Greetings, fellow info-warriors, Liberty-lovers, and Truth-seekers.
I’ve been threatening (myself) to resurrect the operation of this blog page for several weeks. So much has happened, in both my inner and outer world, during these last six years. On the one hand there is, therefore, much food for thought, much in the way of events to review, and on the other a frantic desire to keep up with current events, going forward. Then there is the inevitable interference of “Routine,” the daily and weekly demands of living; the extra care to ensure for naturally-induced good health, given the exponential impact of AGING; and then there inevitably is Murphy’s incessant big fat toe, so often being shoved into the most unwelcome of places, often with the assistance of miscreants. I certainly hope to be operating this blog page consistently on at least a weekly basis, but please be gentle with me. With the inertia accumulated over the last six years of being away from the rigor, it will take a little bit of time for me to establish a new momentum.
I acknowledge an urgency to do so, however, given that in short order sweeping changes are lurking on the horizon. There is of course the obvious one, the upcoming presumed Presidential “election,” as there have recently been overt threats by Commie Kildebeast to short-circuit the likes of Breitbart if she is installed as “President.” The “alternative” (rapidly becoming “truth-stream”) media is already increasingly in the cross-hairs of the Globalist elite, being subjected to propagandist assault, vilifying, subversion, infiltration, and outright lies. Matt Drudge (drudgereport.com) has reported that he was told that, I believe he said the Pentagon, desires to pull the plug on news-aggregator websites such as his under the faux-charge of copyright infringement. Then there is the likelihood of a geo-physical wrench in the cogwheels. Any number of geo-physical disturbances could thwart access to the Internet. Other causes of disruption could come in the form of the presentation of some national emergency as an excuse for the imposing of unprecedented measures of control over access to information. Further, it remains to be seen what the full impact will be from the imminent surrender of the ICANN domain-management function to the United Nations.
All in all, I dare say that time is indeed of the essence, and our beleaguered and precious inherent right to freedom of the press and free speech must be exercised to the fullest, particularly in light of the long-ago death of Independent Journalism. Each must do his/her part. Your research and your appropriation of truth must not result in your merely keeping it to yourself. Light cannot be hidden under a bush. I encourage you, YOU! to share with measurement your light with others.
Bloomberg assisted Christine Lagarde yesterday with covering the IMF and her ass for what the IMF (“International Monetary Fund”) has ACTUALLY been doing to countries around the world. It is the not-so-secret agenda of the IMF to implement the long-standing plan of the Rothschilds and other elite banking families which is to co-opt the countries of the world by hijacking their economies, by rendering countries completely dependent upon, and so subservient to, the global for-profit banking cartel, using the economic ideology of Socialism and Communism merely as their tool, like a stepping-stone, toward a global economic governance by an elite oligarchy dominated by Jewish banksters. It’s part-and-parcel of the Zionist plot to overtake the world, starting with the Middle East, by covert means, by sabotage, subterfuge, and by utilizing their strongman, the U.S. military as their conquering force, in order to make way eventually for the rise of their coveted ‘Greater Israel.’
I felt that parsing out each statement of the above article was necessary to illuminate the conclusion, so here we go:
“World leaders need to better manage the frustration over the failure of globalization to deliver widely shared benefits, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said.”
This is actually a psy-op statement meant to lead the “frustrated” unwashed masses into accepting without question the inside-out premise that the solution to their economic ills is a re-distribution of “wealth” through the deliberate de-industrialization of countries such as the United States.
“While the world has enjoyed unprecedented economic progress over the last 70 years, the transformation has caused “dislocation and hardship,” Lagarde said in the text of a speech to be delivered Tuesday in Toronto.
This is a deflection away from the role that the IMF and the BIS (Bank of International Settlements) themselves have had in causing “dislocation and hardship” through their persistently and onerously trapping nation-state economies into debt.
“Growing inequality in wealth, income, and opportunity in many countries has added to a groundswell of discontent, especially in the industrialized world — a growing sense among some citizens that they ‘lack control,’ that the system is somehow against them,” Lagarde said.
“History has shown that closing borders and increasing protectionism isn’t the solution, she said. Instead, countries need to extend the benefits of openness and integration, while alleviating the side effects, Lagarde said. “We need to make globalization work for all.”
Tightening the economic screws of the indebted countries is how the IMF and BIS create an atmosphere of popular acceptance of throwing open international borders while foisting the mendacious mantra that protecting the integrity of a country’s borders and bolstering the scale of actual profit, competition and quality through trade tariffs is detrimental to the global economy. Their end-goal here is to destroy the integrity of nation-states. It is a conspiracy to destroy such as the Republic of the United States, and with it, the Liberties of its sovereign citizens.
“Governments can help by creating a sound basis for growth, and fiscal policy needs to play a bigger role, Lagarde said.
This statement is designed to instill within the unthinking masses that it is only by big government policies, a paternalistic role by the ‘governing class,’ that the citizens of countries may be ‘given’ economic relief. The statement is intended to obfuscate the truth that it is by individual entrepreneurship, by the galvanizing of the creative element of the people at the local level, by the stimulating of the natural propensity for self-empowerment, that a nation’s economy would genuinely escalate.
“Countries should also step up support for lower-skilled workers and strengthen social safety nets, she said. The U.S. could cushion job losses by raising the federal minimum wage and increasing the earned income-tax credit, she said.
The statement actually confirms the Globalists’ motive by the phrase, “cushion job losses.” It is the full and unmitigated intent of the IMF and BIS to DESTABILIZE an industrialized country’s job MARKET by encouraging and cultivating the exporting of higher-skilled jobs into third-world countries. At the same time, the Globalists’ plan includes the degradation of private enterprise in industrialized countries by destabilizing small-to-medium businesses through an untenable hike in a country’s minimum wage, not to mention ridiculously audacious employee withholding taxes. This is not to say that there is not room for an up-step in wages to keep step with a rising inflation, but inflation itself would be greatly mitigated by the stimulating of an increase in the number of small-to-medium businesses in order to expand job creation, particularly through cuts in business taxes.
“She also encouraged countries to redouble their efforts to expand trade. “There is a growing risk of politicians seeking office by promising to ‘get tough’ with foreign trade partners through punitive tariffs or other restrictions on trade,” she said.
Trade tariffs are intended to stimulate COMPETITION, which is anathema to the Globalists agenda. Without trade tariffs, quality products made in the United States cannot continue to be manufactured for sufficient profit for having to compete with imported products that are allowed to enter the U.S. at a selling price which undermines American businesses. The result is a loss of U.S. business productivity and a deflated job market. But again, that result is precisely the goal of the IMF and BIS, as that result leads governments to accept further loans from the various satellite monsters of the BIS, such as the privately-held, for-profit, non-federal, fraudulently-installed, unconstitutional “Federal Reserve” central banking system. The Season of our Discontent is upon us, courtesy of the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of International Settlements.
“Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump has promised to impose tariffs on imported goods to protect American workers, an approach the IMF has said may actually hurt the U.S. economy.”
And there it is, the kicker. Bloomberg’s article is intended to malign Donald Trump’s declared Trade policy through a mendacious back-door approach, making it appear that up is down, that white is black, that sensible trade policy is irrational.
