What The Hell Is This “RADICALIZATION” Anyway?!

October 24, 2014

Isn’t it strange how “extremist,” “fundamentalist,” and “radical” are all oxymorons? If one is extremely fundamental to the core message of the source texts, then how can one also be “radical” (divergent to it)?!

Here’s the real “difference” between “radical” and “moderate” muslims:

“Radical” muslims want to murder us

(for not being muslims).


“Moderate” muslims want “radical” muslims to murder us

(for not being muslims).

;-)

Get it, yet?!

And why is this? Simple!

In Judeo-Christian lore, of one commits suicide (much less by, or when also trying to murder others) one learns that one is destined for Hell.

But the criminal Qur’an tells it’s Submissive “muslim” dupes that, if and when they’re feeling down, they can instantly get to heaven itself BY randomly murdering others!

So it’s obviously islam itself which causes any and all “radicalization!”

The only pretended “mystery” is why more rank-and-file muslims aren’t already “radicalized:” it’s simply because they’re still somewhat ignorant of what’s written the Qur’an concerning Allah’s ultimate expectations of them.

ALLAH2

Here’s how and why any and all “Radicalism” and “radicalization” occurs in islam:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzmyuCXS2sTdZDcxYTA1YzYtOWJmNS00YzNmLWI4YTMtNjRiNDRmMDExYzg3/edit?pli=1&hl=en

(Official ‘Abrogation’ of all the semi-peaceful verses in the Qur’an)!

In handy web-based .PDF format!

Bottom line: there are no “moderate” muslims, simply because there is no “moderate” islam!

So, why are “our leaders” and their pet enemedia lying to us all the time about this?!

Here’s what’s really going on:

Although it’s true that not all Germans were Nazis, not all Italians are Mafiosis, not all whites are Hell’s Angels, and not all Arabs are muslims – it IS nevertheless true that all Nazis WERE nazis, all Mafiosis ARE Mafiosis, all Hell’s Angels ARE Hell’s Angels, and

ALL MUSLIMS ARE MUSLIMS!

The politically correct pretence du jour is to pretend that ‘NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE MUSLIMS!’

And in order to sell that lie to people, some mythical and entirely unsupported sub-categories of “muslims” had to be invented and screamed at us, over and over again.

And “our leaders” are in the habit of beating us over the head with our own guilt all the time, BECAUSE It is the not-so-secret duty of the authorities and enemedia to scold us for being hateful racist bigots all the time, so their slander can keep us off-balance and on the defensive, thus not giving us enough time to see what they’re really all up to – which is selling us all out for only their own personal gains, by selling our countries off to our enemies, by buying their money, running their tabs in our names.

;-(

…….

As for what (LARGE) percentage of the muslim population wants sharia crime (“law”) to replace our democracy:

So, in reply to the liberals': “Only 5% of muslims worldwide are open supporters of ‘radical’ fundamentalism!”?

NO, YOU SILLY SELF-HATING MASOCHISTIC LIBERAL FANTASISTS, ACTUALLY, MOST “MODERN, MODERATE” MUSLIMS REALLY DO STILL BELIEVE IN SHARIA; HERE’S THE REAL FACTS & STATS:

From:

http://www.chicagonow.com/an-agnostic-in-wheaton/2014/10/muslim-facts-make-ben-affleck-angry/

The Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan American think tank that provides information on social issues, public opinion, and demographic trends. They are considered to be a trusted source for information.

The Global Attitudes Project is a series of worldwide public opinion surveys that encompasses a broad array of subjects.

Are there wide spread beliefs in the Islamic populations that are counter to the human rights of free speech, free expression, woman’s rights, and gay rights?

What are the statistics?

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

;-(

Islam is inherently a form of SEDITION – because it never agreed with the Christian notion of separating secular (road-paving, taxation) and religious realms (“Render Unto Caesar”) and went in stead with:

“Render The World Unto Muhammad!”

So it doesn’t believe in national sovereignty, preferring global theocracy (‘ummah’) ruled by the Caliphate government!

Islam is ONLY a crime syndicate, and the only “religious” part in it’s where they say:
“God told us to commit these crimes!

Muslims are never national citizens; they regard all national sovereignties as temporary, man-made false idols which must all be eventually destroyed and replaced with the one-world global muslim Ummah, to be ruled by their theocratic caliphate, and their duty is to wage offensive war to extort, enslave, and murder all the non-muslims.

Terrorism is an inherent, normative, and so not an incidental, nor in any way a “radical,” component of islam.

NO MUSLIMS ARE “PATRIOTS” OR NATIONALISTS OF ANY KIND!

No self-determined muslim believes in any sovereign national governments nor countries at all, ever!

Sharia is allegedly the perfect law of allah, based directly on the Qur’an!

So it always applies to all humans everywhere!

SO WHO NEEDS ANY – EVEN “ELECTED” – MAN-MADE GOVERNMENTS TO CREATE LAWS WHICH DIFFER FROM SHARIA?!

Recall the Ayatollah Khomeini’s words during his 1980 speech in Qom, the Shi’ite spiritual hub:

“We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land [Iran] go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”

So, since islam is a subversive anti-national and anti-legal entity, why on earth are any of its “muslim” members ever afforded any legal standing to promote their criminal treasonous sedition, before any of our courts of law?!

Allowing foreign (sharia “law”) courts to exist in your country is to enable those foreign governments to govern in your country; it’s obviously TREASON.

….

From:

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/10/what-muslim-leaders-say-about-islam.html

“Modern, moderate islamists” infidel-murdering approval quotes:

ISIS Caliph al-Baghdadi, who holds a Ph.D in islamic Studies:

“We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah, the Exalted. This is His promise to us; He is glorified and He does not fail in His promise. If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/10/isis-releases-latest-magazine-dabiq-justify-enslavement-of-yazidis/

On page 14 ISIS justifies their enslavement of thousands of Yazidis in Iraq-Syria:

From the magazine:

“Unlike the Jews and Christians, there was no room for jizyah payment… After capture, the Yazidi women and children were divided according to the Shariah amongst the fighters of the Islamic State.”

