The Good Shepherd Jesus VS. The Wolves

Jesus the Christ very firmly declared that He was the "Good Shepherd". What then does such a person do when wolves attack to take away or kill the sheep, lambs and (Like myself) "old goats" of his flock? Why, any good shepherd will use his rod and staff (Both weapons!) or, like the Psalmist David some other weapon (eg A projectile weapon called the sling) to drive away or, better yet to prevent future predation, kill the wolves. The good shepherd will realize that it is useless to "reach out" to wolves or to forgive them as they remain what they are and that without mercy or consideration of the rights of the shepherd or his charges NOR any willingness to reform even if "forgiven". Jesus described himself as such to a People who knew exactly what a "Good Shepherd" would do when His flock was attacked.

Today, those wolves who attack Jesus' flocks are usually: Those who obey the horrid teachings of the false prophet Mohammed; Aggressive "secular humanists" (ie Atheists) who use the force (Too often of civil law) to inflict their goals upon Christians and other believers; And, that especially rabid sub-group, those who perform elective abortions and those who support them.

Those of us who are willing to be "Assistant Good Shepherds" (Or even sheep/guard dogs) in the defense of the flocks of innocents should recall what good shepherds do as to predatory wolves! Attack and destroy!

Shall Not Be Infringed"

Very rarely I reproduce an entire blog entry of another person. I made this exception as the present and future (eg Supreme Court Nominations) will often be focused on the Second Amendment and its "shall not be infringed" clause which is one of the two/three most severe limits to governments in our Constitution and in The Bill Of Rights.

                                Helpfully yours,

                                                 James Pawlak

David E. Young

Autobiographical Statement Constitutional scholar and recognized authority on Founding Era Second Amendment developmental history and documents. Author of The American Revolutionary Era Origin of the Second Amendment's Clauses, published in the Journal on Firearms & Public Policy (2011). Editor of The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government and an Armed Populace 1787-1792, which was cited over one hundred times in the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals US v Emerson decision and six times in the U.S. Supreme Court's recent District of Columbia v Hellerdecision. Author of The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms: A Definitive History of the Second Amendment, the first period documented book length treatment of the Second Amendment.

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2009

The Meaning of 'Shall Not Be Infringed'

UPDATED Monday, October 19, 2015

As a result of Second Amendment dispute, it has been suggested that to infringe relative to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms means only to completely destroy the right, and that extensive "reasonable" regulations are legitimate and do not infringe the right. As an example, it has been claimed that a complete ban on certain types of firearms is a “reasonable” regulation and would not violate the "shall not be infringed" restrictive language. A contrary understanding is that infringe means to encroach upon or narrow the right in any way and that the purpose for the "shall not be infringed" language was to prevent regulation of the right.

An excellent method for determining how extensive the Bill of Rights protection based on the verb "infringe" was intended to be in the Founders' view is to rely on historical examples. What can be gleaned from their own use of this term in relation to other Bill of Rights proposals? Here are some of them.
James Madison's Usage
The Second Amendment's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" language is exactly what was proposed as the first clause of the amendment by James Madison on June 8, 1789. In addition to that "infringe" based language, Madison also included this freedom of religion related protection in his Bill of Rights proposals to Congress: “nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” [The Origin of the Second Amendment p.654]Assuming that Madison's intention in preventing religious liberty from being “infringed” was to allow for considerable "reasonable" regulation by the federal government is illogical. In fact, it is clear that the intent of such language was to prevent any interference whatsoever by the government in such matters. The later change to “Congress shall make no laws” language buttresses this period understanding of "infringe" based protection.

Samuel Adams' Usage
Another person who used "infringe" in bill of rights proposals for the Constitution was Samuel Adams in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention. He attempted to protect freedom of the press and religion with this proposal: “that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience”. [OSA p.260] It is unthinkable that such usage by Adams indicated an intention to allow extensive reasonable regulations of freedom of the press and religious beliefs. Instead, such language was certainly intended as the strongest of limits upon government actions, just as in Madison's case with his infringe based restrictive proposals to Congress regarding freedom of religion and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Congressional Amendments Committee Usage
There is other informative period Bill of Rights related use of "shall not be infringed" language often overlooked today due to gun control advocates' historical arguments diverting away from the Second Amendment's actual Bill of Rights history. The Committee of Eleven, to which Madison's proposals were submitted by Congress, accepted his original use of "infringed" relative to freedom of religion as well as his "shall not be infringed" language relative to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Committee also added Madison's original Second Amendment restrictive language ("shall not be infringed") to other First Amendment rights – freedom of speech - freedom of the press - the right of peaceable assembly - the right to apply for redress of grievances. All of these, including Madison's “inviolable” freedom of the press and his right of the people to speak, of which they “shall not be deprived or abridged” [OSA p.654], were re-stated by the Committee as rights that “shall not be infringed”. [OSA p.680] Once again, it does not appear that such period usage indicated the Committee members understood that religious beliefs could be subjected to extensive reasonable regulations, or that they used "shall not be infringed" with the intention that it would condone extensive and reasonable regulation of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of peaceable assembly, the right to apply for redress of grievances, or the right to keep and bear arms.