I assembled this treatment many years ago and had posted it on my old MySpace page around January 2010. I present it here, a bit modified and updated. I do so because, in spite of all false claims of bigotry inevitably to be hurled my way, and in spite of the premeditated thrust by the Globalist elite to utilize Islamic violence to foment social disruption and orchestrate chaos as a tool to achieve their end-goals of subduing national governments while culling the global population, the actual truth about Islam MUST be persistently disclosed throughout it all. To quote from The Urantia Book, “The truth never suffers from honest examination.”
For nearly 1,400 years Islamic ideology has stifled the progressive momentum of segments of society within the Middle-Eastern and African world. Some Muslims, particularly in the Western world, persist in associating themselves with Islam not only for weight of tradition but also due to sublimated intimidation. To be sure, beyond the influence of tradition, the driving force that perpetuates the spread of Islam is what that tradition embraces: intimidation, misogyny, rape, mayhem and butchery and the threat of it, and profuse promises of carnal pleasures in the afterlife. The very inclination to objectively explore and to question the rationale and logic of the teachings written in its sacred books is stifled by sublimated fear, a fear that induces an attitude of denial of the overt call to violence, a fear which itself is regarded as a sign of appropriate if obligatory piety.
Are “fanatics,” otherwise known as “Islamic Extremists” or “Islamic Militants/Radicals,” really perverting Islam? Just exactly what could possibly so brainwash men (and women) that they would lay firm hold on a belief-system which portrays the slaughter of Christians, Jews, homosexuals, and even uncooperative Muslims and atheists alike, as a service to [their] God?
Could it possibly be that, as Craig Winn puts it, “terrorists have not corrupted their religion; Islam [more specifically, the Qur’an] has corrupted them”?
The world’s peoples could never hope to achieve intellectual uniformity on religious matters. Varying religious ideology is inevitable, perhaps even valuable to the extent that it nurtures character development. Advancing Democracy must always make allowance for such variances.
However, when one man’s religious ideology constitutes a threat to civilizing Democracy, to another man’s well-being, even to his life, then moral righteousness demands an intervention. Vanguards of goodness and righteousness who value spirit unity among the world’s religionists MUST BE compelled to step in to defend the right of existence of peace-loving detractors against the genocidal acts of zealots who are propelled by grossly misguided, cult ideology.
Among his writings on the subject, John Adams, the 2nd President of the United States, wrote this:
“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting, from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God, he connected indissolubly with it the audacious falsehood that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting, from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and [by] the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.
Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus.” (Blunt, 1830, 29:269, capitals in orig.) 1
In a recent article entitled, “Islam: Has It “Always Been Part of America”?”, Joseph Klein wrote:
“America’s first war against foreign states since achieving its independence was against Muslim powers. Muslim potentates from the Barbary States – Morocco, Algeria, Tunis, and Tripolitania – were plundering American commercial vessels and holding Americans hostage for ransom in the years beginning shortly after the United States won its freedom from Great Britain. They went to war with the United States when their demand for tribute was refused by President Thomas Jefferson. It took two Barbary Wars to defeat this Muslim threat.
Both Jefferson and John Adams had confronted the theocratic ideology of Islamic jihad first-hand years earlier, when they sought to negotiate an end to attacks by the Muslim Barbary Coast pirates and the holding of American captives for ransom. While Jefferson was serving as ambassador to France and Adams was serving as ambassador to Britain, both men met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from the “Dey of Algiers.” They wanted to know why the Muslim rulers were sanctioning attacks on American merchant ships and taking Americans hostage when the young United States had done nothing to provoke any of the Muslim Barbary States.
As Jefferson and Adams described in a letter to John Jay on March 28, 1786, the Muslim ambassador explained that the conduct of the Barbary Coast pirates “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
In short, when the newly independent United States was at its most vulnerable, our country faced Muslim enemies animated by jihad.” 2
So where is the proof?
The condensed articulation of the following verses of the Qur’an is derived from the work of Craig Winn, author of the book, “Prophet of Doom.”3
The verse selections below are from Mr. Winn’s website, as it existed back some six years ago. It must be made clear that there are at least (3) three different translations of the Qur’an into English that are apparently acknowledged by Islam, although adherents will hasten to add that “any translation of the Qur’an immediately ceases to be the literal word of Allah, and hence cannot be equated with the Qur’an in its original Arabic form.” I converted the verse references into hyperlinks to lead directly to the corresponding, multi-version English-translated verses of the Qur’an which appear in one of the online sources most acknowledged by adherents of Islam, the USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts. (These links do not open a new tab/window.) Sometime in the last few years, USC re-vamped the website, changing the URL from http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ to http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/
Before hitting upon the new link associations for each verse citation, I explored resorting to the Wayback Machine, where the older version of the database still exists. While exploring that option, I found that an associated, very telling, interpretive work (noted below) was scrubbed from the new webpage, and that the auto-forward from the old URL sends you to the “Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement” ( http://www.cmje.org/ ), where ‘pluralism’ is touted and “Jihad” is depicted as a struggle to develop morals and to take a stand for human rights. All chuckles aside, that is quite an insult to one’s intelligence.
As you ponder and puke from the following ‘verses’ from the Qur’an, please ponder what the real solution MUST be.
UPDATE — December 2, 2016: Between the time I published this blog post in August 2016 and today, the “Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement” TOOK DOWN the availability of their online texts. No small wonder. All that is left available is a search engine leading to lame generalities allegedly descriptive of the actual content. Consequently, this Information Warrior by the moniker Opey606 WILL take the time to painstakingly RE-ASSIGN the links of the verses delineated below so that they open to the corresponding verses within the online texts within the MSA Compendium of Online Texts IN … THE WAYBACK MACHINE!!
The citing of Craig Winn’s website and literary work here is not to be construed as tacit concurrence with Mr. Winn’s personal religious beliefs. For the record, the thrust of my personal interest is to portray divine Reality as consisting of the unwavering compassion and loving ministry of all spiritual agencies as they are mobilized to catalyze the social progress of humankind toward the eventual worldwide acknowledgement of the brotherhood of all humankind under the universal Fatherhood of God, the path to which wars, even so-called religious or ‘holy’ wars, are NOT divinely ordained, sanctioned, or prophesied. Such may or may not be reflective of Craig Winn’s personal belief-system.
Da Ponderables:
Qur’an:9:5“Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Qur’an:9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”
Qur’an:8:39 and 2:193 (Duplicated within the Qur’an!) “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”
Qur’an:9:14 “Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them.”
Qur’an:8:65 “O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding.”
Qur’an:9:38 & 9:39 “Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah’s Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place.”
Qur’an:9:123 “Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you.”
Qur’an:8:72 “Those who accepted Islam and left their homes to fight in Allah’s Cause with their possessions and persons, and those who gave (them) asylum, aid, and shelter, those who harbored them–these are allies of one another. You are not responsible for protecting those who embraced Islam but did not leave their homes [to fight] until they do so.” [Another translation reads:] “You are only called to protect Muslims who fight.”
Qur’an:8:73 “The unbelieving infidels are allies. Unless you (Muslims) aid each other (fighting as one united block to make Allah’s religion victorious), there will be confusion and mischief. Those who accepted Islam, left their homes to fight in Allah’s Cause (al-Jihad), as well as those who give them asylum, shelter, and aid– these are (all) Believers: for them is pardon and bountiful provision (in Paradise).”
