Sunday, December 29, 2013

C.A.I.R. As Criminal Organization

The "Council on American Islamic Relations" was an "Unindicted Co-Conspirator" in the anti-terrorism Federal court case (United States v. Holy Land Foundation, et. al.; Cr. No. 3:04-240-P; N.D.TX.). This designation was sustained in spite of appeals and challenges by CAIR.

The basic defendants were found guilty as to over 100-counts.

Recent news clearly demonstrates that CAIR continues its Jihad against our Constitution's provisions for the protection of free speech and the "free exercise of religion" by all citizens.

Thursday, December 26, 2013

Mentally Ill, Guns & Constitutional Rights To Due Process

I am becoming more-and-more disturbed  about the far too many politicians, news commentators/reporters, those opposed to the fullest exercise of Second Amendment rights and others of that ilk who loosely  substitute the terms  "mentally ill"  OR "emotionally disturbed", for the more accurate term "dangerous mentally ill" as to those who should not be allowed to obtain firearms.

It is fit-and-proper and legally/constitutionally-sound  that someone should be declared "Dangerously Mentally Ill" only after a fact-based and contested hearing before a judge-and-jury, in accordance with our 1000 year old system of laws and our Constitution. Why? Because to tag any citizen as being "dangerously mentally ill" takes from such citizens as many civil and political rights as a conviction of a felony---And, deserves the same legal protections.  

At this time there are too many government units (eg -- The FBI) who will accept the unverified and non-judicial comments of some (Anonymous?) Psychologist/Psychiatrist/Other-persons as sufficient "Proof" to deprive citizens of a basic civil right.  Even super-sane me (If, and only if,  you accept my self-diagnosis)  once consulted a psychologist, with my wife, to iron out some marital problems---Which smoothing did occur. .

 Should I or some child with home/school problems who sees a school psychologist or some active-duty member of the Armed Forces/Veteran for whom war/other-problems has resulted in s/he seeking counseling, and other like and law-abiding citizens be deprived of a basic civil right without "due process of law"? [I believe we have another, of too many  Federal Laws which provides for both criminal and civil prosecution for "Deprivation of Civil Rights Under Color Of Law" which should deal with and punish those who would do so to those who are not dangerously mentally ill.

The FBI has reportedly placed entire groups of innocent military veterans on the "no buy"  list and that without "due process of law".

April, 2013 Note:  the New York State Police are seizing guns from citizens who are lawfully taking anti-depression medications without any prior “due process of law”. After the death of my beloved wife I took such “meds” for a short time which, in NY, would have led to my being deprived of my rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution before  my other rights were violated.

Sunday, December 08, 2013

My Confesson Of Racial "Prejudice"

Yes, I do hold some "prejudices" about Blacks!
       I am prejudiced in favor of such Blacks as: Professor Thomas Sowell (A 'high school dropout"); Secretary-of-State and Professor Condoleezza Rice (Whose parents were Black school teachers in the South when such persons were not well paid or regarded); Mathematician and business leader Herman Cain; Dr. Benjamin S. Carson; Lt. Col. and Congressman Alan West (A combat hero who destroyed his military career by protecting "his troops"); Mr. Justice Thomas (Who was born in a "Deep South" town without paved roads and without a sewage system to a "farm worker" father and a mother who was a "domestic"); The Great Christian Nelson Mandela; Such less known co-workers of mine as Ralph Jefferson, Jim Foote and Mr. & Mrs. Lionel James; And some personal friends (One of whom was my house guest for over a month). I even favor Mr. Juan Williams, even though he holds many positions very much opposed to mine and attempts to "defend the indefensible" ("Obamacare").
       The central characteristic of those most-excellent persons is that they (By self-disciplined efforts) contribute much, much, more to our nation (And their race) than they take out in very hard-earned rewards.
       I am prejudiced against: Those Blacks (eg Jessie Jackson, Cornel West, Al Sharpton, Julian Bond, Jeremiah Wright, Leonard Pitts) who poof up their incomes and over-developed senses of self-worth by stirring up what remains of racial distrust in the USA; Those Blacks (eg Eric Holder and B. H. Obama) who are very active in attacking the provisions of the Bill Of Rights and the basic structure (ie Separation Of Powers) of our Republic;  Those Blacks who support Islam (Either as members of the "Nation Of Islam" or more orthodox groups) which is aimed at the destruction of democracy and real civilizations and which support is Treason as defined in Article-III, Section-3 of the Constitution; Those parasites  who maintain the "rap" and "hip-hop" sub-culture, which glorifies abuse of women, murder and other horrors;  Such outright thugs and criminals as Cystral Mangum, Tawana Brawley,  Trayvon Martin, those who "play the knock out game"; And, others well known to you.
       The central characteristic of those horrid persons is that they take, by overt crimes or more indirect means, from other people and give so little (If anything), as includes the reputation of other Black