Interpreting this restrictive "infringe" based language in the manner that some advocates of gun control do for Second Amendment usage removes all meaning of the terminology and completely destroys any protective intent of the provision. Such interpretations leave the intended protected rights to be regulated exactly like any other subject placed under the government's power. Such views of the language completely ignore the developmental history of the Bill of Rights, a history that is remarkably well documented because the need for a U.S. Bill of Rights was publicly and privately discussed for more than two full years prior to Congress' proposal of the U.S. Bill of Rights amendments.
Shall Not Be Infringed - Shall Make No Laws
Another interesting period fact is that the style of restrictive language ultimately used in the First Amendment – "Congress shall make no law" - was previously found mostly in Second Amendment related proposals.
The Pennsylvania Minority supported a proposal that: “no law shall be passed for disarming the people, or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals". [OSA, p.151]

The New Hampshire Ratifying Convention adopted proposals related to the subsequently adopted First and Second Amendments that stated:"XI. Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.
XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion". [OSA, p.446]

The restrictive language of New Hampshire's amendment protecting religious freedom contains not only the very words later used as restrictive language in the First Amendment but also the very strongest of restrictions that is based on the verb "infringe". It is inconceivable that infringe was intended in New Hampshire's religious freedom amendment as intended to allow any regulation whatever.
The Strongest Possible Restrictive Language
First and Second Amendment protections were always given the very strongest possible restrictive language – no law shall be passed – shall make no law – inviolable – not be deprived or abridged – not be restrained - shall not be infringed - nor shall the right be infringed - shall make no laws touching - shall make no laws to infringe. The Second Amendment's “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" language was clearly not intended to allow for extensive reasonable regulation. Rather, it was intended to prevent all laws and regulations that would result in the people being deprived, abridged, restrained, narrowed, or restricted in the exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

"Due Process" In Administrative Hearings

CONSTITUTIONAL “DUE PROCESS”

IN

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES

1. Right to prior notice-of/access-to the: “Charges” against the citizen; Law/rules/regulations alleged to be violated; The names and other identifying information of all witnesses who have provided testimony or other evidence; Documents/physical-evidence as to the “charges”.
2. The right to compel personal testimony of witnesses and to have that testimony given on oath/affirmation (Allowing for criminal or civil punishment for perjury/false-swearing if such is inflicted).
3. The right to a hearing before a neutral hearing examiner.
4. The right to a written decision from that examiner.
5. The right to appeal any such decision to a court-of-law based on the facts, the law and state and federal constitutions.

The above should/must apply to "disciplinary" hearings conducted by universities/colleges!

18-21 Year Old Citizens & Guns

At 78-years I am more than confused than is usual by the following.

1. Those 18-years (***) of age are : Are able to vote; Manage their own financial and personal affairs; If males, are liable to The Draft; Are automatically liable to criminal prosecution (Some at earlier ages) if accused of crimes; And, can enter into and be held responsible-for civil contracts.

2. Yet, they and others under 21-years of age are not allowed to purchase hand-guns or, were otherwise allowed, to obtain a permit/licence to carry concealed weapons.

3. Why do legislators, university officials and other officials AND judges fail to understand that the Founders of our Republic meant exactly what they stated when they included the "Shall Not Be Infringed" clause in the Second Amendment to our nation's Constitution?

4. From where is the legal authority for public university authorities to limit and infringe-upon citizens (***), both under and over 21-years old, full rights under The Bill Of Rights to keep and bear arms on university properties?

5. If some student or other persons disarms themselves in obedience to such public OR private school restrictions and is then murdered or injured for wont of such arms as would otherwise, allow effective-and-immediate self-defense, is that university liable for real (And punitive?) damages? [If a state school, does that "violation of civil rights under color of law" negate any legal protections, under some "Sovereign Immunity" rule",  against such damages?] 