Qur’an:48:16 “Say (Muhammad) to the wandering desert Arabs who lagged behind: ‘You shall be invited to fight against a people given to war with mighty prowess. You shall fight them until they surrender and submit. If you obey, Allah will grant you a reward, but if you turn back, as you did before, He will punish you with a grievous torture.”
Qur’an:48:22 “If the unbelieving infidels fight against you, they will retreat. (Such has been) the practice (approved) of Allah in the past: no change will you find in the ways of Allah.”
Qur’an:47:4 (Also from “The Noble Qur’an”) “When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.”
Qur’an 9:19 “Do you make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Mosque, equal to those who fight in the Cause of Allah? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah. Those who believe, and left their homes, striving with might, fighting in Allah’s Cause with their goods and their lives, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah.”
Qur’an:2:193 “Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief) and religion is only for Allah. But if they cease/desist, let there be no hostility except against infidel disbelievers.”
Qur’an:2:217 “They question you concerning fighting in the sacred month. Say: ‘Fighting therein is a grave (matter); but to prevent access to Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, to expel its members, and polytheism are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they make you renegades from your religion. If any of you turn back and die in unbelief, your works will be lost and you will go to Hell. Surely those who believe and leave their homes to fight in Allah’s Cause have the hope of Allah’s mercy.”
Qur’an:2:244 “Fight in Allah’s Cause, and know that Allah hears and knows all.”
Qur’an:2:246 “He said: ‘Would you refrain from fighting if fighting were prescribed for you?’ They said: ‘How could we refuse to fight in Allah’s Cause?'”
Qur’an:61:2 “O Muslims, why say one thing and do another? Grievously odious and hateful is it in the sight of Allah that you say that which you do not. Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in a battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.”
Qur’an:3:146 “How many prophets fought in Allah’s Cause? With them (fought) myriads of godly men who were slain. They never lost heart if they met with disaster in Allah’s Cause, nor did they weaken nor give in. Allah loves those who are firm and steadfast [warriors].”
Qur’an:3:153 “Behold! You ran off precipitately, climbing up the high hill without even casting a side glance at anyone, while the Messenger in your rear is calling you from your rear, urging you to fight. Allah gave you one distress after another by way of requital, to teach you not to grieve for the booty that had escaped you and for (the ill) that had befallen you.”
Qur’an:3:154 “Say: ‘Even if you had remained in your houses, those ordained to be slaughtered would have gone forth to the places where they were to be slain.”
Qur’an:61:4 “Surely Allah loves those who fight in His Cause.”
Qur’an:61:11 “Believers, shall I lead you to a bargain or trade that will save you from a painful torment? That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive and fight in Allah’s Cause with your property and your lives: That will be best for you!”
Qur’an 61:12 “He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens under which rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Eden: that is indeed the Supreme Achievement. And another (favor) which you love: help from Allah for a speedy victory over your enemies.”
Qur’an:8:5 “Your Lord ordered you out of your homes to fight for the true cause, even though some Muslims disliked it, and were averse (to fighting).”
Qur’an:24:53 “They swear their strongest oaths saying that if only you would command them. They would leave their homes (and go forth fighting in Allah’s Cause). Say: ‘Swear not; Obedience is (more) reasonable.'”
Qur’an:4:74 “Let those who fight in Allah’s Cause sell this world’s life for the hereafter. To him who fights in Allah’s Cause, whether he is slain or victorious, We shall give him a reward.”
Qur’an:4:75 “What reason have you that you should not fight in Allah’s Cause?” [Another translation says:] “What is wrong with you that you do not fight for Allah?”
Qur’an:4:76 “Those who believe fight in the Cause of Allah.”
Qur’an:4:77 “Have you not seen those to whom it was said: Withhold from fighting, perform the prayer and pay the zakat. But when orders for fighting were issued, a party of them feared men as they ought to have feared Allah. They say: ‘Our Lord, why have You ordained fighting for us, why have You made war compulsory?‘”
Qur’an:4:78 “Wherever you are, death will find you, even if you are in towers strong and high!So what is wrong with these people, that they fail to understand these simple words?”
Qur’an:4:84 “Then fight (Muhammad) in Allah’s Cause. Incite the believers to fight with you.”
Qur’an:4:94 “Believers, when you go abroad to fight wars in Allah’s Cause, investigate carefully, and say not to anyone who greets you: ‘You are not a believer!’ Coveting the chance profits of this life (so that you may despoil him). With Allah are plenteous spoils and booty.”
Qur’an:4:95 “Not equal are believers who sit home and receive no hurt and those who fight in Allah’s Cause with their wealth and lives. Allah has granted a grade higher to those who fight with their possessions and bodies to those who sit home. Those who fight He has distinguished with a special reward.”
Qur’an:4:100 & 4:101 “He who leaves his home in Allah’s Cause finds abundant resources and many a refuge. Should he die as a refugee for Allah and His Messenger His reward becomes due and sure with Allah. When you travel through the earth there is no blame on you if you curtail your worship for fear unbelievers may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are your enemy.”
Qur’an:4:102 “When you (Prophet) lead them in prayer, let some stand with you, taking their arms with them. When they finish their prostrations, let them take positions in the rear. And let others who have not yet prayed come—taking all precaution, and bearing arms. The Infidels wish, if you were negligent of your arms, to assault you in a rush. But there is no blame on you if you put away your arms because of the inconvenience of rain or because you are ill; but take precaution. For the Unbelieving Infidels Allah hath prepared a humiliating punishment.”
Qur’an:4:104 “And do not relent in pursuing the enemy.”
——
In the process of exploring the use of the Wayback Machine to resurrect this piece, I discovered that the inclusion in that former version of USC’s Compendium page of the 1962 work by S. Abul A’la Maududi, “The Finality of Prophethood,” was not repeated in the new USC website, as far as I could tell, as there doesn’t seem to be a ‘Search’ function available. Below is the link to it using the Wayback Machine, and also for good measure I include a link to the same work posted in Scribd.
Be sure to read, near the bottom of his paper, the section entitled, “The Verdict of These Traditions,” wherein Mr. Maududi presents his elaboration on the Qur’an’s alleged prophecy of the coming eradication of all Jews and all other ‘unbelievers’ (“infidels”) once Jesus returns to dissolve Christianity and submit himself to Islam as a non-prophet:
Excerpt:
“At this moment of crisis, Christson of Mary (PBUH) will descend near a white minaret in the Eastern quarter of Damascus. After the morning prayers, Christ (PBUH) will advance with the Muslims for fighting against Dajjal. The enemy will retreat before the powerful assault of Christ son of Mary, and Dajjal will run away towards Israel by way of the slope of Afiq (Reference to Tradition No. 21). Christ (PBUH) will pursue Dajjal and destroy him on the airfield of Lydda (Traditions No. 10-14- 15). A great slaughter of the Jews will ensue and every one of them will be annihilated. The nation of Jews will be exterminated (Traditions No. 9-15-21). At the proclamation of truth by Christ, the Christian religion will become extinct (Traditions No. 1-2-4-6). And the followers of all religions, their former having renounced allegiances, will amalgamate to form the one and only brotherhood of Islam. The traditions reveal this fact clearly beyond any doubt.”