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

On Lawyers

Attorneys & GNP

It appears that the usually billed "services" of attorneys are included in the USA 's Gross National Product along with those of dentists, physicians, landscapers and other independent craftsmen, legitimate massage therapists , and other like persons.

But, what do attorneys produce? Oh, there are some who defend the innocent, prosecute the guilty, insure a fair criminal or civil trial, arrange for the proper distribution of the property of those who have died and, sometimes, bring people closer together than otherwise.

But, too many (Most?) of attorneys in the USA feed off the overly complex laws and government regulations inflicted on the People; Laws-and-rules that they, for the most part, created by lawyers as members of the Congress and other legislative bodies, as well as the administrative agencies that they dominate. Of course, they properly also control the remaining, judicial, branch of government (Although there are other models for oversight of the judicial process.)

We should ask the following questions and reflect on them and the probable answers.
1.. What part of our GNP is "services by attorneys"?
2. How does that compare with today's economic powerhouses of Japan , India and the People's Republic of China ?
3. How many words of laws and regulations are in-effect and put-into-effect in the USA each year VS. those other nations?
4. Would the People of the USA be better off if Attorneys were barred, by Amending our Constitution, from being Members of the Congress? (And allowing the Several States to do the same for their Legislatures?)

Farmers, Assembly Workers, Whores & Lawyers

Farmers produce the food we need and some we only want; Assembly workers produce our autos (Buy American!) and the many other things we need and want; Medical staff output is less concrete, but healing is both needed and useful; Hotel workers (Hire ONLY citizens and legal immigrants!) do useful work in meeting our needs; Even whores provide a service (And STDs!) which some appear to want---If not need.

For the most part, what do attorneys "produce"? Well, as legislators (Most such are attorneys) they produce laws---Which they are hired to interpret as judges, consultants, etc.. In some way they help maintain paper industries; But, their "production" can not be eaten or used to shelter us from the elements or provide joy-or-pleasure (Who, other than some very greedy people, ever gets such from attorneys?).

Oh yes---Some maintain that lawyers protect the innocent and defend the rights of all (In many cases threatened only by the actions of other attorneys). Yet, what part of this nation's wealth is used for such laudable causes and what in self-serving "lawyer business", the generation of fees for illusions being the primary thrust of too many (Most?) law firms.

It might be well to reflect on the fact that attorneys rule (And, misrule by tyranny) our courts, dominate our legislative bodies and are well on the way to controlling, by overly complex laws and regulations, our governments' executive branches.

In fact, you might ask what part of our GNP is actually the empty production of law firms as opposed to such very advanced (And "under attorneyed") nations as Japan or the newest, 5,000 pound gorilla in the world's economy, the “Peoples Republic Of China”?

As for myself and whenever all other factors are more-or-less equal, I always vote for a non-attorney VS. a lawyer. I encourage all to do the same!

For the good of the nation, we should really pass US and State constitutional amendments which would (Five-years after passage) forbid any attorney from being a member of the Congress or State Legislatures.

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Give Respect To Mohammed--Islam's Ideal & Model Man

We should join Muslims in honoring Mohammed (rihf), Islam's ideal and model man!

After all, he was a murderer, bandit, liar and treaty-breaker and, among other things, the perverted sexual abuser of a nine-year-young girl-child.