                                                                       

*** Properly excluded from such rights are those who have been found, but only by a court-of-law and only after full "due process-of-law", who: To be felons who lose such rights for such periods-of-time as prescribed by laws; Those found mentally incompetent to manage their affairs; And, specially, those who have been found too dangerously mentally ill to "keep and bear arms".

Post 2016 Election

A VERY SMALL MINORITY OF FASCISTS

The number of “Sour Grapes” losers who deny the validity of the election of Mr. Donald Trump as our next President are only a very small and Fascist minority of those  who are unwilling to submit to the constitutional laws of our Democratic Republic.

They do confirm the wisdom of the Founders which used the allocation of US Senate seats and the Electoral College as a bar to mob rule---As so clearly represented by mobsters who inflicted obscenities when politely-and-publicly asked, “Did you vote?”.

QUESTIONS ON PRESIDENTIAL PARDONS

Can any President pardon a person who has not yet been found guilty of a crime? Can a presidential pardon be issued without identifying the crime(s) pardoned?

"Safe" Nations For Those Leaving USA

These countries currently have no extradition treaty with the United States:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia and

Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, the Central

African Republic, Chad, Mainland China, Comoros, Congo (Kinshasa), Congo (Brazzaville), Djibouti, Equatorial

Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan,

Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Macedonia, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands,

Mauritania, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal,

Niger, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Rwanda, Samoa, São Tomé & Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia,

Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu,

Vatican, Vietnam and Yemen.

Mass Gun Killings & Armed Citizens

As far as there is a definition of a "mass killing", it is: "Mass murder (sometimes interchangeable with "mass destruction") is the act of murdering many people, typically simultaneously or over a relatively short period of time. The FBI defines "mass murder" as murdering four or more persons during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders.

Therefore, when questioning if armed citizens (ie Not regular peace officers) stopping mass killings it should be remembered that:
1. If some armed citizen stops a killer or potential killer before s/he reaches four murders, it is now not credited to such a stopping; And,
2. Many completed mass shooting-killings occur in "No Guns/Other-Weapons Allowed" places where law-abiding citizens (Who might otherwise lawfully carrying weapons) have left them behind.

Some Mayors/Pols Vs. Guns

A.Mayor Ray Nagin takes the dive   

 Posted by David Hardy · 9 July 2014 02:50 PM

      Former New Orleans mayor (and former poster child for Mayors Against Illegal Guns) just got ten years in prison on his corruption conviction.

      The judge "departed downward" from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which would have called for a 15-20 year sentence. A judge can do that, although the government (in this case) can appeal. The prosecutor "compared Nagin's crimes with those of other public officials who drew stiff sentences, including former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (28 years), former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich (14 years) and former Birmingham, Alab., mayor Larry Langford (15 years)." Kilpatrick and Langford were members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Blagojevich was about as antigun as is imaginable

Self-Defense Protocols

When an innocent person believes that s/he is in a clear and present danger of death or great bodily harm from some criminal attacker one or more of the below protocols should be applied.

1. From the FBI---"Two to the chest and one to the head”; OR,
2.  From the SEALS/SAS---"A double tap to the head"; OR,
3. From the "Old Sarge"---"Four inches with the point and twist the blade, REPEAT"; Or,
4. From other sources--- "An intense strike to the temple, spine or "Adam’s Apple" with a heavy cane OR use of the point of a cane or umbrella or “teacher’s pointer” to the throat, groin, eyes or male genitals---Followed by a disabling/killing thrust to the base of the  throat or  skull or spine; Or,
5. Any of the common cuts in kenjitsu.

Best Qualifications For Voting

Rather than raw political knowledge about the transient members of ;the Government, I suggest the following qualification for all citizens under 30-years of age.

A minimum of 20-months of honorable service in the Armed forces of the USA or the US Coast Guard or (In such dangerous places as East Africa, East Los Angeles, Spanish Harlem) equivalent civilian service (Not less than 300-miles from their home-town) as the Peace Corps, Domestic Peace Corps, US Public Health Service, Etc..

It is proper to add adult women who voluntarily birth and successfully raise children in such a manner as supports "The Common Good".

I am also opposed to any person serving as Secretary Of Defense and his/her next two highest level of administrators being allowed to serve without that same and dangerous service.

The voters should consider the prior, dangerous, service of candidates for every elected Federal office.