ISIS also claims the “moderate” Islamists  Muslims in Syria are selling them US arms.

What Muslim Leaders Say About Islam Dispels the Myth that Jihadists are a “Fringe” Element:

This list should disabuse anyone of the notion that the incessant intolerance, hatred, and even violence against non-Muslims is “fringe.”

This is not just a small group of “radicals.”

This is Islam, plain and simple.

The leaders quoted below are hugely popular, even famous mainstream leaders in the Islamic world.

For each quote, I’ve provided an online source.

Let’s begin:

Ali Gomaa, the grand mufti of Egypt, the highest Muslim religious authority in the world, supports murdering non-Muslims. In the daily Al Ahram (April 7, 2008), he said, “Muslims must kill non-believers wherever they are unless they convert to Islam.” He also compares non-Muslims to apes and pigs.

Source:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8066

Muhammad Sayyid Al Tantawi, president of Al Azhar University (the most prominent and authoritative institute of Islamic jurisprudence in the world) also approves of killing and maiming Christians, Jews, and other infidels. He added, “This is not my personal view. This what the Shari’a Law says, the law of Allah, the only valid law on the earth.”

Source:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8066

And here you have it from the biggest terrorist of all time:

“I have been made victorious with terror”
– The Prophet Muhammad
(Hadith Bukhari 4:52:220 – Islamic scripture)

Indeed in the Prophet Muhammad you have a good example to follow”.

- The Quran (Surah Al-Ahzab, Verse 21)

Syed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of the Pakistani political party Jamaat-e-Islami, said non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.”

Source:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/bangladesh-bans-book-by-islamic-supremacist-maududi

The Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid teaches that “at first fighting was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory.” He clearly identifies two groups Muslims are obligated to fight: “(1) they who start fighting against Muslims, and (2) they who worship gods other than Allah.”

Source:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzmyuCXS2sTdZDcxYTA1YzYtOWJmNS00YzNmLWI4YTMtNjRiNDRmMDExYzg3/edit?pli=1&hl=en

The most prominent Muslim scholar of the 20th century, Sheikh Abu Ala Maududi, stated in his book, Islamic Law and Constitution, on p. 262, that the Islamic State “seeks to mould every aspect of life and activity. In such a state no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private. Considered from this aspect the Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states.” Maududi added “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam.”

Source:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/02/18/islamic-indoctrination-vs-education/print/

Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (the largest international Islamic organization in the world) wrote, “Islam is an all-embracing concept which regulates every aspect of life, adjudicating on every one of its concerns and prescribing for it a solid and rigorous order.” Hasan al-Banna acknowledged there are many levels of jihad, including mere “interior spiritual struggle,” which he deemed the lowest level.

According to al-Banna, waging warfare against the infidels is the highest expression of fidelity.

Source:

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33240

Hasan al-Banna also wrote, “it is a duty incumbent on every Muslim to struggle towards the aim of making every people Muslim and the whole world Islamic, so that the banner of Islam can flutter over the earth and the call of the Muezzin can resound in all the corners of the world.” Now remember, this is the founder of the largest international Muslim organization in the world.

Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdulaziz Bin Abdullah Bin Mohammed al Sheikh said on Iqra’ TV channel, “Killing producers who show women unveiled is legal.”

Source:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8066

The Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Lehadan, head of the Supreme Judiciary Council, told Al Watan Daily, (March 25, 2008) “After getting rid of the Jews in our Arab land, we must turn to the Christians. They have three options: either they convert to Islam, or leave, or pay Jizia (protection taxes).”

Source:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8066

And source for THAT:

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/authors/id.124/author_detail.asp

;-(

More PROOF of liberal media bias

October 23, 2014

When it comes to elections, the media are “fair weather fans.” When their favorite team (Democrats) are winning or favored, they can’t stop talking about the elections. They can barely contain their excitement.

But when things don’t look so good for their team, they’d rather talk about other things.

To prove this point, the MRC’s Kyle Drennen and Rich Noyes analyzed  every election story on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from September 1 through October 20 in both 2006 (George W. Bush’s second term) and 2014. (23 million people still watch network evening news – far more than cable news.)

What they found was amazing.

When Democrats were feeling good about their election prospects eight years ago, the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and ABC’s World News aired a combined 159 campaign stories (91 full reports and another 68 stories that mentioned the campaign). But during the same time period this year, those same newscasts have offered a paltry 25 stories (16 full reports and 9 mentions), a six-to-one disparity.

 

ABC’s World News Tonight hasn’t mentioned the upcoming elections a single time since September 1!

Please take a minute to share this report with your friends and family. We know you have friends who don’t believe the media are biased. Send this to them and see what they say. Put it up on your Facebook page if you have one.

It would be easy to blame the nearly non-existent election coverage on the Ebola breakout, but the first U.S. case of Ebola wasn’t diagnosed until September 30.

And there were plenty of other news stories to cover in 2006, too – like the war in Iraq and Korea’s first atomic test – but they found room for 159 election reports.

It’s pretty obvious what’s going on here.

=======

 

You’re going to hear about this study a lot in the coming days – on TV, on talk radio, and on the Internet. Be the first to share it with your circle of conservative friends and help us spread the word. While you’re at it, please ask them to sign out “Tell the Truth” petition.

Muslims shoot up Canadian Parliament, RCMP only fears “backlash” against perps!

October 23, 2014

Details at Pamela Geller:

VIDEO of GUN BATTLE WITH ATTACKERS: Military bases shut down across Canada in wake of attack on Parliament

LIVE UPDATES War in Canada: Multiple Attacks, Multiple Gunmen in Islamic State Garb

(Almost) needless to say, the scum pretending to be “in charge” of us are busy in lockdown denial mode, pandering to muslims and slandering those who of us who would warn the innocent about them!