Ideal Model For/Of Homosexual Lobby

The ideal for/of the "homosexual lobby" IS a: Hispanic surnamed, Black, Lesbian/Bi-Sexual, sex-changed, "female", who physically attacks meat eaters, substance abusing, dishonorably discharged military vet, parolee, with one leg, a glass eye, a very repulsive skin disease and bad breath, who is now unemployed after being fired from "her" prior position as a Priestess within a San Francisco Satan-Worshiping congregation for being "too evil"and was previously expelled by the University Of California-Berkeley (Political Science Major) AND from all local political organizations and Mosques for being "too radically leftist" or too violent

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Gun Buy Back Programs

There have been a number of “Gun Buy Back” programs sponsored by various churches and government units.

There is no evidence based on such research as is “reliable and valid” and with a “high level of confidence” (If, and only if, you do not know the meaning of those term, look them up!) that would support any position that such programs reduce the criminal misuse of guns.

There are some “hints” that some have sold “junk guns” to obtain money to obtain modern firearms. Since such “buy back programs” do not ask for ID, there is no way to determine if any of those sellers were or become such criminal mis-users.

The question also arises: “Are the gun buyers in violation of those laws, regulations and rules which must be obeyed by gun stores?”.

Monday, October 28, 2013

From A "Right Wing Gun Nut"

Commentary from Paul R. Beane on KFYO radio on 1/24/2013:

Good afternoon, I'm Paul R. Beane and I'm your right wing gun nut.

You know me and fellow gun owners are responsible for all the carnage in our streets and our schools.
Never mind that Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my entire collection of firearms; Most of which I have owned since childhood when I saved my pennies and nickels in order to purchase them and each and everyone is in perfect working order.
It is the responsible gun owners of today that are being blamed for all the shootings.

Obama calls us the right wing gun nuts, clinging to our guns and to our religion.
But lets take a little closer look. The Fort Hood shooter, a Muslim, and a registered Democrat.
The Virginia Tech shooter, he wrote hate mail to George Bush and his staff and was a registered Democrat.
The Aurora Colorado theater shooter was a staff worker on the Obama campaign and took part in Occupy Wall Street .
He was a progressive liberal and guess what? A registered Democrat.
The Newtown , CT (nb Sandy Hook School) shooter hated Christians and was a registered Democrat.
The Columbine high school shooters were too young to vote,
but both of their families were progressive liberals and registeredDemocrats.
And one more thing:
Not a single one of these killers were members of the National Rifle Association.
So I have got it figured out how to make this country much safer;
leave the guns alone and lock up all the Democrats.

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Truth, Fiction, Jefferson & The Separation Clause

         "Him and his wall of separation between church and state---such claptrap! Such a wall serves only those who want to keep God on the far side of it, so they can divide up the nation without interference." . . . "Mark my words, when a government pretends that it is the highest judge of its own actions, the results is not freedom as  Jefferson says, but chaos and oppression.  When he shuts religion out of government, when men of faith are not listened to, then all that remains is venality, posturing and ambition." (A).
        The quote provided above are from a work of fiction (A). It is a criticism of President Thomas Jefferson's views on his proposal for a  wall of separation between church and state as expressed in a private letter to one religious congregation.  Although Mr. Jefferson's views on citizens, liberty and arms agreed with those expressed by other "Founding Fathers" (B), that separation view was very different from such examples provided by George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation (C) and President John Adams (D on religion .
         An honest review of the History of the First Amendment provides evidence that it was intended to limit only the new national government from establishing such as State Religion as was: The Church of England in England; The "Kirk" in Scotland; The Lutheran Church is much of Europe; The Catholic Church in the balance of Western Europe; The Orthodox Churches in most of Eastern Europe, where the State Religion of Islam did not prevail, Etc.The basic proof for that position is that some of the original States maintained "official churches", in fact and in law, to as late as 1833 (E). 