The Muslim Agenda – Full Documentary – Banned in some countries
This video effectively makes the point that the media has persistently attempted to foist the falsehood that Islam is a peaceful religion and that what the media refers to as “Radical Islam” is fueled by misinterpretation of its holy books. Unfortunately, the video also does some foisting of its own: portraying 9/11 as a terror event perpetrated by Muslims. For the record, 9/11 was a FALSE FLAG staged terror state crime perpetrated by the Mossad and covert, deep-state U.S. Intelligence to scapegoat Muslims for the initiating of the ‘War on Terrorism” hoax.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Islam: What The West Needs To Know (Full Video)
This documentary (4) consists of original interviews, citations from Islamic texts, Islamic artwork, computer-animated maps, footage of Western leaders, and Islamic television broadcasts. Its tone is sober, methodical, and compelling. Virtually every major Western leader has over the past several years expressed the view that Islam is a peaceful religion and that those who commit violence in its name are fanatics who misinterpret its tenets. This claim, while widely circulated, rarely attracts serious public examination. Relying primarily on Islam’s own sources, this documentary demonstrates that Islam is a violent, expansionary ideology that seeks the destruction or subjugation of other faiths, cultures, and systems of government.
Outline of the Documentary (5)
Introduction
We hear from prominent Western leaders that Islam is peaceful and that those who commit violence in its name are heterodox fanatics.
Part 1: ‘There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet’
Our interviewees affirm their belief that Islamic violence is entirely orthodox behavior for Muslims and stems directly from the teachings and example of the Prophet Muhammad and the commands of the Koran. We learn that the example of Muhammad is one of a violent warlord who killed numerous people. The Koran – the verbatim words of Allah – prescribes violence against non-Muslims and Muhammad is the perfect example of the Koran in action.
Part 2: The Struggle
We learn that jihad, while literally meaning ‘struggle’, in fact denotes war fought against non-Muslims in order to bring the rule of Islamic law to the world. Violent death in jihad is, according to the Koran, the only assurance of salvation. One of our interviewees tells of his personal involvement in terrorism and his leaving Islam.
Part 3: Expansion
Following the death of Muhammad, his ‘rightly-guided’ successors carried his wars to three continents, fighting, enslaving, and massacring countless Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and others. Islam did not spread through evangelism or through its natural appeal, but through aggressive wars of conquest. The Crusades were largely a belated response on the part of Christian Europe to rescue Christians in the Holy Land suffering under Muslim oppression. The Muslim world today, while no longer the unified empire of the Caliphs, is exceptional for being responsible for the vast majority of conflicts around the world and for almost all of international terrorism.
Part 4: ‘War is Deceit’
A great problem with Western efforts to understand Islam is due to the Islamic principle of ‘religious deception’, which enjoins Muslims to deceive non-Muslims in order to advance the cause of Islam. Muslim groups today in the West employ deception and omission to give the impression that ‘Islam is a religion of peace’, an utter fiction.
Part 5: More than a Religion
The most important characteristic of Islam not understood by the West is that it is more a system of government than a personal religion. Throughout its history, Islam has never recognized a distinction between the religious and the secular/political. Islamic law [Sharia] (6) (PDF file) governs every aspect of religious, political, and personal action, which amounts to a form of totalitarianism that is divinely enjoined to dominate the world, analogous in many ways to Communism.
Part 6: The House of War
Islamic theology divides the world into two spheres locked in perpetual combat, dar al-Islam (House of Islam – where Islamic law predominates), and dar al-harb (House of War – the rest of the world). It is incumbent on dar al-Islam to fight and conquer dar al-harb and permanently assimilate it. Muslims in Western nations are called to subvert the secular regimes in which they now live in accordance with Allah’s command. Due to political correctness and general government and media irresponsibility, the danger posed by observant Muslims in the West remains largely unappreciated.
Reviews:
“Thought-Provoking” – Atlanta Journal-Constitution
“Persuasive” – Knight at the Movies
“Mind-blowing” – Gwinnett Daily Post
“If their central thesis is true — and it’s worth considering — then this is the most horrific film of the 21st century so far.” – The Charlotte Observer
The American Republic has been under siege since the illegal inception of the private Federal Reserve Central Bank, and its political integrity under assault since the assimilating of thousands of Nazis by way of Operation Paperclip, bursting into fruition with the CIA-instituted coup through JFK’s assassination. Many of the individuals behind this putrid history are alive today, and learning who they are and how this all came to be is the inevitable result of probing just what is behind the largest criminal racketeering lawsuit ever to be filed, one whose defendants are individuals at the helm of the SEC and, as the lawsuit indicates, by association individuals within, and by implication behind, the United States Government. Now, it’s become nakedly evident that we can no longer afford to entrust the preservation of our American Republic into the hands of the CIA-controlled mainstream media.
Since this mega-lawsuit was filed in early January, 2010, not one news agency other than WorldReports.org has covered it. The explanation? Major criminal racketeering on the part of the Securities and Exchange Commission on behalf of the U.S. Communist-infiltrated Shadow Government’s “Operation Stillpoint.” … What? no? … heh.
FINALLY !! . . . . . the Examiner takes a, albeit cursory, stab at ’em. Inform yourself of the details surrounding the decades-old international plot to take down the American Republic partaken of by Nazi infiltrator, George H. W. Bush, alias for German-born George H. Scherf, Jr., G.W. Bush, Kissinger, Gorbachev, Obama, Kohl, Merkel, Ackerman, and the Clintons, just to name a few, at http://worldreports.org/news
This video was posted on YouTube on April 5th, 2010:
CMKM Diamonds and the $3.87 trillion lawsuit you didn’t hear about
“Conscience and law” [Photo Credit: Marcel Douwe Dekker]
As the United States continues to fracture in every way imaginable, most citizens are unable to keep up with the never-ending hodgepodge of government corruption. Each day, a new larger-than-life scandal emerges, and in the short mind span of news media, there is always a bigger and better story to chase. Right now, the hot button issue for mainstream news outlets is healthcare reform, and its myriad implications for our society; this doubtlessly ensures the aforementioned media will continue to overlook unprecedented accusations brought forth in a recent $3.87 trillion lawsuit (embedded below) against U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary L. Shapiro, as well as several other current and former SEC commissioners, among others.
This Bivens action suit represents the largest fraud case in world history, and was filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, on January 8th by Pasadena attorney Al Hodges; in his complaint, made on behalf of CMKM Diamonds shareholders, Hodges alleges that:
[Complaint paragraph 31] During the period of June 1, 2004 through October 28, 2005 a total of 2.25 Trillion “phantom” shares of CMKM Diamonds Inc, was sold into the public market through legitimate brokers, illegitimate brokers and dealers, market makers, hedge funds, ex-clearing transactions and private transactions. The sales of the majority of such shares were at all times known to the Securities and Exchange Commission, including Defendants herein.
[Complaint paragraph 32] At some date prior to June 1, 2004 the Securities and Exchange Commission in concert with the Department of Justice of the United States, together combined with Robert A. Maheu and others to utilize CMKM Diamonds, Inc. for the purpose of trapping a number of widely disbursed entities and persons who were believed to be engaged in naked short selling of CMKM Diamonds Inc. stock and cellar boxing the company.