An Amendment to the Constitution would be required for, at least, the voting restriction above, which might well have a ten year (After ratification) delay to allow citizens to satisfy this requirement. Feminists and real women are AND have been welcome into the noted organizations/services in which duty involves a risk of death or great bodily harm. Twenty-months of "don't ask, don't tell" is not an unreasonable condition.

"Those who would rule should first serve"; A principle generally held by the Western Roman Empire which survived for much, much, longer than the USA has been in existence; If things continue as now, for longer than it will survive.

$400M Of Treason?

SUBJECT: History AND $400M Of "Aid & Comfort To The Enemy"

All should now review some history lessons. On November 4, 1979 terrorist agents of Iran's Ayatollahs invaded the United States by violently occupying our Embassy in that tyrant ruled nation. They also took our Americans stationed there as hostages in gross violation of well established international law (eg As obeyed by the USA even after the December 7, 1941 Japanese sneak attack on Hawaii by safely transporting them out of the USA). Those Americans were freed only after a "Surrender Monkey Democrat" was replaced (On January 20, 1981) by Republican  President Ronald Reagan. 

As far as I know no Iranian, having Islamic or government authority, has ever apologized for those violations of law. As far as I know Iran has not paid reparations to those American victims of Islamist crimes or to our nation.

Since that Islamist takeover, Iran has been waging "undercover war" against the USA---Some by paid and foreign terrorists. Iran remains the enemy of the USA.

After a dispute in an international court, not selected even indirectly by the People of the USA, the Administration of Barrack Hussein Obama shipped (Under cover of darkness and via an unmarked aircraft) $400,000,000 in paper money directly to Iran.  Even some in that Administration admitted that some of those monies might be used to wage acts-of-war.

Giving Iran that huge amount of our money is, most certainly, giving “aid and comfort" to the enemy!

That "giving" is the core-subject of U.S. Code  Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115  § 2381 AND that is based on Article-III, Section-3 of the Constitution (As overrides and nullifies any acts based on treaties OR foreign courts!). 

A formal "Declaration Of War" is not needed to make the above applicable to alleged violators. 

We should wonder if there are any Members (Of either Party) of the House Of Representatives who have the courage and patriotism to apply Article-II, Section-4 of the Constitution to this matter [AND to formally look into what part, if any, Candidate Hillary Clinton (As Secretary Of State or supporter of B. H. Obama) had in this support of the USA's enemy.]

Unalterable & Violent Commands Of Islam

Listed below are a few passages from the Quran that clearly compel Muslims to violence.  

Quran 2:191 “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.”
Quran 3:28   “Muslims must not take the infidels as friends.”
Quran 3:85   “Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.”
Quran 5:33   “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam.”
Quran 8:12   “Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Quran.”
Quran 8:60   “Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.”
Quran 8:65   “The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.”
Quran 9:50   “When opportunity arises kill the infidels where you find them.”
Quran 9:30    "The Jews and Christians are perverts, fight them."
Quran 9:123  “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.”
Quran 22:19  “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies.
Quran 47:4    “Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them.

Paul Ryan's Dangerous Error

Whatever Mr. Paul Ryan's positive positions and effect on The Congress and the Nation may be, he has a very dangerous weakness. That is his very apparent AND declared ignorance of the nature of Islam as much more a criminal-terrorist ideology than a religion. That true Islam is clearly demonstrated by its unalterable-and-core teachings and its infliction of war, rape, murder, genocide, legal bias against "Unbelievers" and the other horrors inflicted by Muslims on all others for 1400-years and to this very day throughout the world.

ISIS is only one of many past, present and future pathological-eruptions of that real Islam.

In his condemning of those who declare the truth about Islam he has joined Barrack Hussein Obama in one of his many plots to weaken, if not destroy, the USA.

Blacks, Keeping-And-Bearing Guns, Travel & History

It is generally agreed that Chief Justice Roger B. Tanney was wrong in declaring that Blacks were not to be declared as citizens with the protections of the Constitution.

However, the news of the last 20-plus years as to too many Blacks and guns might be considered in terms of the following.

• Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) - The court ruled Scott did not enjoy the protection of the Bill of Rights because of his racial background. However, in its ruling, it implies all free men do have the right to bear arms by indicating what would happen if he was indeed afforded full protection:

"It would give to persons of the negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."  (Emphasis added)

We should also note that, at that time, citizens were entitled to "...carry arms wherever they went". 

