Time to fire up the blog again and bring it up to date. On the first vacation I've had in 4 years, and having the time of my life! And this is a good a time as any to restart my blogging

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

God's Gift of Unalienable Rights & Article VI of the Constitution:
The Sword & Shield to Stop the Islamization of America
By Publius Huldah Monday, September 20, 2010

This is an encouraging paper, because it explains the moral and constitutional justifications to stop the islamization of our country.

We face a grave threat - the Muslims are infiltrating our country and taking over. We seem powerless to resist: Our governments won’t acknowledge the threat; we are told Muslims have “constitutional rights” to come here, proselytize everywhere, build mosques, and implement shariah in their communities and in the public square; and our governments are letting them do it.

The Muslims seek to replace our Constitution with shariah - theirtotalitarian political, economic, military, social & legal system - with the goal of incorporating our Country into a global Islamic caliphate.
They are making progress in islamicizing our Country because we are not resisting.

And the dreadful message we are getting from all sources is that our Constitution renders us powerless to resist islamization.
But read on, and I will show you how our Constitution & Declaration of Independence - properly understood - actually give our federal, State & local governments justification and authority to stop the islamization of our Country. Once we understand two things, it becomes clear what we may - and must - do:

One : Islam is not a “religion” in the sense we understand religion. Islam is about TOTAL POWER. It is a system which controls every aspect of the lives of those who have the misfortune to be subjected to it. It masquerades as a religion, but once we understand that it is just another totalitarian system - like soviet communism, we can deal with it and defeat it.
Once in place, Islam is enforced with stone-age barbarism. It masquerades as a religion to recruit gullible fools who become suicide bombers, and to provide “cover” for officials in the Western countries who, indoctrinated with the Lies of multiculturalism & political correctness, look for an excuse to do nothing.

Two : We must understand Our Founding Principles - these are our Sword & Shield - that (1) Rights come from God alone, (2) Muslims do not have the right to divest us of our Rights, and (3) the purpose of civil government is to secure the Rights God gave us.

Now let us learn more of our Sword and Shield
.
1. Let us first consider Our Rights. What are our rights, and where do they come from? The Constitution? The First Ten Amendments? NO! The Declaration of Independence says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, ...
Those words are golden: Our Rights come from God Who Created the Universe; and the purpose of civil government is to secure the Rights GOD gave us.

God gave us many Rights: Life! Liberty! Pursuit of Happiness!

To work and enjoy the fruits of our own labors. To earn, inherit and keep private property.

To demand that the civil authorities obey the Law - and to hold them accountable when they don’t.

To have a civil government which protects our God given rights, protects us from invasion and criminals, but gives fair trials to accused persons.

Equal treatment under the law: Courts are not to favor the rich, or the poor, or males or females.

God means for us to enjoy life! Healthy food, wine and strong drink (in moderation); attractive dress for women, the marriage relation between man & woman, prosperity, and liberty!

As long as we obey the criminal laws (don’t murder, steal, bear false witness, and the like), we have the right to be left alone.
Liberty is the rule in God’s Model for civil government. That is why our Liberty Bell quotes Leviticus 25:10 - “Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof.”

2. Do Muslims respect the rights God gave us?

Life? Theirs is a culture of death: murder, honor killings & suicide bombers.
Liberty? Theirs is a culture where women are slaves and prisoners, little girls toys for old men, and conversion to Christianity a capital offense.
Pursuit of Happiness? Theirs is a culture of torture & sadism. Young Muslim girls in America who talked to non-Muslim boys were shot to death by their father in the back seat of his taxicab. Wife-beating is commonplace. Women who don’t cover their hair are lashed. Women are mutilated and maimed on the faces and even in their private places.
Freedom of Speech? Theirs is a culture where criticizing Islam leads to a terrible death.

You can go down the list: For every Right God gave us, the Muslims take it away.
Let’s look at just one God-given right: The Right to a fair trial:
Bearing false witness is condemned. (The Ten Commandments);
The evidence of two or more witnesses is required to prove a case (Deut 19:15 & Matthew 18:16);
Public trials are required (Exodus 18:13); &
Judges are required to be fair, impartial, & without favoritism. (Deut. 1:16-17).


Do Muslims respect this God-given right to a fair trial? NO! In Iran, judges in “morals” cases (adultery) are allowed to make their own subjective determinations that a person is guilty even in the absence of any evidence!

Do Muslims have the “right” to impose in this Country a shariah system which takes away the rights GOD gave us? No! God did not give Muslims the “right” to take away from us, the rights He gave us!

3. We are told Muslims have a “First Amendment right” to build mosques, proselytize, and implement shariah here. But is that what the First Amendment says? No! Let’s read it:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment doesn’t grant any rights to anybody! All it does is prohibit CONGRESS from making laws about religion, speech, the press, or assembly!
So Muslims do not have a “First Amendment right” to build mosques, proselytize, and implement shariah here.