I live in Ottawa. You guys have of idea of the lengths these cowardly masochistic “officials” here will go to to appease and pander to Islam, while slandering civilians.

When I tried to warn my local MPP’s office that this sort of thing was on its way, and get some basic legal protection for myself to be able to warn others, the Liberal government in Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General stooges referred me to the Chief of the Ottawa Police Intelligence Division, a useless chucklehead himself, who chortled at me about “Islam?! Muslims?! What’s that – never heard of them! That’s for the ‘Terrorism Boys!’ – not ME!”

I pointed out that, nevertheless, “terrorism” is really only the crime of “extortion!”

Then he said I “might be a hatefully racist bigot” for simply attempting to inform him about a dangerous international crime-gang, and refused to consider my request.

So he had first more or less admitted that he knew that “islam/muslim” = “terrorist,” but then implicitly abdicated his office, abandoned his duty to protect and defend civilians from criminals, and went instantly into full dereliction of duty mode, while acting like a criminally negligent infantile delinquent. Oh, and he put me on speakerphone while making “he’s crazy!” gestures to other officers who were listening in., according to his own notes (which I later obtained on Appeal). What a clown.

I admitted that, Yes, I DID indeed hate crime and the criminals who commit them, and wondered why he – a Police chief – DIDN’T.

That made him uncomfortable, but not uncomfortable enough to do anything.

Neither did my quoting the facts and statistics proving islam had murdered more innocent people since its creation, than ALL other human creeds (both secular AND religious) in the entire world!

Meanwhile, as it rturned out, the MAG had decided to pre-emptively sacrifice the safety of my self, family, and neighbours, merely in order to preserve their own pensions and reputations from any potential cries of “racism!” by slandering me.

And all of these facts were proven when I managed to obtain their own notes on the case from a FOI request and subsequent appeal through the Ontario Privacy Commissioner’s Office.

In short, the Liberal stooges appointed to run both the MAG and Ottawa Police are an utter disgrace when it comes to fulfilling their oaths to protect the public from these threats. When – not if – the next attack comes, they’ll still be busy slandering & pandering!

More updates, from here:

Backlash, Dhimmitude & Useful Idiots in Ottawa

Posted: 22 Oct 2014 03:29 PM PDT

In wake of Ottawa shootings, Police Chiefs send letters to Muslim leaders inviting Muslims to contact them if they fear “backlash” ISIS Media account posts this picture claiming to be Michael…
Muslims are the real victims and we must be careful not to point the finger at mosques…

Posted: 22 Oct 2014 02:26 PM PDT

Canada: Muslims feel stigmatized by reports on radicalized youthBlazing Cat Fur Surete du Quebec police investigators go over the scene of a police shooting in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu near Montreal…
Algerian Muslim Michael Zehaf-Bibeau behind Ottawa attack

Posted: 22 Oct 2014 02:01 PM PDT

From the Muslim Issue: Michael Zehaf-Bibeau has been identified as the suspect in the shooting at Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada on Wednesday. Michael Zehaf-Bibeau is a Candian born in 1982,…

Canada: if it walks like a duck….

Posted: 22 Oct 2014 01:22 PM PDT

So lets take at look at the mosque where this convert worshipped: After convert’s killing, Quebec mosque eager to ‘live and let live’ (BCF) Mr. Bekkari said his mosque, housed in an aging strip mall,…

Canadian Muslims Fear ‘Backlash’ Over Attacks On Soldiers…

Posted: 22 Oct 2014 08:07 AM PDT

Breaking: One shooter shot dead inside parliament building! Said to be a “male with a long rifle”… Shots fired at Canada war memorial, soldier seen falling More Terror Attacks In…
PS: It is the not-so-secret duty of the authorities and enemedia to scold us for being hateful racist bigots all the time, so their slander can keep us off-balance and on the defensive, thus not giving us enough time to see what they’re really all up to – which is selling us all out for only their own personal gains, by selling our countries off to our enemies, by buying their money, running their tabs in our names.

Who Owns “Your” Government?

October 22, 2014

Lobbying – the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies.

What I am about to show you is not some hidden government numbers and not what some may call “conspiracy theories”.

The following numbers are publicly available and show just how far we have strayed from a country “by the people and for the people”. Lobbying has turned this phase into “buy the Congress for your people”.

Federal lobbying expenditures are above to $3.23 billion last year… that’s billion with a B. And these are just the official numbers, if you still trust them…

And of course Big Pharma is the number one single contributor. That comes as no surprise, after what I have shown you the past few entries.

Below you will find a breakdown by sector of the major contributors:

Sector Total
Misc Business $272,652,705
Health $251,694,259
Finance/Insur/RealEst $249,342,399
Communic/Electronics $196,560,292
Energy/Nat Resource $175,149,861
Transportation $110,883,263
Ideology/Single-Issue $69,816,353
Agribusiness $63,142,874
Defense $62,287,641

Officially, the health industry lobby dwarfs Commercial banks and air defense lobbying.

Industry Total
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $120,369,378
Health Professionals $46,709,968
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $44,438,551
Chemical & Related Manufacturing $36,549,440
Health Services/HMOs $34,722,870
Commercial Banks $30,049,453
Defense Aerospace $28,600,673

Do you still think Congress votes on your behalf?

And how about our President… well one has only to look at his official campaign contributions to know whose interests he’s really protecting:

RAISED $715,677,692
SPENT $683,546,548

Obama’s source of funds:

Again, these are just the official campaign contribution for 2012. Of course all the large contributors expect to receive some kind of compensation…so the president owes, officially, almost $500 million in favors… and this is just the tip of the ice berg!