Climate Change---Some Questions

I have no doubts but that there have been many "Climate Change" cycles, some involving "Global Warming" over the history of our World. The current warm part of the last such warming may be ongoing OR may have been retarding for the last 12-Plus years. I do doubt that human activities have had a meaningful impact on any warming compared to such factors as: Sunspot variations; Changes in the Earth's orbit or angle; Volcanic eruptions; And, other factors beyond human activities. The following questions address that doubt.

1. Are you familiar with the term "1815 And Froze To Death" as refers to a "Mini-Ice Age" as appears to be the effect of one large volcanic eruption? [You might consider the possible-to probable impact (A self-sustaining and full Ice Age) of four-plus such and concurrent eruptions.] 

2. What caused the  "Medieval Warm Period"  as began and continued in a very pre-industrial period?

3. What caused the end of our last, major, Ice Age when there were a only a few thousands of, pre-industrial,humans living?

4. What caused the end of the penultimate Ice Age when there were no humans about our world?

5. Do you have any scientific ["Valid & Reliable", "With A High Level Of Confidence" and independently validated by those "with no ax to grind" (Which excludes those who have inflicted faked data on the world)] as supports any meaningful "Global Warming" directly attributable to human activities?

6. Have you prescribed "solutions" to a medical problem which are based on false premises? 

Muslims & Lying For Jihad

http://www.muslimfact.com/bm/terror-in-the-name-of-islam/islam-permits-lying-to-deceive-unbelievers-and-bri.shtml

Islam Permits Lying to Deceive Unbelievers and Bring World Domination!

Muslims lie when it is in their interest to do so and “Allah” will not hold them accountable for lying when it is beneficial to the cause of Islam. They can lie without any guilt or fear of accountability or retribution. A lie in the defense of Islam is approved even applauded in their “holy” books.

By Don Boys, Ph.D.

al-Taqiyya:
deception; the islamic word for concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies.
It is impossible to understand Islam and Muslims by listening to their protestations against terror and their proclamations of patriotism for America. Usually, it is wise and fair to give people the benefit of the doubt but when it comes to national safety and the future of America, we had better look twice, even thrice at Muslim patriotism. Why? Because Islam permits lying! It is called “Al-taqiyya.” One Muslim said that Al-taqiyya means dissimulation then he expanded it to diplomacy but he should have gone further to deception. Now some Muslims who do not follow the Koran are as faithful Americans as any of us, but the problem is, we cannot know.

Muslims lie not because they are liars by nature but by choice. Systematic lying as a religious policy is deadly, and if our politicians do not understand this, thousands could die.

It seems our President and his advisors are clueless as to the desires, doctrines, and distinctives of Islam. While I feel a little audacious in giving advice to national leaders, it is necessary since no one else is doing it. Muslims lie not because they are liars by nature but by choice. Systematic lying as a religious policy is deadly, and if our politicians do not understand this, thousands could die.
Muslims lie when it is in their interest to do so and “Allah” will not hold them accountable for lying when it is beneficial to the cause of Islam. They can lie without any guilt or fear of accountability or retribution. A lie in the defense of Islam is approved even applauded in their “holy” books.
Muslims are permitted to lie: (1) to save their lives, (2) to reconcile a husband and wife, (3) to persuade a woman into a bedroom and (4) to facilitate one on his journey. Muslims are even permitted to disavow Islam and Mohammed if it is not a genuine heart-felt rejection. Muslims will tell you that concealment of a truth is not an abandonment of that truth if it benefits Islam.
Mohammed gave permission for a follower to lie in order to kill a Jewish poet who had offended Mohammed. I could provide many examples of permissible lying from the Koran and Hadith and will do so when my critics accuse me of hatred and bigotry because of this column. My motives are not important but the truth is. However, many unprincipled people do not consider truth important. It is political correctness that sits on the throne to be worshiped.
Muslims may appear very sincere; in fact, they are sincere, when they lie for their own protection or in the cause of Islam. They have permission to lie. Yes, Christians have also lied but never are they given permission to lie. However, a Muslim has no guilt since the Koran and Hadith permit his deception.

Muslims have no hope for eternal salvation without their good works, so they must keep working to advance Islam. If a few lies will accomplish that goal, then lying is not bad but good. If they can get good publicity for Islam by lying, then lying is acceptable, even desirable.