The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice, with assistance from the Department of Homeland Security, believed and developed evidence that said short sellers were utilizing their activities to illegally launder moneys, wrongfully export moneys, avoid payment of taxes, and to support foreign terrorist operations.
To fulfill the plan to criminally trap such wrongdoers, the Securities and Exchange Commission, with assistance from the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security:
(a) Assisted in and approved the retention of Roger Glenn, an ex-SEC trial attorney and drafter of Sarbanes-Oxley, to join CMKM Diamonds Inc. for the purpose of verifying claims value, increasing authorized shares of stock to 800,000,000,000, and supervising from the inside of the company;
(b) Encouraged the company to expand its promotional activities, assisted in the set up of the “racing activities” of the company, and underwrote a substantial portion of the cost of such activities;
(c) Consented to, facilitated, and supported the sale of certain company claims to several foreign corporations;
(d) Consented to, facilitated, and supported the conferences between Robert A. Maheu and his associates on the one hand, and the wrongdoing short sellers on the other, all for the purpose of settling the potential liability of said wrongdoers with consent of the U. S. Government and a representation of no criminal prosecution for such illegal sales;
(e) Consented to, facilitated, and supported the declaration of dividends payable by the company to each common shareholder of CMKM Diamonds, Inc.
(f) Consented to, facilitated, and supported the distribution of shares of CIM, a private company owned by Urban Casavant, as a stock dividend, including consent and approval of distribution of said shares to holders of more than 1.4 Trillion shares of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. common stock.
Based on these assertions, CMKM was used by the U.S. government as part of a covert sting operation – unbeknownst to shareholders – to apprehend criminals for their offenses. However, instead of prosecuting most of them, restitution deals were apparently cut:
[Complaint paragraph 34] During the period from March, 2004 through August, 2006, on behalf of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. Robert A. Maheu, with assistance from others, negotiated a settlement with the illegitimate brokers, dealers, market makers, hedge funds, and other persons and entities that had engaged in naked short selling of CMKM Diamonds Inc. stock and cellar boxing the company. In exchange for a U. S. Government promise of no prosecution for such sales, the wrongdoers each promised to pay negotiated amounts to a frozen trust for disbursal at a later time.
[Complaint paragraph 35] Plaintiffs herein are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that other moneys have been collected for the benefit of the shareholders of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. from the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, from the United States Government, and from the sale of additional assets including consent to enter into joint venture agreements with other companies holding mineral claims in Saskatchewan, Canada. Plaintiffs herein are further informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that said moneys, collected for the benefit of shareholders have also been placed in a trust or are otherwise now held in trust by the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation and the United States Treasury.
Therefore, the crux of this complaint – and the massive fraud allegedly committed by the SEC (and Department of Justice) – is as follows:
[Complaint paragraph 36] Plaintiffs herein are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that at all times mentioned, the Securities and Exchange Commission reserved unto itself the sole and absolute discretion to determine when moneys collected pursuant to the scheme set forth above would and could be released for distribution.
[Complaint paragraph 37] Demand for release of said moneys has been repeatedly presented to the Securities and Exchange Commission without result. Agents and employees of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice have represented repeatedly that the release of moneys for distribution was imminent, and/or would occur within several weeks, and/or would occur within less than a month. Each of said representations have been made knowing them to be false, and at the specific direction of the named Defendants. These actions of withholding distribution of said moneys, without compensation and without due process of law, amount to a taking of the property of the individual Plaintiffs and of all similarly situated.
During the timeframe referenced above, CMKM was registered as a publicly traded diamond and gold mining company. By 2005, concrete evidence detailing fraud within the company emerged; in addition, it became publicly apparent that CMKM also sold, at the very least, hundreds of billions of unregistered shares – a practice often referred to as naked short selling – to third parties. Eventually, the SEC moved to delist CMKM stock, whose value never exceeded one penny per share, in accordance with Section 12(j) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. After several administrative proceedings, CMKM stock was ultimately deregistered in October 2005.
In September 2006, Floyd Norris, chief financial correspondent of The New York Times and The International Herald Tribune, caught wind of the CMKM scandals, and began to report on some elements of the criminal fraud that ravaged CMKM’s estimated 40,000 shareholders. Norris has reported on more than one occasion that at least 259 billion shares of unregistered CMKM stock was sold; however, per the SEC’s 2008 action against CMKM, the agency itself acknowledges that as many as 622 billion shares of “purportedly unregistered stock” was sold by the company over a 20 month period.
So, how did Hodges initially determine that at least 2 trillion unregistered shares were sold?
[Complaint paragraph 25] A frequently asked question (FAQ) page was added to the web site [CMKMTaskForce.com] on the evening of November 4, 2005 and in response to a question about the degree of naked shorting of CMKM stock, the Task Force [consisting of Robert A. Maheu, Donald J. Stoecklein and Bill Frizzell] indicated that “Credible information indicates the number of naked short shares is potentially as high as 2 Trillion shares.”
‘QUITE A CASE’
Several weeks ago, I spoke with Al Hodges, a practicing attorney with four decades of experience, to find out more about this extraordinary case, and moreover, to determine exactly how he calculated his clients’ potential damages to be nearly $4 trillion – a figure many observers have openly scoffed at.
Almost immediately, I could not help but ask why the mainstream media has not fairly reported on this case; frankly, given the scope of accusations, one would assume that, at the very least, Floyd Norris and The New York Times would have some interest in thoroughly examining the merits of this action; instead, Norris has essentially brushed off Hodges’ allegations as being baseless.
It’s not that Hodges and his associates haven’t tried to attract the media’s interest; in fact, on this side of the Atlantic, all the major dailies, including The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post have all been informed of the suit. Their respective editorial staffs – with the exception of Floyd Norris – have utterly decided to ignore it.
In the United Kingdom, efforts have also been made to attract mainstream media interest. Veteran financial intelligence Editor and Publisher Christopher Story FRSA – an investigative specialist that focuses on covert government operations and scandals – has personally reached out to The Daily Telegraph’s International Business Editor Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, with whom he is acquainted, to notify him about Hodges’ case. To date, Pritchard has failed to respond to Mr. Story, who has authored a number of articles (1) – and other published commentary – in The Daily Telegraph over the course of his near 50-year-career.
Hodges noted that Story, publisher of International Currency Review, and several other serials, is “subscribed to by every intelligence operation in the world.”
If intelligence agencies are reading about CMKM, then why isn’t the mainstream press covering this case? Hodges prudently observed that “they’re not going to touch it.”
MAINSTREAM MEDIA WON’T COVER ISSUES TIED TO COVERT OPERATIONS? (EVIDENTLY NOT)
“They [the government] used the shareholders without their consent to perform this ‘sting operation’ for National Security interests, and it wouldn’t have worked the way it worked if they had disclosed it,” he continued.
“On the other hand, it isn’t right to bury a company and put them out of business for the purpose of trapping people who are using the company to cheat the government, to line their own pockets, and to fund their operations against the United States.”
As noted above in complaint paragraph 34, and per Hodges, a deal was eventually reached with the aforementioned criminals; they paid the government restitution for documented illegal actions, and in turn, were offered immunity from prosecution.
“Rob Maheu had all these people in a big room in Las Vegas, and made [an] offer to them,” he said.