       Some very famous and insightful persons (F, G & H) have noted the value of fiction (Lies?) to bring out the truth.
       One fact that is stranger than fiction is that the Supreme Court Of The United States allowed the modern mis-interpretation  of the "Separation Clause" to be written by a once active member of the KKK and special hater of the Western branch of the oldest Christian Church.
       Of course, SCOTUS has, from time-to-time, been dominated by those high priests  who like other Hierarchs, Ayatollahs and the like wish to destroy all true religions to make the Law the USA's "State

      The honest and studious citizen might reflect on some of the changes since Mr. Justice Black issued his infamous decision:  Effective destruction of the letter and spirit of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and diminishing of Federalism; A steady and accelerating set of attacks on the other provisions of the Bill Of Rights (Especially Articles I, II, IV, V &VI), A steady movement from reasoned liberty, to "license" to full blown perversions; A concentration of power in the Federal Executive including rule by Executive Orders and Administrative Rules rather that Acts Of Congress and the massive arming of civilian bureaucrats much more loyal to their political bosses than the still traditional loyalty of those in our Armed Forces to the Constitution.   Perhaps, the solution lies in Thomas Jefferson's better views on arms and the People (B).      

NOTE BENE:   Those who receive this by US Mail AND are not afraid of truth, can obtain access to these notes by sending me an email request for a return transmittal. Upon mine honor I will erase their email addresses upon such transmission.

A. Card, Orson Scott; Alvin Wandering: The Tales Of Alvan Maker IV & V; Tor Books (With  Tom Doherty Associates, Inc.); New York; 1995.
Post: GunsFoundeingFathersRevised
C. George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation    

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (President John Adams)
"Establishment survived in New England well into the nineteenth century. Disestablishment came to Connecticut in 1818, but not until 1833 in Massachusetts. New Hampshire enacted a toleration act in 1819, but authorization for towns to support Protestant ministers remained on the books, unenforced, for the rest of the century."
F. “Its no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense”. (Mark Twain)
G. Fiction reveals truth that reality obscures.” (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
H. Fiction is the lie through which we tell the truth”. (Albert Camus)
I.  Post: Our Real State Religion


Friday, September 27, 2013

Islamic View On Treaties

Abu Tariq
Posted by Islamic Revival at Friday, February 23, 2007

Treaties in Islam

The following is a useful article written by a brother some time ago. It is especially relavent now due to the ongoing peace process in order to legitimise the illegal Israeli state.

In 1979, the Egyptian regime signed a peace treaty with Israel. In 1993, the Palestine Liberation Organization signed an interim peace treaty with Israel. A year later following these pacts, Jordan’s monarch signed a peace treaty with Israel. A peace treaty between the Syrian, Lebanese, and Israeli regimes is imminent and will be signed some time this year. These are events that carry deep ramifications for the Muslim Ummah. The Muslims need to take a stand against the regimes forging these treaties. This stand must be based on a comprehension of the Hukm Shar’ii (Islamic verdict) regarding peace treaties, especially those signed with Israel. Similarly, our feelings towards these treaties (whether to like or dislike, disapprove or approve) should be established upon this verdict.

Rasoolillah (saaw) said: “Whoever is pleased with the good is like the one who does it. Whoever is pleased with the evil is like the one who does it.”

This ruling should serve as the basis for our actions regarding these treaties. Rasoolillah (saaw) said: “He who witnesses an evil should change it by his hand. If he cannot, he should change it by his tongue. If he cannot, he should change it by his heart.”

To derive the ruling of Islam on peace treaties with Israel, an overview of Islam’s System for International Treaties is presented and within that framework the ruling on peace treaties is explained.

The legal code of Islam, the Shari’ah, considers international treaties to be a special section of contracts since they are nothing but a contractual agreement between two or more states that regulates some aspects of their relations. Therefore, for the most part, the standard regulation of contracts apply to international treaties. The texts of the Qur’an & Sunnah proves that Islam permits the establishment of international treaties. Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an:

"If they incline to cease fighting, accept that from them and put your faith in Allah." [Al Anfal 8, 61]

If they (Muslims outside the Islamic State) seek your support, then lend them your support, save against those nations you have a treaty with. [Al Anfal 8, 72]

Treaties have to satisfy specific legal conditions for them to be considered valid. There are three kinds of conditions:

A) The key components of the treaty (the absence of any of these conditions renders the treaty null and void as is the case in any regular contract):

1 - The parties to the treaty (two or more states).
2 - The subject matter of the treaty
(regulation of commerce, cease-fire).
3 - The text of the treaty.
(e.g., in the treaty of Hudaybiah, the parties to the treaty were the Islamic state and the state of Quraysh; the subject matter was a cease-fire for 10 years etc.; and the text was ratified by the statement: “This is what Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah agreed upon with Suheil bin Amir... etc.”).

