention!

A Time To Pay Attention!

President Obama recently said that Arizona's new immigration law, SB 1070, is "ill conceived" because it puts enormous pressure on local law enforcement agencies to enforce laws that "ultimately are unenforceable."

REALLY?

These stunning words by the President demonstrate the arrogance in Washington when it comes to U.S. immigration policy.

Even though Congress has previously clearly stated the law on who can come into the country and under what circumstances, President Obama unilaterally declared that these laws are worthless, ineffective, and refused to enforce them.

But the good people of Arizona, and an overwhelming percentage of all Americans, refuse to accept illegal immigration as a way of life. And by SB 1070, Arizonans - supported by Americans across the country - have simply said that they will enforce the laws that the Federal government, under Administration direction, does not --- and now evidently will not.

So now the Obama Administration acts.

It sues the state of Arizona to ensure that no one can enforce these "unenforceable" laws and, in doing so, not only endangers the people of Arizona. It endangers you and me. Ultimately every one of us.

In doing so, the suit against Arizona has clearly underscored the intentions of the Administration. It is a blatant and extremely troubling message to all of us. It says that enforcing immigration laws locally may be right for your state; it may be extremely popular with the voters and you even may prevail in the end.

But they would rather fight you - American citizens - than fight illegal immigration.

A logical person would ask 'why'? It is simple . . . Liberalism and vote pandering taken to the extreme. AND VERY, VERY WRONG!

It is our responsibility to advise everyone we know. This is NOT the America we want.
DE


Note: This is also a diversionary tactic. While all this is happening, with negotiations behind closed doors, the Administration will try to 'sneak' or force through damaging bills on financial matters, cap and trade, revisionary educational standards, etc.; all the while ignoring things like the rantings of the New Black Panther Party -- instead claiming that the Tea Parties are 'racists'. As Rahm Emmanuel says, "Never let a crisis go to waste".

com·pre·hen·sive (kmpr-hnsv) adj.

We continually hear about the Obama Administration trying to put together a Comprehensive Energy and Climate package . . . or Comprehensive Immigration Reform. I started puzzling over their particular use of this word --- Comprehensive. Just what the heck are they saying?

So I checked out the definition of the word.

com·pre·hen·sive (kmpr-hnsv)
adj.
1. So large in scope or content as to include much: a comprehensive history of the revolution.
2. Marked by or showing extensive understanding: comprehensive knowledge.

This pretty much jibed with my understanding of the word.

Somehow I had the feeling that the word (in their context) really meant --- "Look out because we're going to include all sorts of stuff that the people don't really want and certainly can't afford." "And it is all because we are smarter than you and know what you really need."

Am I wrong?? Is there another meaning? Or is it just a nebulous, non-specific word to confuse an unknowing public?

Anyway, it ain't giving me a 'warm and fuzzy' feeling. How about you?
DE

TelePrompters in The Oval Office

So here we are, all waiting for the president to show just a little leadership. Instead we get sermonized with a good dose of 'casting the blame' elsewhere (as usual). With the immense problem of the Gulf oil spill, we received no answers and no real proposals (unless you count the creation of another Czar with another government department). But our President seemed so ... detached. Removed. 'Like cool, man'. As if this were somebody else's problem, really. The country doesn't need another president like this. But it seems to be getting one. Sadly disappointing.

Back to politics . . . instead . . . he, and his minions (led by the ever popular Nancy and Harry), will try to slip his 'Cap & Trade' fiasco over on us while we are distracted. Forget the cost to the people . . . 'Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead'.

So could we please just fix this troublesome little oil problem, which ain't so little after all, before we start contemplating our navels? Let's leave the philosophizing until later. Until then, let's concentrate on this major problem and FIX IT! Then, maybe, we can go back to arguing politics. In the meantime, the country could use a president who leads, follows or just gets out of the way.

Instead all we have is this ... Community Organizer.
DE

Stop And Think!

Now is the time to STOP AND THINK! Use some common sense. Relate this to reality. Basic economics.