“Every person, organization and representative in that room stepped up, and either transferred money while they were there, or agreed to transfer money upon some further schedule” to avoid indictment.
Hodges also said, “I have a witness who was there, who saw it, and part of the 2.25 trillion phantom shares is documented by that person’s observations of how many shares were represented in that room.”
HOW MUCH MONEY DID THE FEDS REALLY COLLECT FOR RESTITUTION?
“People are going to laugh and titter about the amount of money that is being claimed, but understand the context of the lawsuit,” he said, before concluding, “we are not asking the government to pay us $3.87 trillion, what we’re asking is for them to release the funds that have been collected for us.” Thus, the implication is that this sum also incorporates substantial punitive damages.
In the end, Hodges believes the U.S. government is going to settle the case before it actually moves to trial. On this possibility, he said, “I think its in the process of happening as we speak.”
Based on these explanations – and the recent scandals and assertions that have surfaced about the SEC – I believe the mainstream media is doing the public a great disservice by not properly examining Hodges’ CMKM case.
The same conclusion must also be drawn about Christopher Story’s reports on the criminality that is undermining international efforts to refund the U.S. dollar, which is dangerously close to losing its status as the world’s global reserve currency… but that’s touching on a whole other can of worms … or is it?
(1) In Paul Johnson’s article “Unions, Pensions, and Financial Responsibility: The British Experience” published in the Journal of Labor Research, Volume 2, Issue 2 (1981) pp. 292, 294, 295, 296, he highlights Christopher Story’s authoritative research, as published in The Daily Telegraph on 30 April, 31 August and 1 September 1976, as well as on 4 September 1978.
The following discussion assumes President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a United States citizen.
~~
The purpose of this article is to highlight judicial and historical evidence suggesting that a “natural born citizen” must be born in the United States to parents who are citizens. By that definition, Obama is not eligible to be president. Therefore, his presidency and official administrative acts remain subject to being rendered void by the Supreme Court.
~~
The relevant Obama admission
At the official Obama campaign website – Fightthesmears.com – just below the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) – the following admission was also published:
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.
This was republished from a Factcheck.org, article which further stated:
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
The constitutional question presented is whether a person born with citizenship in and allegiance to a foreign nation can be considered a “natural born citizen” of the United States as required by Article II, Section 1.
The U.S. State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual discusses problems associated with dual citizenship:
7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
This helps explain why the definition of “natural born citizen” as one born in the nation to parents who are citizens makes perfect sense in that such a person will not be infected by dual-allegiance problems. If the parents are citizens, neither will confer allegiance to a foreign nation. Additionally, if one is born on soil foreign to the parents, that nation is likely to recognize the person as a citizen. Owing allegiance to more than one nation is an unnatural circumstance of citizenship.
While the Constitution requires representatives, senators and presidents to be citizens, Article II, Section 1, additionally requires that the president’s citizenship be “natural born.” A natural born citizen is not a higher level of citizen. “Natural born” simply describes a circumstance of citizenship.
There are multiple circumstances that create “citizens at birth.” Some require a federal statute for citizenship while others rely on the 14th Amendment. Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to deem every person born in the United States a natural born citizen, they certainly could have included such plain, unequivocal language. But they didn’t.
In 1790, the first Congress deemed all persons born of two United States citizen parents abroad to be “natural born citizens,” but the words “natural born” were repealed in 1795. Congress never again legislated the definition of “natural born citizen,” and no United States statute currently defines the term or even mentions it.
The citizenship of a person born in the United States to parents who are citizens is self-evident and has never required naturalization, a federal statute or an amendment, and the Supreme Court has indicated that such persons are the only citizens who satisfy the natural born citizen requirement of Article II, Section 1.
Origin of the natural born citizen clause
The strict constitutional requirements were enacted to exclude citizens for the sake of national security in safeguarding the office from inexperience and from persons who may not have sole allegiance. It appears the clause was first introduced for constitutional consideration in a letter from John Jay to George Washington dated July 25, 1787:
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 Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Jay underlined “born” which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth. The “natural born” requirement renders irrelevant that a person – born to foreign or dual allegiance – may not have renewed his foreign citizenship upon reaching maturity. One is either eligible to be president at birth, or one will never be eligible.
An important historical definition of “natural born citizen” comes from a 1797 translation of the “Law of Nations,” a 1758 text by Emerich de Vattel, which summarized that body of international law known also as the “Law of Nations”:
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Note that a child of former aliens can be a natural born citizen under this standard if born in the United States to parents who were naturalized prior to the child’s birth. That was made clear by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Perkins v. Elg.
It appears from James Madison’s notes of August 1787 that the delegates used the terms “native” and “natural born citizen” synonymously. Additionally, Ben Franklin stated that the framers frequently consulted Vattel’s text. Also consider that Article I, Section 8, grants Congress the authority to “punish … offenses against the Law of Nations.”
In the case of The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814), Chief Justice John Marshall stated:
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. …”
Chief Justice Marshall relied upon a pre-1797 edition of Vattel’s text. The 1797 translation was adopted by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), where Chief Justice Waite stated:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. …
It’s significant that this decision was issued six years after the 14th Amendment was enacted. As such, Minor illustrates that the 14th Amendment simply defines who is a citizen, not which citizens are natural born.
If Obama had run for president in 1874 – six years after the 14th Amendment went into effect – he wouldn’t have been eligible since he doesn’t fit the Minor Court’s standard for a natural born citizen.
The strange case of Chester Arthur
The holding in Minor v. Happersett must have given Chester Arthur nightmares when he ran for vice president in 1880, six years after Minor. Arthur, a prominent New York lawyer, managed to conceal from public view that his father didn’t become a naturalized citizen until 14 years after he was born. Therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth.
Arthur’s deception in concealing this fact involved numerous lies to the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper concerning his father’s heritage, immigration and age. He also quite famously burned most of his papers and lied about his own age.
Historical records bear witness that this issue was never discussed in relation to Chester Arthur’s eligibility until recently. Helping to cloud the issue all these years was a famous conspiracy theory expounded by a New York lawyer named Arthur Hinman who alleged Chester Arthur was born in Canada and was therefore not eligible. This sensational and unfounded conspiracy theory took the spotlight and unfortunately provided a smokescreen to conceal the true eligibility defect.
Chester Arthur is the only president prior to Obama who – after the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, expired – was not born in the United States of two citizen parents. As such, Obama supporters have sought to use Chester Arthur as precedent for justifying Obama’s eligibility. Such reliance is unfounded because it wasn’t known at the time Chester Arthur held office that he was born with dual nationality. That this was concealed from the general public is confirmed by two important law review articles.
In the September/October 1884 issue of The American Law Review, George C. Collins discussed the citizenship status of persons born on U.S. soil to foreign parents. In the concluding paragraph, Collins stated:
Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth.
It’s ridiculous to imagine the sitting president wouldn’t be mentioned when the article concerns the issue of whether a person born of an alien father is even a United States citizen.