They will lie to make Islam more attractive to potential converts as they speak of “no compulsion in religion” while all of them know that verse was abrogated by later verses. They will quote verses that speak of tolerance and kindness knowing that those verses were written when Mohammed was desirous of “tolerance and kindness,” but when he climbed into the catbird seat, everything changed and he became a terrorist.
Muslims have no hope for eternal salvation without their good works, so they must keep working to advance Islam. If a few lies will accomplish that goal, then lying is not bad but good. If they can get good publicity for Islam by lying, then lying is acceptable, even desirable. The Muslim is earning his way to heaven by lying to a non-Muslim.
Unlike Christians who are saved once for all by the grace of God through faith in Christ’s propitiatory death, no Muslim knows for sure if his works are good enough for Heaven. The only Muslim who knows for sure that his eternal destiny is secure and he will drop into a delightful garden filled with 72 virgins on soft green cushions is the one who dies while “taking out” unbelievers in Islam.
Most Muslims will not have the “opportunity” to become a martyr in this war between Islam and the rest of the world and make no mistake every true Muslim must be involved in making America (or the nation where he lives) a Muslim nation. Since Muslims are limited in their ability to die for the cause, they can help the cause by supporting terrorists with money, succor, and cover. Sure, they are aiding terror against the U.S. but since they believe they are doing Allah’s will, then any deception is acceptable.
How should this affect America’s war on terror? Officials must look closely at every Muslim chaplain in the military and in our prisons; also look at those involved in the CIA, FBI, and other sensitive areas; look at all Arabic translators, military or civilian; look at all Muslim employees at the Pentagon, White House, atomic power plants, and in Congress; look at all civilian Muslim pilots; look at Muslim clerics in all U.S. mosques. In other words, get serious about this war before our cities are rubble.
Our President must stop playing the game of “Let’s Stop the Terrorists” and get serious by going to the heart of the matter. This war on terror is a religious matter and could become a Hundred Years’ War. To resurrect an old slogan: You can trust the Muslims to be Muslims. They are lying their way to world domination!

President's Authority To Restrict Immigration

Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

White Racists---NOT

Have you ever wondered why Whites are racists, and no other race is... 
  Michael Richards, better known as Kramer from  
TV's 'Seinfeld' does make a good point. 
  This was his defense speech in court after making  
racial comments in his comedy act.  
  In it he raised a few interesting points...  
  Someone finally said it. 
But how many are actually paying attention to this?  
 ============================= ============================== =
  There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, 
Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc.  
And then there are just Americans... 
  You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction.  
You call me 'White boy', 'Cracker', 'Honkey',  
'Whitey', 'Caveman'...  And that's OK...  
  But when I call you Nigger, Kike, Towel head,  
Sand-nigger, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook,  
or Chink .. You call me a racist.  
  You say that whites commit a lot of violence  
against you...  
So why are the ghettos the most dangerous places  
to live in?  
  You have the United Negro College Fund. 
You have Martin Luther King Day.  
You have Black History Month.  
You have Cesar Chavez Day.  
You have Yom Hashoah.  
You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.  
You have the NAACP.  
You have BET...  
  Imagine if we had WET 
(White Entertainment Television)... 
we'd be racists.  
  If we had a White Pride Day, 
you would call us racists.  
  If we had White History Month, 
we'd be racists.  
  If we had any organization for whites only to  
'advance' OUR lives, we'd be racists. 

  We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,  
a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just  
have the plain Chamber of Commerce.  
Wonder who pays for that???  
  A white woman could not be in the 
Miss Black American pageant, 
but a woman of any color can be in the  
Miss America pageant.  
  If we had a college fund that only gave white  
students scholarships... You know we'd be racists.  
  There are over 60 openly proclaimed 
Black Colleges in the US ..  
Yet if there were 'White colleges', 
that would be a racist college.  
  In the Million Men March, you believed that you  
were marching for your race and rights.  
If we marched for our race and rights, 
you would call us racists.  
  You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and  
orange, and you're not afraid to announce it.  
But when we announce our white pride, 
you call us racists.  
  You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us.  
But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug dealer running  
from the law and posing a threat to society, you call  
him a racist. 
  I am proud... But you call me a racist.  
  Why is it that only whites can be racists??? 
  There is nothing improper about this e-mail...  
But let's see which of you are proud enough  
to send it on.  
I sadly don't think many will.  
  That's why we have LOST most of OUR RIGHTS  
in this country.  
We won't stand up for ourselves!  
  BE PROUD TO BE WHITE!  
  It's not a crime YET... 
But getting very close!