Thus, a treaty where the subject matter does not exist at the time of ratifying it is void, e.g. a treaty to regulate commercial travel in space shuttles.

B) The primary conditions of the treaty (the absence of any of these conditions nullifies the treaty):

1 - The parties to the agreement should have the authority to resolve and regulate the subject matter of the treaty. Therefore, the Islamic state cannot agree with another state to annex a region unless that state controlled the region under consideration. An unauthorized individual cannot enter a treaty on behalf of his state (e.g., ‘Arafat and his PLO were not authorized to represent the Ummah or enter a treaty with Israel. Whatever they agreed upon is null & void)

2 - The agreement should be the result of free will, untainted with cheating (e.g., false maps) or duress. The only exception to that is cease-fire agreements which by definition contain an element of duress but are valid nevertheless.

3 - The subject matter of the treaty must be existent and legal. It is Haram to regulate the trade of a Haram matter (e.g. Khamr). In the case at hand, ‘Arafat’s peace treaty with Israel, which includes acceptance of its sovereignty over parts of Palestine is void since its subject matter is Haram.

Allah says: “And evict them from wherever they have evicted you.” [Al Baqarah 2, 191]

4 - Other primary conditions of regular contracts such as the existence of a mutual and simultaneous agreement to the treaty.

C) The secondary conditions of the treaty (the absence of any of these conditions can but does not necessarily void the treaty):

1 - No treaty can be established with another state which is in a state of war with the Muslims, other than a cease-fire treaty, since a treaty implies the sanctity of life and property of the state’s (the state that the Khilafah is in war with) citizens, a contradiction to the laws of war that would be in effect. However, following the materialization of a cease-fire treaty, other kinds of treaties can be established with that state.

2 - A new treaty cannot contradict an already established treaty. The state has a duty to honor its obligations under existing treaties. Entering new treaties which undermine existing treaties would constitute reneging on an obligation, which is Haram. Allah says:

“And honor your obligations towards Me, so I would honor my obligations towards you, and fear none but Me.” [Al Baqarah 2, 40]

and, “O you who believe, honor your contracts.” [Al Ma’idah 5, 1]

Any such treaty is void. Applying that to the peace treaties poses a new problem. When the Islamic State under ‘Umar bin Al Khattab conquered Al Quds it gave a commitment, upon their request, to the original inhabitants to prohibit the Jews from residing in Al Quds. Therefore, any treaty allowing the Jews to reside there (the PLO’s treaty grants them a right to the western part of Al Quds de jure) would be null and void.

3 - The text of the treaty must be detailed enough to alleviate any anticipated disagreements on the subject matter. Therefore, treaties cannot be equivocal. Allah says:

“Do not use your oaths as a way to deceive each other.” [An Nahl 16, 94]

This does not mean that the state is allowed to engage in maneuvering. The state can maneuver but must not use bogus treaties as a tool in these maneuvers.

4 - The treaty should satisfy a specific objective in the state’s foreign policy. It should advance the goal of Islam’s foreign policy: Carrying the Islamic Da’wah. While this can be a subjective call, the Ummah has the right to take the Khalifah to task in demonstrating how a treaty satisfies this condition. If the treaty is not designed to meet foreign policy goals, the treaty is annulled. The peace treaties do not achieve in any conceivable way these objectives. The objective of attaining the goals of Da’wah is not present in a treaty that protects the borders of Israel, subdues the people in and around Palestine and guarantees the integration of Israel in the region as these treaties stipulate.