Chester Arthur’s true eligibility defect doesn’t appear to have been mentioned in any historical record until December 2008 when it was exposed at my blog. Clearly, Chester Arthur’s deception cannot serve to validate anyone’s presidential eligibility. He got away with it, but that doesn’t make it right.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In 1898, Justice Horace Gray wrote one of the most controversial opinions in Supreme Court history wherein a man born in the United States of Chinese alien parents was held to be a citizen. Wong Kim Ark is the precedent relied upon for the assertion that any person born on United States soil, regardless of parentage, is a citizen. But that’s not accurate. The holding in Wong Kim Ark appears to require for citizenship that a person be born on United States soil to parents who are permanently domiciled here. If the domicile requirement is upheld in future cases, anchor babies will no longer be assumed to be United States citizens.
Regardless, the holding in Wong Kim Ark did not state that such a citizen was “natural born.” In fact, Justice Gray reiterated the definition of natural born citizen as one born on United States soil to parents who are citizens when he favorably discussed Minor v. Happersett:
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. … 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. …”
While the dissent feared the majority holding would make Wong Kim Ark eligible to be president, Justice Gray’s restatement of the Minor Court’s definition of a natural born citizen as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens stands in direct contrast to the dissent’s fear.
A few years after Wong Kim Ark was decided, the Albany Law Journal published an article by Alexander Porter Morse entitled, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT” (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905)):
If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.
The term “native born citizen” has been erroneously substituted for “natural born citizen” by numerous commentators. Mr. Morse correctly points out that the two are not synonymous. His article also proves once again that Chester Arthur’s dual nationality was hidden from the public. There would have been no point in writing the article – which doesn’t mention Chester Arthur – had the nation previously condoned a president born with dual allegiance.
The argument against Obama being eligible rests on multiple Supreme Court cases that define a “natural born citizen” as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens. This is not a political issue. It’s a legal issue faced by a nation where nobody is supposed to be above the law. As such, it deserves judicial review.
Leo Donofrio is an attorney with 20 years’ experience. He is a partner in the law firm of Pidgeon & Donofrio and he authors the Natural Born Citizen blog.
The medical system does need reforming — radical reforming. It’s more expensive than it ought to be, and powerful interests prosper at the expense of the rest of us. The status quo has little about it to be admired, and we shouldn’t tolerate it.
Thus, the American people should be fed up with Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid for insulting our intelligence with their so-called heath-care reform. It is nothing of the sort. What they call progressive reform is little more than reinforcement of the exploitative system we suffer today.
Whether intentionally or not, Obama & Co. have misdiagnosed the problem with the current system and therefore have issued a toxic prescription as an alleged cure. They essentially say that the problem is too free a market in medical care and insurance; thus for them the solution is a less-free market, that is, more government direction of our health-care-related activities.
Yet if the diagnosis is wrong — which it is — the prescription will also be wrong.
Note that the attention of nearly all the “reformers” is on the insurance industry. What ostensibly started out as “health-care reform” quickly became health-insurance regulation. A common theme of all of the leading proposals is that insurance companies have too few restrictions on them. So under Obamacare, government will issue more commands: preexisting conditions must be covered; policy renewal must be guaranteed; premiums may not reflect the health status or sex of policyholders; the difference between premiums charged young and old must be within government specs; lifetime caps on benefits are prohibited, et cetera.
In return for these new federal rules, insurance companies are to have a guaranteed market through a mandate that will require every person to have insurance. So what looks like onerous new regulations on the insurance companies turns out to be a bargain they are happy to accept. Instead of having to innovatively and competitively attract young healthy people to buy their products, the companies will count on the government to compel them to do so. Playing the populist role, Obama & Co. bash the insurance companies, but in fact the “reform” compels everyone to do business with them.
What about this would the insurance companies dislike? Health insurance is not the most profitable business you can be in; the profit margin is 3-4 cents on the dollar. So a guaranteed clientele is an attractive prospect. The people who will be forced to buy policies are the healthy, who will pay premiums and make few claims. The only thing the companies don’t like is that that penalty for not complying with the mandate is too small. Many young people may choose to pay the penalty rather than buy the insurance because it will be cheaper. But that presents a problem: when the uninsured get sick and apply for coverage, they won’t be turned down because that would be against the law. So look for harsher penalties in the future to prevent this gaming of the system. The insurance companies win again.
What’s missed is that the “reformers” leave untouched every aspect of the uncompetitive medical and insurance cartels that exists entirely by virtue of government privilege. Most of this privilege is extended by state governments through monopolistic licensing, but Congress could repeal the prohibition on interstate insurance sales and the tax favoritism for employer-provided medical coverage. The ruling party has refused to consider those sensible moves.
The upshot is that this reform is a fraud. It leaves in place the government-created cartels and throws a few crumbs to people who are struggling — but mostly by bolstering the insurance monopoly.
Two myths must be shattered. First, the choice is not between this phony reform and the status quo. The “reform” merely puts makeup on the status quo. The free market is the real alternative.
Second, the free market couldn’t have created the medical mess because there has been no free market in medicine. For generations government has colluded with the medical profession and the insurance industry to force-feed us the system we have today.
The Who’s prayers weren’t answered: We are being fooled again.
Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat, defends tying the health care bills together. “There’s no way in the world we’d do anything unconstitutional,” she said
What Slaughter, Obama, and Pelosi are resolute in failing to recognize is that the “Slaughter Solution” proposal for circumventing the constitutional process, in order to “deem” the Health Care Reform bill, regardless of any prior procedural precedent that may or may not have been set, represents a wanton indulgence in the appearance of impropriety. That very willingness to engage in even the appearance of impropriety is the earmark of the arrogance which is so characteristic of encroaching Tyranny.
Slaughter is wrong. Nothing could be more unconstitutional than for the American Congress to MIS-represent the American People.
Please click here to see how this action could spell not just the demise of the Democratic Party, but the bringing up of Pelosi, Slaughter, Reid and company on Treason charges and the start of a call for the impeachment of Obama:
To be clear, it’s the question of consistency that turned out to be the biting issue with the Medina-9/11 hoopla. The common man who knows the value of consistency and strives to live by that value has grown truly FED UP with the inconsistencies of his elected purported representatives, right to the top!
When Mark Davis spewed his stuff into the fan and Debra sopped up the splattering, many honest people took several steps away from Debra because they, and I, truly had, up to that point, come to believe that we had finally encountered the genuine straight-talker, straight-shooter, and everyday-neighbor personality whom everyone craves, one who could not be snookered or compromised while measuring all things against the U.S. Constitution. However, I found her responses to Davis to be somewhat rambling and convoluted, indicating a possible sense of desperation to strike a measured yet credible chord regarding the 9/11 Commission report.
With her assent to such a vicious characterization of 9/11 Truthers after having previously sympathized with our right to harbor conscientious and valid questions about such an incredibly painful issue, she exhibited the same unsavory propensity toward calculated inconsistency for the sake of political expediency that we’ve seen in candidates from both major parties. Such was the shock wave that profoundly resonated throughout the Liberty Movement, resounding still more because of the plethora of damning false flag evidence. From the get-go, however, I sensed that Mark Davis was staging a pre-arranged platform, lending an air of utter dishonesty to the entire act.
