THERE IS A SUDDEN RASH of Islamophobia according to many so-called civil rights organizations. American Progress has a new report out called, Fear, Inc. In it they define Islamophobia as an exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes and ignorance…
Let’s get this straightfear is good. Any combat veteran will tell you that fear can save your life. When soldiers perform a heroic act, they were afraid while they were being a hero. [My step-father was a combat veteran WWII in the South Pacific and did three landing invasions. He said that if you were not afraid in combat, you were crazy and a danger to all men.] Many people feel that fear is bad and needs to be denied. But, fear directs our attention to threats, and there are very real threats to our well being. Fear lets us tap our inner core of strength. Fear, like love, is good.
Just as there are bad forms of love, like clinging and attachment, there is a bad form of feara phobia. A phobia is caused by imagined threats. A phobia is a neurosis and a disease of the mind and emotions. A phobia takes us away from reality, into our imagination; fear focuses us on reality. Here we have the key to curing this phobia, deal with the reality of the situation.
Islam wants you to believe that Islam is what a Muslim tells you. But, the only Muslims you want to listen to are Mohammed and Allah. Because once you know Mohammed and Allah, you will discover that the Muslims talking to you are only telling you half of the truth. Mohammed and Allah will tell you the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The reality we need to know is Islam; after all, that is what the phobia is about. It is odd, but very few people can even define Islam. Exactly and precisely, what is Islam, what is its doctrine? The definition of Islam is found in the declaration of Islam, the Shahada: There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet. But the Shahada is not only what you say to become a Muslim, it is the totality of Islam. It is agreed to by 100% of all Muslims as being true and points us to a complete Islam.
Allah is in the Qu'ran which tells the world to live exactly like Mohammed. Luckily, there is a vast world of texts that tell us precisely what Mohammed did. Mohammed is found in the Sira (his sacred biography), and his traditions, the Hadith. Koran, Sira and Hadith are about Allah and Mohammed and this Trilogy defines Islam.
If it is written in the Trilogy, it is Islam. Period. There is nothing else to read to know the complete foundation of Islam. Everything else Islamic is a comment on the Trilogy. Nothing can go beyond it, because it is complete, perfect, universal and final. That is the textual doctrine of Islam.
Why so much fuss to establish what Islam is? Simple, Islam and its apologists maintain that there is no doctrine and that even if there were a doctrine, a Kafir (non-Muslim) cannot know it. Islam wants you to believe that Islam is what a Muslim tells you. But, the only Muslims you want to listen to are Mohammed and Allah. Because once you know Mohammed and Allah, you will discover that the Muslims talking to you are only telling you half of the truth. Mohammed and Allah will tell you the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You can take Mohammed and Allah to the Sharia bank.
Since the Muslims claim that Islamophobia is caused by negative stereotypes, you have the cure because Mohammed and Allah define Islam. So, listen to the doctor, the next time you feel an attack of Islamophobia coming on, take one Allah and one Mohammed and contemplate their message of submission and dualism. If the Islamophobia does not pass immediately, then take some Sharia that deals with women’s rights, dhimmis (non-Muslims who serve Islam), Kafirs and jihad. That will knock the Islamophobia right out of you. If you are still feeling a little ill, then read the history of jihad over the last 1400 years and the deaths of 270 million Kafirs. That phobia caused by ignorance will pass and you will be brought back to the reality of Islamo-fear, the firm grip on reality.
Here's another thoughtful article from Citizen Warrior revisiting the question on how we are to treat Muslims living in our midst, now that we are familiar with what confronts both them and us in the everyday bustle of life, and life's enemy they, and now we, must call jihad:
"Living among us, we have many Muslims who are undoubtedly as innocent of terrorism, political subversion, and Islamic supremacism as we are. But we have a problem, don't we? These innocent fellow countrymen—and the terrorists, subversives, and supremacistsall call themselves "Muslims."
