The Subversive Second Phase of Islam: Lawfare And Shari’a Compliance

Recognizing the second of the three phases of Islam is critical for concerned American citizens to stop the ongoing subversive expansion of Islamic and totalitarian ideology throughout America.

All phases of Islam evidence regulation of religious, political, legal, and social norms, through judicial, militia, and/or military means under Shari’a law.

In phase two, the shorter chapters located towards the back of the Qur’an supersede the earlier transcribed texts, according to the Islamic doctrine of abrogation. They parallel the time in Muhammad’s life when he formed alliances with groups outside of Mecca and began fighting non-believers who rejected Islam (22:39,40).

Mirroring this time in Muhammad’s life, these texts apply to Muslims who have become or are becoming a majority in a neighborhood, city, or region. They outline the groundwork necessary to develop a totalitarian political system that eliminates a country’s existing laws.

This second phase is often referred to as “defensive Jihad” or “civilization jihad,” implemented once a Muslim population reaches between 10 and 20 percent.

One predominant approach of defensive Jihad is legal. Muslims seek to de-legitimize existing laws, redefine legal terms related to human rights, and silence and punish free speech through “lawfare.” Threats increase against non-Muslims via lawsuits and dissemination of false and/or misinformation.

For example, Dearborn, Mich., “protesters” assert that their “civil rights” justify stoning Christians. Muslim communities argue their “civil rights” enable them to use their own de facto legal system (Islamic tribunals) instead of state law. Muslims successfully and intentionally censor media coverage while promoting shari’a on public school property—without consequence due to intimidation, legal threats, and blatant discrimination.

The ultimate goal is to eliminate constitutionally protected rights under the guise of “Shari’a compliance.”

The Center for Security Policy reported earlier this year that in 32 states, 146 cases existed where litigants sought to resolve a dispute applying Shari’a law instead of state law. Previously, in 2011, it discovered that in 23 states, American courts applied Shari’a law to rulings that infringed the constitutional rights of women and/or children.

Last month, Michigan’s Taylor City Council unanimously approved a resolution supporting a campaign for shari’a under the guise of “hate based on religion.” Last year, Michigan’s transit authority, SMART, banned “Leaving Islam?” bus ads designed to help Muslim girls (American citizens) who are threatened and killed—on American soil— according to Shari’a apostasy and blasphemy laws.

Eliminating constitutional rights extends to the public school classroom. Under the guise of “world religions,” Common Core teaches Islam, violating at a minimum the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Taxpayers fund “Arabic Immersion” for public schools, teaching even kindergarteners in Arabic 50 percent of the time and about “Middle Eastern culture.”

Likewise, Jew hatred on American college campuses is actively encouraged, as is the teaching of Islamic ideology in Gulen Charter Schools, both funded by taxpayers.

The results of “defensive Jihad” perverting American law are devastating:

  • Increased honor killings of young girls by their fathers are occurring (girls are killed for being “too American” or for refusing to participate in arranged marriages)
  • Beheading coworkers for rejecting Islam is becoming more common, as is
  • Attacking soldiers on military bases because they meet the Qur’an’s “mischief-making” criterion; and
  • “Asylum seekers” justify bombing marathon runners to prove a point; or
  • Children are punished and shamed for opposing being taught Islam in school.

This legal approach is only one of many efforts to infiltrate and transform every area of society with Islamic ideology. Phase two involves:

Phase two clarifies a simple fact: Islamic political ideology encompasses every area of life rooted in Shari’a—for the worse. Shari’a demands totalitarianism, which only offers two choices: comply or die.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Are You A Discouraged Conservative? Then This Book Is A Must-Read…

The Conservatarian Manifesto: Libertarians, Conservatives, and the Fight for the Right’s Future, Crown Forum

Charles C.W. Cooke’s The Conservatarian Manifesto is a delightful call for a fusion of conserva(tive) and (liber)tarian ideals into a new synthesis that can lead the right to victory after eight years under George W. Bush “ruined its reputation, giving conservatism a bad name.”

“Republicans spent too much, subsidized too much, spied too much, and controlled too much.” The GOP “abandoned its core principle of federalism, undermined free trade, favored the interests of big business” over a free market, “used government power to push social issues too aggressively” and “lost its reputation for fiscal restraint, constitutional propriety and mastery of foreign affairs.” He justifies his indictment in crisp prose and difficult-to-dispute facts.