4. Not only do Muslims claim the “right” to impose shariah in the Muslim communities springing up throughout our Country, they also claim the “right” to impose shariah law in the public square: They demand shariah compliant financial institutions, foot baths in public places, that wine, sausages, and the like be banned from their presence, that they be allowed to shut down public streets for “prayers”, etc.
Do Muslims have the “right” to apply their law here? No! Art. VI, clause 2 of Our Constitution says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
OUR Constitution and laws authorized by OUR Constitution are the supreme law of this land - and anything to the contrary must fall. It violates Our Constitution for Muslims to practice shariah here! Muslims who thus seek to overthrow Our Constitution and replace it with shariah are guilty of criminal sedition. The federal government has the duty to prosecute them for sedition - or deport them.

5. Can the federal or state or local governments properly extend to Muslims a “right” to build mosques & proselytize here? No! Because The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of civil government is to secure the rights GOD gave us. Muslims seek to take away our God-given Rights. Civil government is supposed to protect us from those who seek to divest us of our Rights.
We must insist that our federal, State, and local governments STOP the islamization of Our Country. We must insist that they live up to the one legitimate purpose of civil government: to protect our GOD-given rights

6. WE are a Christian Country based on Judeo - Christian principles. Our Constitution is not a suicide pact. It does not require us to permit Muslims to take Our Country over and destroy Our principles and impose their barbaric totalitarian system on us.
The Declaration of Independence recognizes God as Creator, supreme Judge and Regulator of the World, and as our Divine Protector.
Article VII of Our Constitution, just above the signatures, recognizes the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It says,
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven ...

7. So! Let us summarize the above three Principles:

(1) Our Rights come from God - they predate & preexist the constitution. our constitution doesn’t give “rights” to anybody. so muslims don’t have “constitutional rights” to come here, build mosques, proselytize, and impose shariah.
(2) all the Evidence shows that Muslims take away from People the Rights God gave them. Since Our Declaration of Independence acknowledges that the purpose of civil governments is to secure the Rights GOD gave us, it is the duty and responsibility of civil governments at all levels to protect us from islamization.
(3) Article VI, clause 2, U.S. Constitution - the “Supremacy clause” - makes it unconstitutional for Muslims to practice shariah law ANYWHERE in Our Country.




8. The Center for Security Policy recently issued a scholarly (but readable) report: “Shariah: The Threat to America” . Important suggested policy changes are listed on pages 141-144. Tell your tea party groups! Take delegations to your local, state, and federal representatives and tell them about it. Most of them are weak & ignorant, so you must educate them and demand that they do their job and defend your community from islamization.

9. Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders lists ten steps western countries must take to stop the islamization of their countries. All ten steps are mandated by our Declaration of Independence, and consistent with our Constitution:

(1) Stop cultural relativism: We must formalize the Idea that we have one dominant culture that is based on Judaism & Christianity [Wilders adds “humanism”].
(2) Stop pretending that Islam is a religion.
(3) Show the true face of fundamentalist Islam. It is a brutal totalitarian ideology.
(4) Stop all immigration from Muslim countries. For Muslims who are already citizens, tell them that if they adhere to our values and our Constitution, they may stay as equals. But if they deviate, we will expel them.
(5) Outlaw shariah and deport practitioners.
(6) Require Muslims to sign legally binding pledge of integration and allegiance.
(7) Stop building mosques.
(8) Seek reciprocity with Saudi Arabia for western churches & synagogues.
(9) Close all Islamic schools - they are fascist institutions teaching hate.
(10) Remove our current weak leaders.



It is time to boldly stand up for Our God, OUR Declaration of Independence, and Our Constitution, and say, “No!” to those who are taking over Our Country. It is time to use Our God-given unalienable Rights and Our Constitution as the Sword & Shield they are meant to be. We can and must use these to defeat Islamization. PH


Publius Huldah is a retired lawyer who lives in Tennessee USA. She writes on the U.S. Constitution and posts her papers at publiushuldah.wordpress.com Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge). Using primarily The Federalist Papers, which were written during 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay, in order to explain the proposed Constitution to the American People and induce them to ratify it, Publius Huldah explains the true & original meaning of the U.S. Constitution. She also shows how modern day judges on the U.S. federal courts have completely abandoned the U.S. Constitution and have substituted their own personal views and opinions for The Constitution.

Sep. 16 2010 - 11:16 am | 2,064 views | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
The Obamorons Strike Back
By DINESH D'SOUZA

During the 2008 election campaign I coined the phrase “Obamorons” to describe the uncritical cheerleaders of Obama–the people who would leap to his defense even if he drove a truck over his aged grandmother. Love-stricken TV host Chris Matthews comes to mind, complete with thrills running up his leg, as does English major Maureen Dowd, lifestyle columnist for the New York Times. The Times itself is a leading Obamoron outlet.