5 - The treaty cannot include any illegal terms. Rasoolillah (saaw) says: “The Muslims abide by their conditions except for a condition that makes an illegal issue legal or makes a legal issue illegal.” [reported by Tirmidhi in his Sunan]. Should Muslims accept such a condition under duress, they have to renounce it as soon as they can. Otherwise, the condition is disregarded but the rest of the treaty remains in force.

6 - Treaties should be written in Arabic as it is the state’s medium of expression, instruction, & correspondence. Rasoolillah (saaw) used Arabic in his letters to other heads of states who were not versed in Arabic. The fact that he (saaw) did so, while there was a need to use other languages, proves that the Arabic language is the state’s language and must be used in the conduct of official state business. Violating this condition does not void the treaty, since it has no bearing on the textual substance & objectives of the treaty per se, but it is Haram for those individuals responsible for the violation. This condition can only be waived under imperative situations.

In addition, the treaty must have a time limit. Tabari reports the consensus of scholars on this matter in his book “Al Jihad” page 14. Permanent treaties and semi-permanent treaties (treaties for exceedingly long time intervals, e.g. 99 years) are Haram.

Allah says: “Allah and his Messenger (saaw) renounce those Mushrikeen you had treaties with. So (grant them) a four-month grace period.” [At Tawbah, 1, 2]

This was in reference to those Kafireen with whom the Muslims had open-ended treaties. This verse nullifies these kinds of treaties. Furthermore, the lack of a specific time frame for a treaty rules out the conduct of Jihad in the territory covered by this treaty. However, Rasoolillah (saaw) said: “Jihad continues until the Day Of Judgment.” For example, the cease-fire and peace treaties with Israel are illegal since they are not bound by a time limit.

Based on this overview, it can be seen that Islam defines an international treaty as a temporary agreement between the Islamic state and other states to regulate a lawful aspect of their relations. The Shari’ah explicates the principles and conditions applicable to this relationship. The Islamic state can freely enter a cease-fire, good neighbor, non-aggression, and neutrality treaties with other states. Rasoolillah (saaw) had a cease fire treaty with the Quraysh state; a good neighbor treaty with the Jewish statelets around Madinah; non-aggression treaties with several entities such as the city-state of Eylah; and a neutrality treaty with Bani Dumerah.
The following are some treaties that are Haram and the Muslims cannot be privy to or part of them and should any of they are automatically null and void.

1 - Treaties establishing permanent borders for the Islamic state. These treaties either allow for the existence of more than one Muslim state (if Islam is being applied on both sides of the borders) or arrests Jihad (if Kufr and Islam share these borders). Rasoolillah (saaw) said: “If two Khalifahs are given allegiance then kill the second of them.” [Muslim, section of ‘Imarah].Therefore, the Muslims cannot have more than one ruler and one state. On the other hand, Allah says: “Fight those Kafireen who reside on your borders.” No ideology can recognize borders. An ideology is dynamic in its existence, as opposed to static, & it either expands or shrinks.

2 - Military alliances.

3 - Treaties on leasing or giving access to naval ports, air force bases and military roads to Kafir armies. Allah says: “Allah will not grant the Kuffar authority over Muslims.” Such treaties give the Kuffar authority over Muslim lands and a share of authority over Muslims themselves. This is the new face of colonialism.

4 - All the current peace treaties with Israel. This is so for the following reasons:
i) These treaties are being conducted by individuals who are not legal representatives of the Ummah and thus their actions in enacting these treaties are null;
ii) The treaties have a Haram subject (recognizing the usurpation of Muslim lands and accepting the eviction of Muslims from their lands).
iii) These treaties are supposed to mark a definitive end to war & they have no time limit. While an open-ended cease-fire is Haram, these treaties amount to more than that, such as their clauses on normalization of relations with Israel.
iv) The treaties are an oppressively clear infringement upon the rights and interests of Muslims. They also run against the interests of Islam and the goals of the foreign policy in Islam.
v) In particular, ‘Arafat’s treaty contradicts the ‘Umari treaty on Al Quds, a standing treaty which the Muslims must honor & which is currently being trampled on. It is Haram to accept, approve or be pleased with these treaties.
The Muslims should present the Islamic point of view in this regard. The Muslim Ummah should follow the events and establish opinions based on the Islamic texts.