The best news is that Cooke’s solution is federalism and decentralization. The difference between the left and right, he argues, is that conservatives and libertarians do not insist on telling people hundreds and thousands of miles away how to live their lives. Progressive philosophy “is built upon the core belief that an educated and well-staffed central authority can determine how citizens should live their lives.” But, he argues, Utah and New York, indeed New York City and Buffalo, are very different places and deserve very different policies. Federalism is the answer.

In one of his few references to philosophical sources, Cooke questions whether it is even possible to run things well from the center. He references Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek’s magisterial “The Use of Knowledge in Society” to demonstrate that decisions must be left to people who are familiar with specific circumstances and know directly of resources and the changes in them necessary to make rational decisions. President Obama admits that many national agencies are “outdated” and “designed poorly,” but he proceeds to utilize them to dramatically change and affect peoples’ lives. The result is today’s governmental dysfunction.

The intellectual elite in the media and education simply keep repeating the progressive mantra, blind to any alternative. The differences between this refrain and conservatarianism, Cooke insists, are fundamental and “utterly irreconcilable.” The solution for the right is to build competing institutions to influence those with an open mind as it has already begun through alternative media, talk radio, journals, and think tanks. He concedes these are no match to the resources of establishment progressivism but is optimistic that the young represent “a generation of nonconformists” who will adopt his conservatarianism if it is presented attractively to them.

A sound platform must begin with the Constitution, the fount of federalism. But its central message is distorted by progressive intellectualism reading its prejudices into that document. He quotes progressive icon Woodrow Wilson that “The Constitution was not made to fit us like a straightjacket. In its elasticity lies its genuine greatness.” The conservative response should be the “simple idea” that “law should continue to mean what it meant when it was adopted,” which progressives seem to understand except when it comes to the Constitution. Before the progressive revolution, courts did not find black or female suffrage hidden somewhere in the Constitution. They required amendments, as required explicitly in Article V, which were in fact adopted in the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments. Today, rights to sodomy, gay marriage, abortion, and the like are “discovered” in a Constitution that has nothing to say about them. Although he seems to concede past anti-federalist interpretations, his basic solution is to defend that document as written, leaving issues not in the Constitution to the states and using the amendment process when national change is thought necessary.

At least in theory, Cooke’s manifesto preaches rational balance in foreign policy. He identifies himself as a firm believer in American world leadership but finds that “a contingent on the right that is hostile to the heady interventionism of the Bush years is a healthy thing indeed. [But] That there is a tendency to extend this skepticism beyond prudence into all out disengagement is worrying.” America, he believes, “can lead without needing to rush to the scene of every fire in every corner of the world.” Military spending should be privileged, but the right should be in the forefront of “rallying against waste” and against using defense for pork-barrel spending.

Many conservatives will be upset with Cooke on social issues. On the positive side, he is a serious opponent of gun control and attributes the right’s success on this issue to having “the facts on its side” in a local-oriented policy (ignoring the Heller decision) that respects legitimate desires for protection and sportsmanship as well as differences between central city and rural life. Years of drug control policy (beginning with Wilson in 1914) have been a failure because it is national and cannot take into account local differences. It discriminates against African Americans, makes the U.S. the world leader in prison populations, and has contributed to the militarization of police forces. Drug policy should be decentralized to relate to local circumstances.

Cooke becomes provocative when he claims the whole idea of “social issues” is a myth. Each policy instead requires a pragmatic approach sensitive to different circumstances. Although specifying he is an atheist, he says abortion is settled by the simple and coherent argument that “a life is a life and that anybody who is interested in individual liberty is duty bound to protect the innocent.” Gay marriage is different. While Americans tend to oppose abortion—at least after the first three months—a large majority now support gay marriage.

Surprisingly, Cooke does not support the libertarian solution of privatizing marriage but does say that there is no Constitutional right to gay unions. The problem is that government is so intertwined in marriage that in a practical sense, either gay unions must be recognized–or gays must be deprived of too many government services, even ones libertarians recognize. Indeed, contracts cannot allow every human relationship (e.g. bondage or slavery); so the state cannot be excluded even when it is just enforcing free contracting. The solution again is local, to work out specific real-world difficulties. Minimally, those who do not wish to offer services to such marriages should not be coerced to do so.

Overall, Cooke presents a lively and interesting discussion of issues that should be widely read especially among America’s millennials and younger generations. This rising cohort should just buy the book and stop reading this review.