If the United States government was a business, it would be bankrupt today. If the US government was you, it would be facing the bankruptcy judge.

The doors would be padlocked. The courts would be auctioning off assets for pennies on the dollar.

But our government isn’t a business. So we start the printing presses rolling, run up more debt, expand the deficit, year after year. And the value of money goes plummeting down.

When the media and politicians refer to the U.S. debt, they’re talking about the $13 trillion “public debt.” This is an insanely large amount of money.

But this doesn’t even include the huge and very real obligations the government has made for Social Security, Medicare, and other huge entitlement programs.

The TOTAL U.S. debt stands at $104 trillion, according to best estimates of the CBO and other experts.

There is simply NO POSSIBLE WAY that these amounts of money can be repaid. And considering how few honest men there are in Washington, that won’t happen anyway.

Inflation and higher taxes will soon become inevitabilities as the politicians and Federal Reserve take the only steps they know to “fix” a mess they’ve caused.

Sanity must prevail. The Cap & Trade bill will only place more financial burden on everyone.

It is up to each of us (I will repeat --- IT IS UP TO EACH OF US) to educate as many people as we can about basic economics and the direction this 'creeping socialism' is taking us.

How would you like to pay $50 for a loaf of bread? Or $100 for a pound of coffee? That is what it was like in Germany just before Hitler came to power.

If you are not seriously concerned, you must be living in a vacuum.

Election Day in November cannot correct these problems . . . but it is a helluva start.

The Peter Principle (Redux)

I have referred to 'The Peter Principle' from time to time in describing the performance of someone in a particular job.

Some people are not cognizant of 'The Peter Principle'. Therefore, below you will find a descriptive note taken from WikiPedia.

The Peter Principle is the principle that "in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise which also introduced the "salutary science of Hierarchiology", "inadvertently founded" by Peter. It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"). This principle can be modeled and has theoretical validity. Peter's Corollary states that "in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties" and adds that "the actual work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence".

This being noted, may I refer you to the current performance of our President.

Now we are witnessing his third political disaster in his first 18 months in office. And they were all (in tennis terms) unforced errors, meaning they were shaped by the president's political judgment, indifference and instincts.

It is my opinion that this inventory of presidential mistakes could (and probably should) be fatal:

• 1.) There was the unnecessary war over his healthcare proposal and its misleading (and now evident) excessive cost.

• 2.) There was his indifference to the views and hopes of the majority of voters regarding illegal immigration.

• 3.) And now the past 40 days or so of dodging and floundering in the face of an environmental calamity.

As evidenced by recent elections, he has not understood the mood of the electorate. It is evident that the landscape of the American political system is changing and, based on his performance, it is completely understandable.

You can make your own decision. Case closed.

DE

Cloward & Piven Plan to Socialize America

This is a bit lengthy . . . but PLEASE take the time to read.

Obama attended Columbia University (at least for a indeterminate amount of time) which is a hotbed of liberalism. From childhood on he was always in the company of socialists, Marxists and those of extreme liberal thinking.

Obama is studiously adhering to the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University (check them out). They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Individually considered, some can be scary. Taken individually they're totally alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn (transform) the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that simply depend completely upon the government for survival ... and will thereafter always vote for bigger government. The reason is easy to understand why. They don't have to pay for it.

– Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Our president doesn’t care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. He does care however that it indelibly creates the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. No one but a true revolutionary socialist would pass this oppressive and crippling spending bill in the middle of a serious economic downturn.

– Cap and trade. Just like health care having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama’s biggest contributors. Those powerful, wealthy unions and contributors (like GE (owners of NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will finance Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power regardless of the cost. This simply is a mechanism to "spread the wealth around."

– Make Puerto Rico a state. Who’s asking for a 51st state . . . and why? A better and more truthful question would be who is asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. This has been in Obama’s thinking all along. It would add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who would be dependent on big government.

-- Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. This occurrence alone would give 12 million potential new citizens free health care and overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. And you can take this fact to the bank. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters and another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security. Soon we will have to 'Press 2 for English'.