Many non-Muslims explain the situation to themselves that "there are extremists in every religion" and let it go at that. But those of us who have studied Islamic doctrine and Islamic history have discovered that "letting it go at that" would be a big mistake. And of course, those who simply look at the news can see that there must be something about Islam that produces more "extremists" than other religions."
We certainly do not wish to live in a perpetual state of fear nor do we desire to live in a world rooted in hatred and suspicion. But we can avoid neither by ignoring the harsh realities on the ground, and we cannot fool ourselves into thinking that everyone is our friend. So what do we do?
Here is one writer's compact rebuttal to this whole concept of trying to figure out who is a peaceful Muslim and to what limits his own responsibility to Muslims goes. Consider this:
I no longer consider it my responsibility to determine who is a muslim. If someone claims to be muslim then I assume they support the socio-political ideology of islam which is imperialistic, based on apartheid, decrees human chattel slavery as a legal and valid economic activity, and degrades all women as breeding and fornicating beasts in a man's personal bordello.
If a person who claims to be muslim does not support these tenets then it is his/her responsibility to leave islam and no longer be a muslim.
MUCH DISCUSSION LONG AND WEARY, STRONG AND SCHOLARLY, sane and savage, still cloaking the profound audacity in this cover-up of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate has traded this nation's proud heritage for a handful of sand. The same simple burdens of proof that candidates great and small before him have had to answer still clutter the sandy beachhead along which this man walks three years after stepping into the light for a run at this nation's world's most revered office.
Let's review, shall we? Why has this son of a Kenyan and his minions spent millions of dollars stonewalling the cases piling up in courts around the country? Why has every document produced, and provided as proof of his birth place ended up being an easily detected fraud that no one in authority yet questions it, when basically what invalidates his presidency is much simpler and already admittedhe is NOT a natural-born citizen as understood by those that wrote that phrase into the Constitution regardless of where he was born.
The verified requirement for President of the United States as outlined in the Constitution and ratified by the States is the following:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of the President… ”
The Constitution does not explain the meaning of "natural born". On June 18, 1787, Alexander Hamilton submitted to the Convention a sketch of a plan of government. Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton's plan provided:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born
Now there are those who choose to obfuscate what the Constitution and its authors has, since its adoption in 1788, defined what the term “natural born Citizen” means, preferring to assume it means born within the physical United States boundaries. Big mistake, and an intentional one.
It is absolutely amazing how a "typical Obama supporter" will swiftly shift his outward demeanor when confronted with this eligibility issue, from winsome cordiality to a vicious attack spirit. I've witnessed it, and have had it directed at me personally, face to face, from a senior State Department anti-terror specialist, a self-professed Scoop Jackson Democrat, and let me assure you, it ain't pretty. It's as if they have suspected all along but cannot admit the truth has not been properly vetted, and have no other choice but to deal with the issue with violent outbursts designed to immediately cease the conversation.
Throughout the Constitution, the writers used the term citizen numerous times but only here did they offer a specific classification of citizen, differentiated even from the naturalized citizen identified elsewhere. The founders would not have inserted into the all-important governing document a quite specific designation, or type of citizen, except to insist upon a specific designation and purpose for its usage.
Admittedly, one of the few shortcomings of our founding document, highlighted by this controversy, is the lack of referential definitions for certain terms. As some terms were thought to be of common knowledge by educated men, it was thought unnecessary to include them. One such definition that has garnered much controversy was the well-regulated Militia; likewise is the term “natural born citizen.”
This document, however, has provided us a methodology and a roadmap to solving certain mysteries. Congress is the bi-cameral body charged with the handling of legislation. Within the Constitution the founders placed guides that may assist us in determining where we may find certain information.
Article 1, Section 8 defines the enumerated powers of Congress and within that we find: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.”
Ah, yes. Those were the days. Not only where these great men of early America familiar with the “Law of Nations” but they consulted it frequently.
It should not be surprising that within Emerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations the term “natural-born Citizen” was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Notice the plural use for parentage.