To older generations, the book reminds one of Athena emerging full grown from the skull of Zeus. Here is an argument for some type of traditional and libertarian fusion written by an intellectual at the magazine National Review, who seems to have no idea that his magazine had developed the whole concept of conservative fusionism a half century earlier. Its founder William F. Buckley Jr., an editor named Frank Meyer, and their acolytes promoted the idea of a conservatism based upon a synthesis between pursuing traditional value ends and utilizing free means to do so. While preferring “tension” to “fusionism,” both Buckley and Meyer adopted the latter as the least objectionable designation. At least it iterates better than conservatarianism.

Cooke’s omission is mitigated by the fact he is British by birth and young and so would have no reason to know this history. Yet, it is remarkable that no one at the magazine alerted him to its paternity. Perhaps no one remembers. The current mini revival of fusionism (the Heritage Foundation, Philadelphia Society, Intercollegiate Studies Institute among others) apparently passed them by. Indeed, this lineage traces back much further. As Meyer and Hayek both emphasized, the fusion of freedom and tradition was derived from the medieval synthesis of faith and reason that formed European civilization culminating in the Magna Carta, which in turn was grounded on St. Paul’s synthesis of Greek and Jew that created Western Christendom.

But these big issues are not required to enjoy this bright, reasonable to the max, and readable book. It is a good place for the younger generation to begin the long journey back from monochromatic utopian thinking, especially the modern progressive version being force-fed to them at their colleges and universities every day.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Battlefield America: The War On The American People

“A government which will turn its tanks upon its people, for any reason, is a government with a taste of blood and a thirst for power and must either be smartly rebuked, or blindly obeyed in deadly fear.”—John Salter

We have entered into a particularly dismal chapter in the American narrative, one that shifts us from a swashbuckling tale of adventure into a bone-chilling horror story.

As I document in my new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, “we the people” have now come full circle, from being held captive by the British police state to being held captive by the American police state. In between, we have charted a course from revolutionaries fighting for our independence and a free people establishing a new nation to pioneers and explorers, braving the wilderness and expanding into new territories.

Where we went wrong, however, was in allowing ourselves to become enthralled with and then held hostage by a military empire in bondage to a corporate state (the very definition of fascism). No longer would America hold the moral high ground as a champion of freedom and human rights. Instead, in the pursuit of profit, our overlords succumbed to greed, took pleasure in inflicting pain, exported torture, and imported the machinery of war, transforming the American landscape into a battlefield, complete with military personnel, tactics, and weaponry.

To our dismay, we now find ourselves scrambling for a foothold as our once rock-solid constitutional foundation crumbles beneath us. And no longer can we rely on the president, Congress, the courts, or the police to protect us from wrongdoing.

Indeed, they have come to embody all that is wrong with America.

For instance, how does a man who is relatively healthy when taken into custody by police lapse into a coma and die while under their supervision? What kind of twisted logic allows a police officer to use a police car to run down an American citizen and justify it in the name of permissible deadly force? And what country are we living in where the police can beat, shoot, choke, taser, and tackle American citizens, all with the protection of the courts?

Certainly, the Constitution’s safeguards against police abuse means nothing when government agents can crash through your door, terrorize your children, shoot your dogs, and jail you on any number of trumped of charges–and you have little say in the matter. For instance, San Diego police, responding to a domestic disturbance call on a Sunday morning, showed up at the wrong address, only to shoot the homeowner’s 6-year-old service dog in the head.

Rubbing salt in the wound, it’s often the unlucky victim of excessive police force who ends up being charged with wrongdoing. Although 16-year-old Thai Gurule was charged with resisting arrest and strangling and assaulting police officers, a circuit judge found that it was actually the three officers who unlawfully stopped, tackled, punched, kneed, tasered, and yanked his hair who were at fault. Thankfully, bystander cell phone videos undermined police accounts, which were described as “works of fiction.”

Not even our children are being spared the blowback from a growing police presence. As one juvenile court judge noted in testimony to Congress, although having police on public school campuses did not make the schools any safer, it did result in large numbers of students being arrested for misdemeanors such as school fights and disorderly conduct. One 11-year-old autistic Virginia student was charged with disorderly conduct and felony assault after kicking a trashcan and resisting a police officer’s attempt to handcuff him. A 14-year-old student was tasered by police, suspended, and charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and trespassing after he failed to obey a teacher’s order to be the last student to exit the classroom.