-- Stimulus and bailouts. Where did the money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN for example), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs for government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting our country. You should be reminded that includes you and me by creating higher taxes, higher prices and less freedom for everyone of us. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful.

The ends justify the means. Or does it? I think not.

-- Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it. Conservatives want to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Liberals and Socialists want to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.

Consider carefully the acts outlined above. The Obama administration has created a huge and rapidly expanding base of voters dependent on big government; an immense privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by Columbia University professors and the minions of liberal socialist believers they created.

Unless we join together to educate the public we may doomed to conditions that we cannot correct in my lifetime. Election Day 2010 is only 147 days away. WAKE UP FRIENDS.
DE
DE

Kagan For Supreme Court?

Barack Obama has nominated his Elena Kagan to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. It is so easy to be apathetic or not informed on occurring issues. This is one that could have far reaching ramifications and worthy of your consideration.

You should be reminded that this is a lifetime appointment, so perhaps we should consider the implications for our Constitution and for liberty.

Will this Ivy League academic be an advocate for Essential Liberty and Rule of Law, or will she follow the errant notion of a "living constitution"? According to Obama, Kagan "is widely regarded as one of the nation's foremost legal minds," probably admitting that she is most certainly an elitist Leftist. Another academic lawyer from Princeton, Harvard and Chicago Law School and, from past experience, it is evident that we don't need any more of these.

Obama's appraisal of Kagan reflects that of ultra-Leftist Princeton prof Wilentz, under whose guidance Kagan wrote her enthusiastic thesis on socialism in the early 20th century. In her thesis, Kagan lamented that free enterprise overcame socialism and concluded, "A coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism's glories than of socialism's greatness."

"Why . . . has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force?" she asked. "Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation's established parties? Further, Kagan lamented the fact that free enterprise overcame socialism and concluded, "In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism's glories than of socialism's greatness."

One would surmise this refers to the "hope and change" necessary for Obama to make good on his promise to "fundamentally transform the United States of America."

Just as Obama was mentored by Marxists, Kagan has been steeped in socialist doctrine, and is elated with the resurgence of socialism in the U.S. under the leadership of Obama and his minions in the legislative and judicial branches.

Although Obama insists that Kagan "is an acclaimed legal scholar with a rich understanding of constitutional law", in fact, she has exactly no judicial experience and very limited litigation experience. According to Legal authority Ken Klukowski, Kagan is an ideal nominee for Obama: "She's a liberal without a paper trail."

Most of Kagan's experience is academic at the University of Chicago Law School and as dean of Harvard Law School, where she spent considerable time and effort to boot military recruiters off campus at the height of the Iraq war. Her reason for this attack on our nation's ability to defend itself was the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which Kagan called "a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order."

We should note that even The Washington Post concludes that her qualifications "can only be called thin," saying further, "even her professional background is thin."

While the media pictures Kagan, predictably, as a moderate "consensus-builder," Kagan is, in fact, a genuine, hardcore Leftist, a former legal counsel to the Clinton regime who began her political career as a staffer for extremely liberal Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis's presidential campaign in 1988.

She graduated from Princeton in 1981, when Ronald Reagan took office. A New York Times story about Kagan notes, "On Election Night, she drowned her sorrow in vodka and tonic as Ronald Reagan took the White House" which she proclaimed "the darkest period of American politics".

Recently, the questionable and thin legal trail she has established as Obama's Solicitor to the Supreme Court raises serious questions about Kagan's commitment to the plain language of the First Amendment. In a 1996 law review article, Kagan wrote that the "redistribution of speech" is not "itself an illegitimate end," which is another way of saying that the court has a responsibility to level the playing field for various ideas, including the Internet, talk radio, etc She recently had a similar argument before the High Court regarding the government's authority to regulate print materials under campaign finance laws, a notion that Chief Justice John Roberts said, "As a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage, that proposition is startling and dangerous."