Based upon the idea of a singularity of allegiance, the contrary position when a citizen whose father was born outside the US and the son inside the US arises due to a position of dual allegiance between his own birth country and the country of his father. Vattel stated it this way: “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The implication that should circumstances place the nation at odds with the nation of a president’s father, the president may not be able to bring himself to wage war, if necessary, against that nation which he may empathize on his father's account.
Which brings us to the controversy we seek to resolvehow do we interpret the constitutional meaning of “natural-born citizen?” Given that the Constitution is the basis of our law, and IS LAW, in and of itself, we should look at the Constitution through statutory construction.
First; a review of the “plain meaning” of the text has probably been the greatest cause of concern in determining the meaning, since the term is not used in general language today outside of this context, and obviously being overlooked by those in political power, it appears to be of little use.
This case clearly justifies the implication for singularity of allegiance and the striking language that relates directly back to the definition found in Vattel’s “Law of Nations” requiring even the parents of a an American President both be citizens.
Second; should the “plain meaning” of a term not prevail then one must determine the original intentions of the person or people that wrote it. This is not always an easy task; as time progresses the nuances of language and even meanings of words change. A prime example is the word “welfare,” when used today most everyone thinks of grants from the government in the form of money, food stamps, housing assistance, etc. But back in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s welfare meant simply “Happiness; Success; Prosperity.” (Now read the section in the Constitution that directs government to “promote the general welfare.” Takes on a whole new meaning doesn’t it?)
But having documentation from those who framed the Constitution telling us rather emphatically that they consulted a resource “frequently” and one of the few, if only, use was that of Vattel giving the meaning as that of a singularity of citizenship of the parents, and especially the father, we must (unless we are habitual Leftists) give weight to this meaning.
Third; should the prior two methods not be productive then one must look outside of that to the historical, and contemporary writings of the time to see if anything supports a particular point of view. And though there are very few writings dealing with the term “natural-born citizen” we do have a number of writings dealing with the concept of “dual allegiance” that aligns with Vattel’s definition of “natural-born.”
In 1794 President Washington in a letter to John Adams stated: “the policy…of its [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean settling them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word soon become one people.”
Here we see a distinct ideal of ensuring a nation that was not plagued with divided or dual allegiances that people coming to America should “in a word soon become one people.” This is the exact sentiment that Vattel was driving with the “natural-born citizen,” a single allegiance to the United States. And we know today, with transcontinental transportation and massive illegal immigration that this presumption of assimilation is no longer true.
Finally we must turn to any legal precedence that may aid us in our determination. In the case of Minor v. Happersett (1874) we find the following:
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."
This case clearly justifies the implication for singularity of allegiance and the striking language that relates directly back to the definition found in Vattel’s “Law of Nations” requiring even the parents of a an American President both be citizens.
If we contrast this with the total lack of evidence to the contrary then this evidence becomes overwhelming that Vattel’s definition must clearly be the defining voice.
So where is the deception you ask? The deception lies in that thousands of politicians and countless government and academic lawyers insist there is no way to determine the meaning of a phrase used by our founders in the Constitution of the United States, the basis of the Law of our Nation, and operative for over two hundred years.
Yet, scores of ordinary citizens, and dare we saynatural born citizensall around the nation have been screaming this simple truth and no one listens. In truth I totally believe they know exactly what is going on, but it does not serve their pernicious agenda and using Alinsky Rules, the end justifies their means.
Politicians astride the government purse do not fear what pockets of citizenry know because they have come to understand that unless an organized rebellion results they can simply dismiss each outcry as a the paucity of conspiracy theorists as in "Who are you going to believe, some kook or your own government?"
Or they simply vilify good people who believe in and wish to return to the United States Constitution, or voice displeasure with abortion, or advocate for gun rights, or belong to a Constitutional militia, or post Ron Paul bumper stickers, or become “natural-born citizen” adherents by depicting all these good American citizens as potential terrorists… oh waitthey’ve already done that!