There is no end to the government’s unmitigated gall in riding roughshod over the rights of the citizenry, whether in matters of excessive police powers, militarized police, domestic training drills, SWAT team raids, surveillance, property rights, overcriminalization, roadside strip searches, profit-driven fines and prison sentences, etc.

The president can now direct the military to detain, arrest, and secretly execute American citizens. These are the powers of an imperial dictator, not an elected official bound by the rule of law. For the time being, Barack Obama wears the executioner’s robe; but you can rest assured that this mantle will be worn by whomever occupies the Oval Office in the future.

A representative government means nothing when the average citizen has little to no access to their elected officials, while corporate lobbyists enjoy a revolving door relationship with everyone from the President on down. Indeed, while members of Congress hardly work for the taxpayer, they work hard at being wooed by corporations, which spend more to lobby our elected representatives than we spend on their collective salaries. For that matter, getting elected is no longer the high point it used to be. As one congressman noted, for many elected officials, “Congress is no longer a destination but a journey… [to a] more lucrative job as a K Street lobbyist… It’s become routine to see members of Congress drop their seat in Congress like a hot rock when a particularly lush vacancy opens up.”

As for the courts, they have long since ceased being courts of justice. Instead, they have become courts of order, largely marching in lockstep with the government’s dictates, all the while helping to increase the largesse of government coffers. It’s called for-profit justice, and it runs the gamut of all manner of financial incentives in which the courts become cash cows for communities looking to make an extra buck. As journalist Chris Albin-Lackey details, “They deploy a crushing array of fines, court costs, and other fees to harvest revenues from minor offenders that these communities cannot or do not want to raise through taxation.” In this way, says Albin-Lackey, “A resident of Montgomery, Alabama who commits a simple noise violation faces only a $20 fine—but also a whopping $257 in court costs and user fees should they seek to have their day in court.”

As for the rest—the schools, the churches, private businesses, service providers, nonprofits, and your fellow citizens—many are also marching in lockstep with the police state. This is what is commonly referred to as community policing. After all, the police can’t be everywhere. So how do you police a nation when your population outnumbers your army of soldiers? How do you carry out surveillance on a nation when there aren’t enough cameras, let alone viewers, to monitor every square inch of the country 24/7? How do you not only track but analyze the transactions, interactions, and movements of every person within the United States? The answer is simpler than it seems: You persuade the citizenry to be your eyes and ears.

It’s a brilliant ploy, with the added bonus that while the citizenry remains focused on and distrustful of each other, they’re incapable of focusing on more definable threats that fall closer to home—namely, the government and its militarized police. In this way, we’re seeing a rise in the incidence of Americans being reported for growing vegetables in their front yard, keeping chickens in their back yard, letting their kids walk to the playground alone, and voicing anti-government sentiments. For example, after Shona Banda’s son defended the use of medical marijuana during a presentation at school, school officials alerted the police and social services; and the 11-year-old was interrogated, taken into custody by social workers, and had his home raided by police and his mother arrested.

Now it may be that we have nothing to worry about. Perhaps the government really does have our best interests at heart. Perhaps covert domestic military training drills such as Jade Helm really are just benign exercises to make sure our military is prepared for any contingency. As the Washington Post describes the operation:

The mission is vast both geographically and strategically: Elite service members from all four branches of the U.S. military will launch an operation this summer in which they will operate covertly among the U.S. public and travel from state to state in military aircraft. Texas, Utah and a section of southern California are labeled as hostile territory, and New Mexico isn’t much friendlier.

Now I don’t believe in worrying over nothing, but it’s safe to say that the government has not exactly shown itself to be friendly in recent years; nor have its agents shown themselves to be cognizant of the fact that they are civilians who answer to the citizenry, rather than the other way around.

Whether or not the government plans to impose some form of martial law in the future remains to be seen, but there can be no denying that we’re being accustomed to life in a military state. The malls may be open for business, the baseball stadiums may be packed, and the news anchors may be twittering nonsense about the latest celebrity foofa; but those are just distractions from what is really taking place: the transformation of America into a war zone.

Trust me; if it looks like a battlefield (armored tanks on the streets, militarized police in metro stations, surveillance cameras everywhere), sounds like a battlefield (SWAT team raids nightly, sound cannons to break up large assemblies of citizens), and acts like a battlefield (police shooting first and asking questions later, intimidation tactics, and involuntary detentions), it’s a battlefield.