 

-Jason Richards,

myfamilysurvival.net

Executive Amnesty Begins

October 20, 2014

Obama Administration Quietly Prepares ‘Surge’ Of Millions Of New Immigrant IDs

From here:

Obamnesty

Despite no official action from the president ahead of the election, the Obama administration has quietly begun preparing to issue millions of work authorization permits, suggesting the implementation of a large-scale executive amnesty may have already begun.

Unnoticed until now, a draft solicitation for bids issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Oct. 6 says potential vendors must be capable of handling a “surge” scenario of 9 million id cards in one year “to support possible future immigration reform initiative requirements.”

The request for proposals says the agency will need a minimum of four million cards per year. In the “surge,” scenario in 2016, the agency would need an additional five million cards – more than double the baseline annual amount for a total of 9 million.

“The guaranteed minimum for each ordering period is 4,000,000 cards. The estimated maximum for the entire contract is 34,000,000 cards,” the document says.

The agency is buying the materials need to construct both Permanent Residency Cards (PRC), commonly known as green cards, as well as Employment Authorization Documentation (EAD) cards which have been used to implement President Obama’s “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) program. The RFP does not specify how many of each type of card would be issued.

Jessica Vaughan, an immigration expert at the Center for Immigration Studies and former State Department official, said the document suggests a new program of remarkable breadth.

The RFP “seems to indicate that the president is contemplating an enormous executive action that is even more expansive than the plan that Congress rejected in the ‘Gang of Eight’ bill,” Vaughan said.

Last year, Vaughan reviewed the Gang of Eight’s provisions to estimate that it would have roughly doubled legal immigration. In the “surge” scenario of this RFP, even the relatively high four million cards per year would be more than doubled, meaning that even on its own terms, the agency is preparing for a huge uptick of 125 percent its normal annual output.

It’s not unheard of for federal agencies to plan for contingencies, but the request specifically explains that the surge is related to potential changes in immigration policy.

“The Contractor shall demonstrate the capability to support potential ‘surge’ in PRC and EAD card demand for up to 9M cards during the initial period of performance to support possible future immigration reform initiative requirements,” the document says.

A year ago, such a plan might have been attributed to a forthcoming immigration bill. Now, following the summer’s border crisis, the chances of such a new law are extremely low, giving additional credence to the possibility the move is in preparation for an executive amnesty by Obama.

Even four million combined green cards and EADs is a significant number, let alone the “surge” contemplated by USCIS. For instance, in the first two years after Obama unilaterally enacted DACA, about 600,000 people were approved by USCIS under the program. Statistics provided by USCIS on its website show that the entire agency had processed 862,000 total EADs in 2014 as of June.

Vaughan said EADs are increasingly coming under scrutiny as a tool used by the Obama administration to provide legalization for groups of illegal aliens short of full green card status.

In addition to providing government approval to work for illegal aliens, EADs also cost significantly less in fees to acquire, about $450 compared to more than $1000. In many states, EADs give aliens rights to social services and the ability to obtain drivers’ licenses.

Vaughan noted there are currently about 4.5 million individuals waiting for approval for the green cards having followed immigration law and obtained sponsorships from relatives in the U.S. or otherwise, less than the number of id cards contemplated by the USCIS “surge.”

USCIS officials did not provide additional information about the RFP by press time.

Yes ISIS is islamic

October 17, 2014

From here:

How Does Islam Determine What Is ‘Islamic’?

The Islamic answer for how to determine what fits the doctrine sure doesn’t match Obama’s process.

What relationship does the Islamic State, ISIS, have to Islam? Almost every Western politician answers: “Absolutely nothing.” President Obama adamantly stated in a televised address that the Islamic State “is not Islamic.”

So how does one determine what is, and is not, Islamic? The traditional process — the Islamic answer — is as follows:

What do the core texts and scriptures of Islam say about the thing in question? Does the Koran, believed by Muslims to contain the literal commands of Allah, call for or justify it? Do the hadith and sira texts — which purport to record the sayings and deeds of Allah’s prophet, whom the Koran (e.g., 33:21) exhorts Muslims to emulate in all ways — call for or justify it?

If any ambiguity still remains, the next inquiry is: what is the consensus (ijma‘) of the Islamic world’s leading authorities concerning it? Here, one most often turns to the tafsirs, or exegeses of Islam’s most learned men — the ulema – and considers their conclusions.

Muhammad himself reportedly said that “my umma [Islamic nation] will never be in agreement over an error.”

For example, the Koran commands believers to uphold prayers; accordingly, all are agreed that Muslims need to pray. But the Koran does not specify how many times. In the hadith and sira, however, Muhammad makes clear that believers should pray five times. And the ulema, having considered all these texts, are agreed that Muslims are to pray five times a day.

Thus, it is most certainly Islamic for Muslims to pray five times a day.

But while both Western politicians and Islamic apologists readily accept such methodology to determining what is Islamic — prayer is in the Koran, Muhammad clarified its implementation in the hadith, and the ulema are agreed to it — whenever the question deals with anything that makes Islam “look bad,” to Western sensibilities, then the aforementioned standard approach to ascertaining what is Islamic is wholly ignored.

Let us consider some of the most extreme acts committed by the Islamic State — beheadings, crucifixions, enslavements, sexual predations, massacres, and the persecution of religious minorities — and put them to the test. Let us see if they fill the same criteria for being Islamic, especially in the context of jihad, which has its own set of rules.

Beheadings

The Islamic State beheads “infidels” — including women and children. This aspect of the Islamic State has provoked horror around the world. Is it Islamic?

The Koran calls for the beheading of Islam’s enemies, especially in the context of war, or jihad:

“When you encounter infidels on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely” (47:4). Another verse states: “I will cast terror into the hearts of infidels — so strike off their heads and strike off all of their fingertips [i.e., mutilate them]” (8:12).