So don't fret when you attract the typical ad hominem response from the left. Remember they don't examine the facts; they attack the messenger instead. That is how and why the left invented the name "birther" in the first place.
UPDATE: Here's the kicker. People on the left claim to embrace science. They claim to be better educated than their knuckle-dragging conservative opposites. So why not embrace the concept of scientific inquiry? Question everything, even your assumption that there is no way an announcement could be placed in a Hawaiian newspaper unless the event happened in Hawaii. Has anyone ever forged a birth certificate? Are all the birth certificates produced by the state of Hawaii 100% genuine? Has there ever been a state worker in Vital Records who has been willing to do a favor?
We have probable cause here. Obama's bio from 1991 claimed he was born in Kenya (and that bio was only "corrected" in 2007). The birth certificate coaxed out by Donald Trump last fall to be posted at the White House web site has numerous indications that it isn't genuine. This rather unmysterious fact (any first year Photoshop user knows which way the coverup blows) has been much circulated, so there's no reason the Left (and other obtuse career-savvy folks like Bill O'Reilly) should not know of these details. Why will they not put on their "objective" glasses and expose themselves to a little scientific inquiry, and see where that takes them?
MORE FROM TODAY'S Project archives...
O SAY CAN YOU SEE, by the dawn's early light, and have you ever stopped to take measure of Black Republicans in Congress and other places that have known to represent the power of the people? It's time to get acquainted with one such person, in particular.
Inspired with strong family values, Jennifer Carroll, 51, was born in Trinidad and moved to New York City with her great aunt and uncle when she was 8, just as desegregation was taking hold. On television, she saw reports about civil rights and Martin Luther King's assassination.
Two years after graduating from Uniondale High School in New York state, she enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1979. After serving as an Aviation Machinist Mate (Jet Mechanic), she was selected for Enlisted Commissioning Program, becoming an Aviation Maintenance Officer in 1985. She retired from the Navy in 1999 as a Lieutenant Commander. In 1981, she received an Associate of Arts degree from Leeward Community College. She followed this in 1985 with a Bachelor of Arts in political science from the University of New Mexico. She moved to Florida in 1986. She received a Master of Business Administration degree from unaccredited online diploma mill Kensington University in 1995, and then earned another Master of Business Administration degree online from St. Leo University in 2008
Carroll thus became the first black woman to be a major party candidate for lieutenant governor in Florida's history, and the first black woman on any statewide Republican ticket.
"That was the first time I experienced the conversation regarding race," she said. It wasn't until she graduated from high school and enlisted in the Navy in 1979 as a jet mechanic that she experienced racism firsthand, she said.
"When it really started was when I was appointed as the supervisor in charge of white males," Carroll said. "They felt they should have been in charge rather than me."
She made two unsuccessful bids for the United States House of Representatives in 2000 and in 2002. Following her defeat in the 2000 election, she was appointed as Director of the Florida Department of Veterans Affairs serving in that post until July, 2002. She has been elected successively to the Florida House since winning a special election in April 2003, when she became the first African-American female Republican ever elected to the Florida Legislature.
On September 2, 2010, after winning the Republican primary, Rick Scott named Carroll his running mate in the 2010 Florida gubernatorial election. Carroll thus became the first black woman to be a major party candidate for lieutenant governor in Florida's history, and the first black woman on any statewide Republican ticket.
Let's begin with Conviction I: what I call Liberal Creationism or, as the oft-invoked cliché, people are the same all over.
ACCORDING TO THIS GOSPEL, modern humans emerged roughly 180,000 years ago in Africa and eventually populated almost the entire globe. According to evolution, via mutations and selective breeding, humans adapted to varied conditions. For example, in colder climates, white skin and blue eyes facilitated vitamin D absorption. So far, so good. But, though evolution tells us that traits most valuable for survival are more susceptible to change, the human brain remains fixed despite thousands of years of evolutionary pressure in widely unlike settings. Yes, pygmies in central African may be anatomically unlike Swedes, but the brains are identical. So, send the pygmies to Sweden and enroll them in Swedish schools and provide all the benefits of Swedish society, and after a generation or two they will be just like Swedes, albeit a bit shorter and with a darker complexion (or send Swedes to central Africa and they will become blond, blue-eyed "pygmies").