She strongly supports the position of Justice Thurgood Marshall, of whom she wrote admiringly, "In Justice Marshall's view, constitutional interpretation demanded, above all else, one thing from the courts: it demanded that the courts show a special solicitude for the despised or disadvantaged. It was the role of the courts, in interpreting the Constitution, to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government -- to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion. The Court existed primarily to fulfill this mission. ... She has said, "The Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was 'defective.' The Constitution today ... contains a great deal to be proud of. But the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of 'liberty,' 'justice,' and 'equality.'"

Setting aside her utter disdain for our Constitution and its authors, Kagan is flat-out wrong about the role of the High Court. It exists to safeguard the unbiased application of our Constitution's original intent. Marshall, previously delivered a lecture entitled, "The Constitution: A Living Document," in which he argued that the Constitution must be interpreted in a way that succumbs to the contemporary political, moral and cultural climate.

Promoters of a "living constitution" have judicial activists who have continuously tried to amend our Constitution by judicial fiat rather than its prescribed method in Article V. There is no doubt that Kagan will advocate that heretical and treasonous interpretation.

Obama claims that Kagan understands the law "not as an intellectual exercise or words on a page -- but as it affects the lives of ordinary people." Not as "words on a page"? Truly a revisionist President. It is exactly that rejection of plain language of our Constitution that caused President Thomas Jefferson to call the court "the despotic branch."

Back in 1987, during confirmation hearings for Judge Robert Bork (a man that history has shown was one of the most qualified jurists ever nominated to the High Court), one Leftist senator commented, "The Framers intended the Senate to take the broadest view of its constitutional responsibility," especially in regard to the nominee's "political, legal and constitutional views." That senator was Joe Biden, who rejected Judge Bork because he was a "constitutional constructionist," which was exactly the trait our Founders wanted in jurists.

Hopefully there are enough protectors (with enough common sense) of our Constitution in the Senate today who will question Kagan's "political, legal and constitutional views," and reject her nomination.

DE

America's Nuclear Surrender

America's Nuclear Surrender

The administration has proudly revealed a state secret to our enemies before a U.N. conference on nuclear nonproliferation. It wants to lead by example on disarmament, but Iran and North Korea aren't following. And the administration cannot convince them to use logic.

State Hillary Clinton openly disclosed U.S. nuclear secrets to the U.N. conference while arrogantly proclaiming it showed that America is sending "a clear, unmistakable signal" that this nation is committed to nuclear disarmament.

Not since the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact that sought to outlaw war as an instrument of national policy has there been such an astonishing display of naïveté. It is important to note that Kellogg-Briand laid the groundwork for Munich in 1938, Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the disaster of World War II. Among the signatories were Germany and Japan. It is evident that claiming to be for peace and disarmament brings neither.

President Kennedy was correct when he said "only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed." Compare that call with Hillary Clinton's proclamation that "beginning today, the United States will make public the number of nuclear weapons in our stockpile and the number of weapons we have dismantled since 1991." Does she, or her boss, think that North Korea and Iran give a 'rats ass' about complying? Pardon my language.

The U.S. evidently thinks it can shame Pyongyang and Tehran into compliance. Well, good luck with that pipe dream. A national policy that seems to be one of peace through weakness and timid negotiation will never succeed. Never has, never will.

President Ahmadinejad, who has pledged to eliminate Israel whenever Tehran achieves a nuclear bomb, reminded the UN that the U.S. was the only nation to use nuclear weapons. Our position should be: "Want to test our resolve, Mahmoud?"

Instead, President Obama sent a letter that said, "We will see whether nations without nuclear weapons will fulfill their obligation to forsake them." The answer to that with rogue nations like N. Korea and Iran is a foregone conclusion. Diplomatic success? Fat chance.

Our nuclear arsenal at present is not only smaller, but older and less reliable. The current administration refuses to do the testing necessary to insure an adequate arsenal or to develop a replacements to keep America's nuclear deterrent current and credible. Instead they think it is only a matter of talking nice and they will suddenly become sane and rational friends of peace.