As for the other criteria — the example of the prophet, and the consensus of the umma – Timothy Furnish, author of the 2005 essay “Beheading in the Name of Islam,” writes:

The practice of beheading non-Muslim captives extends back to the Prophet himself. Ibn Ishaq (d. 768 C.E.), the earliest biographer of Muhammad, is recorded as saying that the Prophet ordered the execution by decapitation of 700 men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina for allegedly plotting against him. Islamic leaders from Muhammad’s time until today have followed his model. Examples of decapitation, of both the living and the dead, in Islamic history are myriad.

For centuries, leading Islamic scholars have interpreted this verse [decapitation verse, 47:4] literally.

Many recent interpretations remain consistent with those of a millennium ago.

Crucifixions

The Islamic State has been crucifying regularly; the mainstream media claims that even al-Qaeda is “shocked” by such behavior. Koran 5:33 asserts:

The penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land.

Accordingly, crucifixions are common throughout Islamic history. After Islam’s prophet died in 632, many Arabs were accused of apostasy. The first caliph, Abu Bakr, launched a jihad campaign on them and many “apostates” were crucified as an example to the rest. In Witnesses For Christ: Orthodox Christian Neomartyrs of the Ottoman Period 1437-1860, crucifixion is listed as one of the many forms by which thousands of Christians were executed by the Muslim Turks.

More dramatically, in her memoir Ravished Armenia, Aurora Mardiganian described seeing — in the early twentieth century in the city of Malatia — 16 girls crucified, vultures eating their corpses:

Each girl had been nailed alive upon her cross, spikes through her feet and hands. … Only their hair blown by the wind covered their bodies.

Recently, people (including children) have been crucified by self-proclaimed jihadis in the name of Islam in countries as diverse as the Ivory Coast and Yemen.

Slavery and Rape

What of slavery, especially the enslavement of non-Muslim women for sexual purposes which the Islamic State has been engaged in?

From the highest scriptural authority in Islam — the Koran — to the greatest role model for Muslims — prophet Muhammad; from Islamic history to current events, the sexual enslavement of “infidel” women is a canonical aspect of Islamic civilization. Koran 4:3 permits men to have sex with “what your right hands possess,” a term categorically defined by the ulema as “infidel” women captured during the jihad.

The prophet of Islam himself kept and copulated with concubines conquered during the jihad. One captured Jewish woman, Safiya bint Huyay, was “married” to Muhammad right after her father, husband, and brothers were slaughtered by Muslims during a raid. Muhammad took her from among the spoils after hearing about the young woman’s beauty. Unsurprisingly, she later confessed: “Of all men, I hated the prophet the most — for he killed my husband, my brother, and my father,” right before “marrying” (or less euphemistically, raping) her.

Khalid bin Walid — the “Sword of Allah” and hero for all aspiring jihadis — raped another woman renowned for her beauty, Layla, on the battlefield, right after he severed her “apostate” husband’s head, lit it on fire, and cooked his dinner on it.

Massacres

What of wide-scale massacres? In this video, the Islamic State appears to be herding, humiliating, and marching off hundreds of male hostages (the number often given is 1,400) to their trenches, where Islamic State members proceed to shoot them in the head — all while the black flag of Islam waves.

The prophet himself ordered merciless massacres of “infidels.” After the battle of Badr, where Muhammad and the first Muslims prevailed over their enemies, Muhammad ordered the execution of a number of hostages. When one of the hostages, ‘Uqba, implored Muhammad to spare him by asking: “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?”, the prophet responded: “Hell.”

More famously, Muhammad ordered the execution of approximately 700 Jewish men from the Banu Qurayza tribe. According to the sira account, after the Jewish tribe surrendered to his siege, Muhammad had all the men marched off to where ditches were dug and promptly executed by beheading — just like the Islamic State marched off and executed its victims near trenches in the video.

Dhimmitude

The Islamic State is even responsible for resurrecting a distinctly Islamic institution that was banned in the 19th century thanks to the intervention of colonial powers: “dhimmitude.” Establishing dhimmitude is the practice of exacting tribute (jizya) from conquered Christians and Jews and subjecting them to live as third-class citizens. They must embrace a host of debilitating and humiliating measures: no building or repairing churches, no ringing church bells or worshiping loudly, no displaying crosses, no burying their dead near Muslims, etc.

These measures are also derived from the core texts of Islam. Koran 9:29 calls on Muslims to fight the “People of the Book” (interpreted as Christians and Jews) “until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” And the Conditions of Omar — named after one of the “righteous caliphs” — explains how they are to “feel themselves subdued,” which is exactly what the Islamic State decreed.

Past and present ulema are confirmed that Koran 9:29 and the Conditions of Omar mean what they plainly say. Thus, according to Saudi Sheikh Marzouk Salem al-Ghamdi, speaking during a Friday mosque sermon:

If the infidels live among the Muslims, in accordance with the conditions set out by the Prophet — there is nothing wrong with it provided they pay Jizya to the Islamic treasury. Other conditions [reference to Conditions of Omar] are … that they do not renovate a church or a monastery, do not rebuild ones that were destroyed … that they rise when a Muslim wishes to sit … do not show the cross, do not ring church bells, do not raise their voices during prayer … If they violate these conditions, they have no protection.

It is false to say, as President Obama does, that the Islamic State “is not Islamic.” Indeed, even in the most savage of details — including triumphing over the mutilated corpses of “infidels” and laughing while posing with their decapitated heads — the Islamic State finds support in the Koran and stories of the prophet.

It is dishonest to accept the methodology of Islamic jurisprudence — is “X” part of the Koran, hadith, sira, and does it have consensus among the ulema? – only to reject this same methodology whenever “X” makes Islam look “bad.” In the context of jihad, all that the Islamic State is doing — beheadings, crucifixions, massacres, enslavements, and subjugation of religious minorities — is Islamic.