It then follows, according to this Liberal Creed, that those differences in educational attainment, income and social status, and even crime rates and other pathologies must be artificial. If third-generation pygmies living in Sweden lag behind their taller countrymen, the only explanations are discrimination, racism, lack of opportunities, and similar fixable environmental obstacles. Going one step further, since all people have the same brains, equality of intellectual accomplishment is human nature. A multi-billion-krona initiative by the Swedish government to bring pigmies up to the Swedish average in income and education does not contravene nature; it is a social engineering enterprise to restore, not reverse the human default condition of equality. And, the Liberal Creed tells us, this will be accomplished only if Swedes are willing to make the effort.
I recall a more tranquil time in my life (I am only 55) when liberal dogma insisted that the West leave pygmy and other recently "discovered" cultures untouched, (except for vain purposes of Western study), free to continue existing within their own crude but provocative cultures, now being endangered by Western intrusion on upon lands and way of life in order to expose its tribal units to inequality victimhood and Marxist yearnings.
This laissez faire approach was definitely the persuading viewpoint expressed in popular magazines and literature of the day. When and why did this approach change, given that NWO infrastructure informed by Global Marxism had always been a part and parcel of the Frank Boas, Margaret Meade, Margaret Sanger assault on humanity, to bring all these variations of human expression under one roof, so to speak?
Perhaps, I put too fine a point on the author's example of clashing Sweden and Pygmy cultures, but in importing thousands of unvetted "refugees" of a certain uncouth cultural heritage upon the Tennessee and Minnesota constitute the same jarring effects of instant culture clash.
The Persian Ten Year Plan? HERE'S AN EYE OPENER, maybe an eye burner if one actually takes the time to realize how much this administration has co-operated with a transnational political policy which is actually succeeding in putting Humpty Dumpty (the Caliphate) back together again, and guess what, there are only a few pieces of the eggshell puzzle left to go. According to the former president (1997-2005) of Iran Seyed Mohammad Khatami, in what he dubbed "six plus six", Iran's eventual goal was to see secular dictators in all the countries bordering Iraq as well as Egypt, to fall.
Note where Obama has helped with speeches and even force of arms, and notice who Obama has silently ignored while the people cry out from their oppression. Iran. Syria, its satellite. Given a pass. Egypt. Libya. Oops. Beating to their own drum, more secular than mullah dominated. Thumbs down. Take down time comes rushing out from the other side of President Obama's Nobel prize winning mouth.
Well, it doesn't take a weather man to know which way the wind blows...
HAS NAVIGATING THIS INEPT STINKING SINKING ECONOMY frayed every last creative nerve you once believed you needed to safely and surely keep the course, a roof over your family's head, food on the table, clothes on your back, and a few dollars in your wallet even though you've already lost your 401K and the company you've worked for nearly thirty years is hinting that your profit-sharing plan probably won't be there either? Are you now suffering with the gritty impression you really have no particular place in this failing society known mostly for its slobbering apotheosis of its own spectacular pursuits, ignoring the risk of losing it all in the wave of someone else's disinterested politics? Are you feeling as off-kilter as you did the first time someone told you didn't matter in the big scheme of things. Well, perhaps your own painful tribulations of spirit are an indication that there is still hope for the rest of us. The startling fact is, you might make our next great leader!
...the very qualities that mark those with mood disorders—realism, empathy, resilience, and creativity—also make for the best leaders in times of crisis. By combining astute analysis of the historical evidence with the latest psychiatric research, Ghaemi demonstrates how these qualities have produced brilliant leadership under the toughest circumstances.
The Confluence, an always informative and witty pro-Hillary support site, has posted a lively essay positing why the oh so boring and unpresidential Barack Obama lacks true leadership skills. Read it all. Don't forget the reader comments.