I listened to Jack Blood tonight. (MP3) I was reminded of George Orwell’s utterance, “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” Jack Blood was all about doing the revolutionary thing with this airing … out. He helped me to put aside (but not fore-go!) the confusion and disappointment over the Davis interview. I want to make clear that I would have come to the same decision to withdraw support, based not on whether Debra believes 9/11 was an inside job but on the points of her inconsistency and assent to the demonizing of 9/11 Truthers, even had I not first heard about it all from Alex Jones. Nevertheless, it is true that AJ’s long rant served to hammer home these valid points, while his effusive invective over the compromising of principles did have a convicting influence. Engaging in calculated inconsistency, and the maligning of sincere truth-seekers, in one fell swoop, by someone who had garnered our confidence, was, and is, enormously hurtful, especially for those 9/11 Truthers who have been personally impacted by this dastardly, evil, false flag atrocity. God will see to it, I truly believe, that justice will be done, BUT! only *through our participation* in the march of Truth.
With all that said, I acknowledge that no one of us can alter or control what others think of us. In the end, all we truly have is the inner spirit-leading toward all truth, should we choose to follow it, however imperfectly, and regardless of what anyone thinks of what that should look like. I want to resume believing that Debra Medina *would* step forward to explain herself conscientiously were she not needing to walk a fine line to vie for an elected office.
I believe Texas MUST be salvaged from the neo-con, NWO wrecking-yard plans. I think Debra would be the first to agree that, should she succeed to the Governor’s chair, she should be watched like a hawk by the people, many of whom would be engaging in such a level of political involvement for the first time. Regardless of her genuine stand on the 9/11 question, she is, and always has been, all about salvaging Texas for Texans. Basing my feeling on the overall platform of her candidacy, I would be proud to become a Texas resident someday were she to become Governor.
I would expect that a judiciary body would find that there exists within the U.S. Constitution safeguards of the natural rights and protections of those American citizens who are Native-born, together with those of its specialized category of ‘Natural-born,’ as being innately Sovereign over the Federal Government, losing a critical measure of their liberties only upon conviction by jury trial of Treason and precipitating severe punishment.
The only citizenship-stripping which already finds precedent appears to be in the case of Naturalized immigrants who, having been found guilty in a jury trial of treasonous criminal activity, can not only be subject to severe punishment but also stand to forfeit their citizenship status that had been previously granted through the process of Naturalization (14th Amendment). But one’s Native-born and its specialized category of ‘Natural-born’ citizenship status are not dependent upon the 14th Amendment.
It seems to me that this “exploration” by the tyrannous neo-cons amounts to yet another attempt to usher in a Police State, to subvert the Republic. Apparently the Pentagon wants to usher in a Police State, as in TOTALITARIANISM.
It’s high time our elected representatives REPRESENT their constituent CITIZENS and set the Pentagon straight.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Pentagon Quietly Explores De-Citizenship of US Citizen Terrorists
By Steve Clemons – February 10, 2010, 12:07PM
Reposted from TPM
At the highest levels of the US military, a quiet discussion is going on about putting in place a legal framework that would permit the US government to strip American citizenship from terrorists.
The case of Las Cruces, New Mexico born al Qaeda commander Anwar al-Aulaqi, who has been a key organizer and recruiter for the terrorist organization in Yemen is the primary driver of this exploration of possibly modifying US law to allow “de-citizening.”
A senior Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has told me that to his knowledge, there has been no serious discussion in the Committee of stripping US citizenship from terrorists, but a senior Pentagon official has confirmed that some in the military are exploring the upsides and downsides of such a more routenized mechanism for stripping citizenship.
A national security attorney who serves in an advisory capacity to President Obama has reported to me that there is no legal way for the US military or the government to strip citizenship from Americans.
As Volokh then wrote pondering whether a terrorist could be stripped of his US citizenship:
Maybe. A federal statute says that a citizen loses his citizenship by “serving in the armed forces of a foreign state if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States” but only if he does so “with the intention of relinquishing United States [citizenship].”
This topic can be more ably discussed by sharp legal minds like Jeffrey Toobin, Jeffrey Rosen and Glenn Greenwald — but it seems to me that establishing a regularized legal framework specifying that alleged terrorists be stripped of US citizenship so that the military can deal with those de-nationed individuals differently reminds me of the kind of legal gray area that Cheney national security adviser David Addington loved to create.
By posting this question, I trust that others will review other cases and the legal background of this question of stripping citizenship in times of war — and weigh in.
The Pentagon’s top stars are mulling over this issue now and just beginning to probe receptevity in the administration and among some in Congress.
The individual’s right to freely question and to freely choose dissent is already becoming endangered as it is. 9/11 “Truthers” and “Birthers” are increasingly vilified and painted as “dangerous” by mainstream media and the talking-head puppets of the CIA and Pentagon. Now, with the CIA incrementally showing its hand, the “Shadow Government” has fundamentally asserted a constitutionally-prohibited power, and has done so “in-your-face” to our congressional representatives. This has opened the door for further deconstruction of our Republic by encouraging the construction of a pretext of conscientious, questioning, peace-loving American citizens potentially being regarded as dangerous extremists. Acceleration of the ushering of the Republic of the United States into an eventual Totalitarian Police State proceeds apace. It’s all by design.
It seems to me that the individual States should lever some genuine 10th Amendment constitutional power over this egregious violation by the rogue Shadow Government of the civil rights of Sovereign Citizens!
Bloomberg assisted Christine Lagarde yesterday with covering the IMF and her ass for what the IMF (“International Monetary Fund”) has ACTUALLY been doing to countries around the world. It is the not-so-secret agenda of the IMF to implement the long-standing plan of the Rothschilds and other elite banking families which is to co-opt the countries of the world by hijacking their economies, by rendering countries completely dependent upon, and so subservient to, the global for-profit banking cartel, using the economic ideology of Socialism and Communism merely as their tool, like a stepping-stone, toward a global economic governance by an elite oligarchy dominated by Jewish banksters. It’s part-and-parcel of the Zionist plot to overtake the world, starting with the Middle East, by covert means, by sabotage, subterfuge, and by utilizing their strongman, the U.S. military as their conquering force, in order to make way eventually for the rise of their coveted ‘Greater Israel.’
Trade tariffs are intended to stimulate COMPETITION, which is anathema to the Globalists agenda. Without trade tariffs, quality products made in the United States cannot continue to be manufactured for sufficient profit for having to compete with imported products that are allowed to enter the U.S. at a selling price which undermines American businesses. The result is a loss of U.S. business productivity and a deflated job market. But again, that result is precisely the goal of the IMF and BIS, as that result leads governments to accept further loans from the various satellite monsters of the BIS, such as the privately-held, for-profit, non-federal, fraudulently-installed, unconstitutional “Federal Reserve” central banking system. The Season of our Discontent is upon us, courtesy of the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of International Settlements.
The American Republic has been under siege since the illegal inception of the private Federal Reserve Central Bank, and its political integrity under assault since the assimilating of thousands of Nazis by way of Operation Paperclip, bursting into fruition with the CIA-instituted coup through JFK’s assassination. Many of the individuals behind this putrid history are alive today, and learning who they are and how this all came to be is the inevitable result of probing just what is behind the largest criminal racketeering lawsuit ever to be filed, one whose defendants are individuals at the helm of the SEC and, as the lawsuit indicates, by association individuals within, and by implication behind, the United States Government. Now, it’s become nakedly evident that we can no longer afford to entrust the preservation of our American Republic into the hands of the CIA-controlled mainstream media..jpg)
is little more than reinforcement of the exploitative system we suffer today.
Amadon Fidelis 