- Raymond Ibrahim -

Bilderberger Group Plotting

October 15, 2014

PlottingBilderbergers

Here’s the truth of it fully exposed – I hope it leads to people wanting to at least try to change things!

BANKSTERS SELL MONEY. (Over time, on the installment plan, ‘renting’ it out.) Obviously, this instantly devalues the money itself, as well as the goods it buys and the labor earning it. So, we are – literally – all living on borrowed time now.

Oh, and they’re also total FRAUDS, because they have bribed all governments to “legally” allow them to literally write checks their reserves can’t cash, under their “fractional reserves” doctrine… to the tune of up to FIFTY TIMES what they actually have (‘in reserve’)!

This means that they can lend out $50. for every real $1. they actually have, and, even if they only charge 2% interest on it, they double their actual money each and every year.

That means, if I’m a bankster’s kid, and I ‘invest’ only $1,000 in dad’ s bank when I’m 20, then by the time I’m 30 that $1,000 has become a million; by age 40, a billion, and by the time I feel like ‘retiring’ at age 50, I have a trillion un-earned fraud-based dollars to call my own!

First year my money doubles, etc:

Year:

1, 2, 3,   4,  5,   6,    7,     8,      9,       10

My money becomes “worth:”

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1,024

So, since the bankster Families have been at this for over 200 years, YES by now THEY REALLY DO OWN THE WORLD.

And they will always back both sides in every war and conflict, because then both the winners owe them AND the losers do, and they will both have to pay the banksters for their reconstruction efforts, too!

So: It’s always WIN/WIN for them, and LOSE/LOSE for all the rest of us!

Re-post of Rabbi Shalom Lewis’s “Ehr Kumt” and “Ehr Daw”

October 14, 2014

(As deconstructed in detail here).

From here:

Ehr Kumt (He is Coming)

October 11, 2014

The History and Danger of Administrative Law

(and “Civil forfeiture law” crimes):

Philip Hamburger
Columbia Law School

PHILIP HAMBURGER is the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. He received his B.A. from Princeton University and his J.D. from Yale Law School. He has also taught at the University of Chicago Law School, the George Washington University Law School, the University of Virginia Law School, and Northwestern Law School. A contributor to National Review Online, he has written for several law reviews and journals, including the American Journal of Legal History, the Supreme Court Review, the Notre Dame Law Review, and the Journal of Law and Politics. He is the author of Separation of Church and State, Law and Judicial Duty, and, most recently, Is Administrative Law Unlawful?

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on May 6, 2014, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series. 

There are many complaints about administrative law—including that it is arbitrary, that it is a burden on the economy, and that it is an intrusion on freedom. The question I will address here is whether administrative law is unlawful, and I will focus on constitutional history. Those who forget history, it is often said, are doomed to repeat it. And this is what has happened in the United States with the rise of administrative law—or, more accurately, administrative power.

Administrative law is commonly defended as a new sort of power, a product of the 19th and the 20th centuries that developed to deal with the problems of modern society in all its complexity. From this perspective, the Framers of the Constitution could not have anticipated it and the Constitution could not have barred it. What I will suggest, in contrast, is that administrative power is actually very old. It revives what used to be called prerogative or absolute power, and it is thus something that the Constitution centrally prohibited.

But first, what exactly do I mean by administrative law or administrative power? Put simply, administrative acts are binding or constraining edicts that come, not through law, but through other mechanisms or pathways. For example, when an executive agency issues a rule constraining Americans—barring an activity that results in pollution, for instance, or restricting how citizens can use their land—it is an attempt to exercise binding legislative power not through an act of Congress, but through an administrative edict. Similarly, when an executive agency adjudicates a violation of one of these edicts—in order to impose a fine or some other penalty—it is an attempt to exercise binding judicial power not through a judicial act, but again through an administrative act.

In a way we can think of administrative law as a form of off-road driving. The Constitution offers two avenues of binding power—acts of Congress and acts of the courts. Administrative acts by executive agencies are a way of driving off-road, exercising power through other pathways. For those in the driver’s seat, this can be quite exhilarating. For the rest of us, it’s a little unnerving.

The Constitution authorizes three types of power, as we all learned in school—the legislative power is located in Congress, executive power is located in the president and his subordinates, and the judicial power is located in the courts. How does administrative power fit into that arrangement?

The conventional answer to this question is based on the claim of the modernity of administrative law. Administrative law, this argument usually goes, began in 1887 when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission, and it expanded decade by decade as Congress created more such agencies. A variant of this account suggests that administrative law is actually a little bit older—that it began to develop in the early practices of the federal government of the United States. But whether it began in the 1790s or in the 1880s, administrative law according to this account is a post-1789 development and—this is the key point—it arose as a pragmatic and necessary response to new and complex practical problems in American life. The pragmatic and necessitous character of this development is almost a mantra—and of course if looked at that way, opposition to administrative law is anti-modern and quixotic.

But there are problems with this conventional history of administrative law. Rather than being a modern, post-constitutional American development, I argue that the rise of administrative law is essentially a re-emergence of the absolute power practiced by pre-modern kings. Rather than a modern necessity, it is a latter-day version of a recurring threat—a threat inherent in human nature and in the temptations of power.

The Prerogative Power of Kings

The constitutional history of the past thousand years in common law countries records the repeated ebb and flow of absolutism on the one side and law on the other. English kings were widely expected to rule through law. They had Parliament for making law and courts of law for adjudicating cases, and they were expected to govern through the acts of these bodies. But kings were discontent with governing through the law and often acted on their own. The personal power that kings exercised when evading the law was called prerogative power.