The White House recently announced a Nuclear Posture Review that restricts the instances where the U.S. would use nuclear weapons in its defense. It also tells the enemy what the instances are. Now there is a nice invitation. Be sure to RSVP In a speech in Prague last year, Obama spoke of "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," ignoring the fact that before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was neither peaceful nor secure.

Under conditions proposed by Obama it is evident that, should we be confronted with the dire need of either pre-emptive or defensive response, it may test our resolve to defend freedom . . . and hope that the US ends up on the winning side.

DE

Arizona SB 1070

Due to distortions and lack of detail provided by the media, it is necessary to have a better understanding of Arizona SB 1070.

Arizonans have endured many long years of federal neglect of immigration enforcement. Statistics show that half of illegal border crossings now occur in Arizona, and estimates show that state taxpayers spend more than $2 billion a year on education and healthcare for illegal immigrants and their children. Their border with Mexico is virtually a welcome mat for criminal organizations that run drugs and other contraband. Kidnappings in Phoenix are at an all-time high, and the killing last month of rancher Robert Krentz -- police suspect it was by an illegal immigrant -- is a graphic example of the effects that out of control immigration has on ordinary Arizonans. Similar conditions exist in California, New Mexico and Texas.

Faced with this ongoing crisis with little or no help from Washington, Arizona has been forced to respond to protect its residents and its finances. Now the legislature passed and Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1070. This law requires all law enforcement officers in Arizona to act on reasonable suspicion that an individual is in the state and country illegally.

As a side note, it has been reported that among the large amount of 'cast off' articles and refuse left along the border, many copies of the Koran have been found. This should be troubling information since most Mexicans are Catholic.


The reaction from supporters for illegal immigrants to SB 1070 -- which, according to opinion polls, is supported by some 70% of Arizonans -- can be described as incendiary and irresponsible, not to mention completely inaccurate. Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony tries to create images of Nazi Germany and Soviet totalitarianism. Reform Immigration for America, a coalition of pro-amnesty groups, warned that "it's racial profiling, and it encapsulates the hatred we are fighting."

SB 1070 is not a mandate for Arizona police to seek out illegal immigrants. It conforms fully with the Constitution's 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. In most instances, Arizona's new law mirrors existing but non-enforced Federal Laws. Under the law, Arizona police are prohibited from racially profiling or stopping anybody merely because of appearance or ethnicity. They may inquire about immigration status only if there is justification for the stop under the Constitution -- such as investigating a possible crime -- and there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the U.S. illegally.

And what is reasonable suspicion? It might include the lack of any sort of valid U.S. identification documents that police officers routinely request from anyone who is lawfully stopped. The law specifically states that race, color or ethnicity does not constitute reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the U.S. SB 1070 does nothing more than require police in Arizona to protect it's citizens and uphold responsibilities abrogated and ignored by the federal government for years.

A ruling by the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals this year provides firm legal footing for Arizona's law. In Estrada vs. Rhode Island, the court affirmed that the failure of an alien to possess alien registration documents represents probable cause for state or local police to arrest the person for a federal misdemeanor committed in the officer's presence, or detain that person until the individual's status can be verified.

Predictably, those who have consistently opposed all efforts to enforce U.S. immigration laws are resorting to a campaign of lies and distortions to fight implementation of the law. The fact that Congress has avoided enforcing existing immigration laws is pure and simple vote pandering. We are a nation of laws and Congressional indifference is solely to gain latino votes.

SB 1070, plain and simple, will allow police to identify and detain people because of the laws they violate, not because they happen to meet a particular racial or ethnic profile. What it demands is that state law enforcement officers no longer turn a blind eye in situations in which they reasonably suspect that an individual they have encountered is violating U.S. immigration laws.

While violating U.S. immigration laws is, in itself, is a serious crime --- more serious is the enormous financial burden it places on the tax payers of Arizona and the rest of the country. If we, as a nation, allow the protests to succeed or for amnesty to be granted. we will be avoiding our moral obligations to law and order. We will be allowing power to 'mob rule', i.e., anarchy and to those corrupt politicians who strive only for re-election.

Merely another instance where it is time for 'All Americans To Stand Up And Be Counted'.

DE