Well, the Obamorons are now in a mad fury, and this time the culprit is my cover story in the September 27 issue of Forbes. The story is adapted from my new book The Roots of Obama’s Rage. Let me just say that if the Forbes article so upset these guys, wait until the book comes out. It may prove extremely difficult for the Obamorons to digest; perhaps it will have to be administered as a suppository.

Leading the Obamoron charge this time was White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. Gibbs was reacting to Newt Gingrich’s comment that my article offered the most “stunningly insightful” analysis of Obama that he had read in six years. Gingrich’s reference to “Kenyan anti-colonialism” raised Gibbs’ ire. Gibbs said he had “no idea” what Gingrich was talking about. He should have stopped there: if you have no idea what someone is talking about, it’s a good idea to shut up. But Gibbs went on to link Gingrich and me with the birther thesis: the charge that Obama was not born in the United States.

This is a complete distortion of my argument. Anyone who read the Forbes article could see that it had nothing to do with the birther allegation. In The Roots of Obama’s Rage I explicitly say that Obama was born in Hawaii, as evidenced by the fact that two local newspapers noted his birth in August 1961. Clearly Gibbs had not read the article he was commenting on. Again, the man should have stayed quiet–unless, of course, he was told to strike back by the subject of the article.

Gibbs fired a second salvo a few days later, asking, “Why didn’t Forbes hire a fact checker…did they simply not care about the facts?” Gibbs offered no facts of his own, however. He merely linked to two web posts–one in the Columbia Journalism Review, one on “The Fourth Branch”–that disputed the article. The Columbia Journalism Review piece was high on invective (“the worst kind of smear journalism–a singularly disgusting work,” blah blah blah) but simply quoted large segments of the article as if they were self-evidently appalling–which of course they are to all confirmed Obamorons, who are only satisfied with hosannas and genuflections before the Anoined One.

“The Fourth Branch” accused me of raising the “prism of race,” in short, of playing the race card. Again, this is totally bogus. I explicitly say in my article that Obama is not motivated by race–that race has nothing to do with this. In the book I develop this much further, showing that a big reason for our confusion about Obama is that we are always trying to to fit him into American history. In the process we ignore Obama’s own history. I realize that anti-colonialism is an unfamiliar notion to many Americans, but it is a very familiar concept in Kenya, where Obama’s father was born, and also in India, where I was born. This is about Third World anti-colonialism; it is not about race.

For me the most unkindest cut of all was when Maureen Dowd in yesterday’s New York Times accused Gingrich and me of low intellectual standards. “This is what passes for intellectualism on the right?” Here is Maureen Dowd’s idea of intellectualism: to dub me “Ann Coulter in pants.” But what do you expect from a Catholic University English major who specializes in little sarcasms devoid of mental content? I feel silly spelling out my credentials, but I did graduate Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth, I did serve as senior domestic policy analyst in the White House, I was the Olin Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, I also was the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and I am currently the president of the King’s College in New York City. (Check it out: www.tkc.edu) So compared to Dowd, I am a veritable Einstein!

My article did contain one minor, inconsequential error: I noted that Obama spent the first 17 years of his life off the American mainland, and that’s true: Obama spent those years in Hawaii and Indonesia. But I said he visited Pakistan during this time, while in fact his Pakistan trip was a couple of years later, when he was a student at Occidental College.

Some critics have noted that my reference to the Obama administration’s subsidy for the Brazilian drilling company Petrobras was unfair, given that the decision to provide loan guarantees was made in part by Bush appointees to the Export-Import Bank. This is an argumentum ad ignorantium–an argument that relies on the ignorance of the audience. If you don’t know how the government works, you are likely to be taken in by it. But those of us who have worked in the federal government know that many agencies have left-over appointees from previous administrations. Still, when a new administration takes over, it is the new administration that is responsible and has the final say over what these agencies do. The Obama administration signed off on the loans to Petrobras, and obviously it bears final responsibility for those loans. This was precisely the point of the Wall Street Journal article I cited: to ask why the Obama administration wants more oil drilling in Brazil but less in the United States. “Environmentalism” doesn’t explain this double-standard, but anti-colonialism does.

Yesterday I did Glenn Beck’s radio show for an hour, and the book–which will be out in a couple of weeks–rocketed to the top 5 on the amazon bestseller list. There is a lot more to come. So why did the article previewing the book so enrage the White House and the Obamorons? Because it provides a belated but desperately-needed explanatory framework for Obama. Finally we have a key that actually opens the lock. No, Obama is not a Muslim. No, Obama is not a socialist. The truth is far worse.