Whereas ordinarily kings bound their subjects through statutes passed by Parliament, when exercising prerogative power they bound subjects through proclamations or decrees—or what we today call rules or regulations. Whereas ordinarily kings would repeal old statutes by obtaining new statutes, when exercising prerogative power they issued dispensations and suspensions—or what we today call waivers. Whereas ordinarily kings enforced the law through the courts of law, when exercising prerogative power they enforced their commands through their prerogative courts—courts such as the King’s Council, the Star Chamber, and the High Commission—or what we today call administrative courts. Ordinarily, English judges resolved legal disputes in accordance with their independent judgment regarding the law. But when kings exercised prerogative power, they expected deference from judges, both to their own decrees and to the holdings and interpretations of their extra-legal prerogative courts.

Although England did not have a full separation of powers of the sort written into the American Constitution, it did have a basic division of powers. Parliament had the power to make laws, the law courts had the power to adjudicate, and the king had the power to exercise force. But when kings acted through prerogative power, they or their prerogative courts exercised all government powers, overriding these divisions. For example, the Star Chamber could make regulations, as well as prosecute and adjudicate infractions. And defenders of this sort of prerogative power were not squeamish about describing it as absolute power. Absolutism was their justification.

Conceptually, there were three central elements of this absolutism: extra-legal power, supra-legal power, and the consolidation of power. It was extra-legal or outside the law in the sense that it bound the public not through laws or statutes, but through other means. It was supra-legal or above the law in the sense that kings expected judges to defer to it—notwithstanding their duty to exercise their own independent judgment. And it was consolidated in the sense that it united all government powers—legislative, executive, and judicial—in the king or in his prerogative courts. And underlying these three central elements was the usual conceptual justification for absolute power: necessity. Necessity, it was said, was not bound by law.

These claims on behalf of absolutism, of course, did not go unchallenged. When King John called Englishmen to account extralegally in his Council, England’s barons demanded in Magna Carta in 1215 that no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or even summoned except through the mechanisms of law. When 14th century English kings questioned men in the king’s Council, Parliament in 1354 and 1368 enacted due process statutes. When King James I attempted to make law through proclamations, judges responded in 1610 with an opinion that royal proclamations were unlawful and void. When James subsequently demanded judicial deference to prerogative interpretations of statutes, the judges refused. Indeed, in 1641 Parliament abolished the Star Chamber and the High Commission, the bodies then engaging in extra-legal lawmaking and adjudication. And most profoundly, English constitutional law began to develop—and it made clear that there could be no extra-legal,   supra-legal, or consolidated power.

The Rise of Absolutism in America

The United States Constitution echoes this. Early Americans were very familiar with absolute power. They feared this extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power because they knew from English history that such power could evade the law and override all legal rights. It is no surprise, then, that the United States Constitution was framed to bar this sort of power. To be precise, Americans established the Constitution to be the source of all government power and to bar any absolute power. Nonetheless, absolute power has come back to life in common law nations, including America.

After absolute power was defeated in England and America, it circled back from the continent through Germany, and especially through Prussia. There, what once had been the personal prerogative power of kings became the bureaucratic administrative power of the states. The Prussians were the leaders of this development in the 17th and 18th centuries. In the 19th century they became the primary theorists of administrative power, and many of them celebrated its evasion of constitutional law and constitutional rights.

This German theory would become the intellectual source of American administrative law. Thousands upon thousands of Americans studied administrative power in Germany, and what they learned there about administrative power became standard fare in American universities. At the same time, in the political sphere, American Progressives were becoming increasingly discontent with elected legislatures, and they increasingly embraced German theories of administration and defended the imposition of administrative law in America in terms of pragmatism and necessity.

The Progressives, moreover, understood what they were doing. For example, in 1927, a leading Progressive theorist openly said that the question of whether an American administrative officer could issue regulations was similar to the question of whether pre-modern English kings could issue binding proclamations. By the 1920s, however, Progressives increasingly were silent about the continuity between absolute power and modern administrative power, as this undermined their claims about its modernity and lawfulness.

In this way, over the past 120 years, Americans have reestablished the very sort of power that the Constitution most centrally forbade. Administrative law is extra-legal in that it binds Americans not through law but through other mechanisms—not through statutes but through regulations—and not through the decisions of courts but through other adjudications. It is supra-legal in that it requires judges to put aside their independent judgment and defer to administrative power as if it were above the law—which our judges do far more systematically than even the worst of 17th century English judges. And it is consolidated in that it combines the three powers of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—in administrative agencies.

Let me close by addressing just two of many constitutional problems illuminated by the re-emergence of absolutism in the form of administrative power: delegation and procedural rights.

One standard defense of administrative power is that Congress uses statutes to delegate its lawmaking power to administrative agencies. But this is a poor defense. The delegation of lawmaking has long been a familiar feature of absolute power. When kings exercised extra-legal power, they usually had at least some delegated authority from Parliament. Henry VIII, for example, issued binding proclamations under an authorizing statute called the Act of Proclamations. His binding proclamations were nonetheless understood to be exercises of absolute power. And in the 18th century the Act of Proclamations was condemned as unconstitutional.

Against this background, the United States Constitution expressly bars the delegation of legislative power. This may sound odd, given that the opposite is so commonly asserted by scholars and so routinely accepted by the courts. But read the Constitution. The Constitution’s very first substantive words are, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” The word “all” was not placed there by accident. The Framers understood that delegation had been a problem in English constitutional history, and the word “all” was placed there precisely to bar it.

As for procedural rights, the history is even more illuminating. Administrative adjudication evades almost all of the procedural rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It subjects Americans to adjudication without real judges, without juries, without grand juries, without full protection against self-incrimination, and so forth. Like the old prerogative courts, administrative courts substitute inquisitorial process for the due process of law—and that’s not just an abstract accusation; much early administrative procedure appears to have been modelled on civilian-derived inquisitorial process. Administrative adjudication thus becomes an open avenue for evasion of the Bill of Rights.

The standard justification for the administrative evasion of procedural rights is that they apply centrally to the regular courts, but not entirely to administrative adjudication. But the history shows that procedural rights developed primarily to bar prerogative or administrative proceedings, not to regulate what the government does in regular courts of law. As I already mentioned, the principle of due process developed as early as the 14th century, when Parliament used it to prevent the exercise of extra-legal power by the King’s Council. It then became a constitutional principle in the 17th century in opposition to the prerogative courts. Similarly, jury rights developed partly in opposition to administrative proceedings, and thus some of the earliest constitutional cases in America held administrative proceedings unconstitutional for depriving defendants of a jury trial.

* * *

In sum, the conventional understanding of administrative law is utterly mistaken. It is wrong on the history and oblivious to the danger. That danger is absolutism: extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power. And the danger matters because administrative power revives this absolutism. The Constitution carefully barred this threat, but constitutional doctrine has since legitimized this dangerous sort of power. It therefore is necessary to go back to basics. Among other things, we should no longer settle for some vague notion of “rule of law,” understood as something that allows the delegation of legislative and judicial powers to administrative agencies. We should demand rule through law and rule under law. Even more fundamentally, we need to reclaim the vocabulary of law: Rather than speak of administrative law, we should speak of administrative power—indeed, of absolute power or more concretely of extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power. Then we at least can begin to recognize the danger.

Copyright © 2014 Hillsdale College.

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.

=================================VLADDI’S COMMENTS RE: ADMINISTRATIVE “LAW:” ===

‘Administrative law’ only means might-made-group “rights” – and in this case, the rights of the largest group, ‘the state,’ to trump the human rights of all real live individual citizens.

There is only one real Law, which simply defines the rights and responsibilities of ALL humans and groups thereof, regardless of size: the Golden Rule of Law, which most simply defines all circumstantial, situational moralilty as “Do Not Attack First.”

So our only real legal right is to not be attacked first, and our only real legal responsibility is to not attack (thereby) innocent others first. Period.

So, between two or more people, this ‘sicial contract’ meanswe can neither do anything TO, or FOR, others without first getting their express consent.

This means, in practice, that even the largest group, ‘the state,’ has no right to attack any of it’s individual component parts (human citizens) first.

It’s why we have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and not, as liberal criminals seems to prefer, guilty until never proven innocent.

From this agreement, we gain trust, progress, and civilization; this “social contract” means our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack (therefore innocent) others first. Period.

The rest are all symptoms, and all sub-sequent valid legislation depends on that Rule: Every law is an if/then warning which says, in effect: If and when you choose to attack first in this, that, or those ways, then this, that, and these punishments will apply to you.

Bad laws are crimes because they attack first. At “best” they are only ‘ethical’ lists of rules and excuses amerliorating bad, attack-first criminal premises.

A “Judge’s” only job is to determine rational cause-and-effect (who started it) and all irrational criminal excuses or alibis are based on the opposite, victim-blaming slanderous pretense.

It should therefore be easy for any judge to see if a law is bad (an attempt to deprive citizens of due process, by disregarding any need for evidence by slanderously insisting on asserting that they are Guilty Until Never Proven Innocent, and so must impossibly prove a negative in order to defend them selves).

Bad laws are slanderously “pre-emptive” first attacks, like all gun control laws:

“Since you DO own a gun, therefore you WILL use it to commit some crimes, SO we must now stop you by ‘defensively’ attacking you first – for your own good, of course!” There’s no if/then; they are threats, not valid warnings. Pretty much every “law” any liberal ever passes, is some form of extortion like this.

Guns exist. They will never again not-exist. More laws do not equal order. In general, no force or police or laws are necessary among free citizens who can and will govern themselves, while the opposite is: no amount of force or police or laws are enough for a people who CANNOT – or will not – govern themselves.

Other bad laws depend not on what your free-will choice of what you might DO might eventually be, but on their subjective yet objectifying definition of what you ARE: in islam’s prejudicially slanderous us-versus-them and might makes right sharia code, all weaker groups – foreign infidels, women, children, slaves – are openly and officially pre-discriminated against, encoded right into their system of criminal laws.

Bad (“defensively pre-emptive”) laws are crimes because they attack first.

Unfortunately, there’s only so many symptoms of “Do Not Attack First!” one can address with “laws” of morality, only so many right answers, before one must veer off into exploiting the almost infinite number of sorta almost right,(but really wrong) answers, in order to keep up the pretense that one is actually doing something responsible to earn one’s pay and enjoy the right to govern others – a point at which, when reached, societies decline into criminality and empires fall into ruin.

Government by criminals (liberals) likes to presume it can do whatever it wants TO us, so long as it pretends it’s doing it FOR us/our own good!

 

See also:

 

http://unclevladdi.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/canadas-supreme-criminals-legalize-extortion/

British Gov to enforce sharia blasphemy laws

October 2, 2014

Having once banned freedom scholars Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller from entering not so great Britain (because of course the poor swarthy mentally inferior muslim animals would surely riot in protest,) Theresa May is still working hard on behalf of sharia blasphemy laws and against all Western free speech ones, as of October 1st, 2014:

UNITED KINGDOM

Tories want to rein in “extremists”
(that means people who notice islamic crime, not the islamic “muslim” criminals themselves!):

Britain’s interior minister on Tuesday proposed new power to bar people with extremist views from appearing on television or publishing on social media, even if they are not breaking any laws. Home Secretary Theresa May told a conference of the governing Conservatives that if re-elected next year, the party will introduce civil powers to disrupt people who “spread poisonous hatred” even within the law.

Source: The Ottawa Citizen, Wednesday, October 1st, 2014, P.#C2; also:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11130455/Theresea-May-Isil-could-obtain-chemical-biological-or-even-nuclear-weapons.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2774876/UK-government-plans-curbs-nonviolent-extremism.html


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33 other followers