Indeed, what happened in Ocala, Florida, is a good metaphor for what’s happening across the country: Sheriff’s deputies, dressed in special ops uniforms and riding in an armored tank on a public road, pulled a 23-year-old man over and issued a warning violation to him after he gave them the finger. The man, Lucas Jewell, defended his actions as a free speech expression of his distaste for militarized police.

Translation: “We the people” are being hijacked on the highway by government agents with little knowledge of or regard for the Constitution, who are hyped up on the power of their badge, outfitted for war, eager for combat, and taking a joy ride—on taxpayer time and money—in a military tank that has no business being on American soil.

Rest assured, unless we slam on the brakes, this runaway tank will soon be charting a new course through terrain that bears no resemblance to the land of our forefathers, where freedom meant more than just the freedom to exist and consume what the corporate powers dish out.

Rod Serling, one of my longtime heroes and the creator of The Twilight Zone, understood all too well the danger of turning a blind eye to evil in our midst, the “things that scream for a response.” As Serling warned, “if we don’t listen to that scream – and if we don’t respond to it – we may well wind up sitting amidst our own rubble, looking for the truck that hit us – or the bomb that pulverized us. Get the license number of whatever it was that destroyed the dream. And I think we will find that the vehicle was registered in our own name.”

If you haven’t managed to read the writing on the wall yet, the war has begun.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Oath Keepers Protecting Oregon Miner From BLM

The Bureau of Land Management is in a land dispute with the owners of an Oregon gold mine.The BLM has issued a cease-and-desist order to Rick Barclay, the owner of the Sugar Pine Mine, to remove his equipment and buildings by April 25 without any official ruling by the courts. Mr. Barclay said:

The BLM – I have a stop-work order. I’m not allowed to do anything. I’m supposed to remove my possessions from this mine. Close up this mine and re-claim the surface and leave before I even get a hearing.

The BLM claims that the mine has no surface rights to the area–even though miners have been in continuous operation since the early 1870’s, which pre-dates the BLM bureaucracy by many decades. Barclay has the original location notice that he dates his claim to the mine from. Barclay has called on the Oath Keepers to protect his land and his Constitutional Rights from the BLM.

That is the sum total of their purpose to be here is to protect my rights to due-process and to preserve my property until such time as I get my day in court.

The Oath Keepers of Josephine County is present at the mine as a security precaution to ensure the mining claim owners’ 5th Amendment Constitutional Right to Due Process is not violated by the BLM. Barclay said that there is not a standoff with the Government.

There has been no confrontation. There has been no implied threat, overt threats or any such thing.

This is a basic property rights issue of the government trying to take control of land that they do not have proper documentation for. Does the government have the right to those minerals? Should the government override your use of your own land? We will continue to monitor the court ruling.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

BREAKING: What This Judge Just Did For The First Time Gives A Nonhuman Constitutional Rights

Since when have nonhumans enjoyed legal rights afforded to humans; specifically constitutional protections granted to citizens of the United States? Well, if a judge’s ruling in New York is proven to carry the legal weight that an animal rights group claims it does, that “when” could be now.

The Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) has declared in a just-issued press release that, for the “first time in world history,” a judge has recognized two chimpanzees being used for research purposes as “legal persons” and granted them writ of habeas corpus. That right is essentially a means by which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment and is embodied in Article One, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

The NhRP statement read, “Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe issued an order to show cause and writ of habeas corpus on behalf of two chimpanzees, Hercules and Leo, who are being used for biomedical experimentation at Stony Brook University on Long Island, New York.”

The statement went on to declare that Justice Jaffe has “implicitly determined that Hercules and Leo [the two chimpanzees] are ‘persons’” in the eyes of the law.

A post at The Verge notes that the animal rights group has been arguing for some time, and before several courts, that these two chimps, along with others, are being unlawfully imprisoned by the university researchers. The group kept up the legal fight until the case finally landed in front of the New York Supreme Court Justice who just issued what could prove to be a landmark ruling.

“Three lower court judges dismissed the cases as they were raised in 2013, but the Nonhuman Rights Project appealed, eventually convincing Jaffe that the animals were sufficiently intelligent to grant them what amounts to basic human rights.”

The next court action in the case involving Hercules and Leo is scheduled for May 6th, when representatives of Stony Brook University are supposed to appear before Judge Jaffe to respond to the animal rights group’s claim that the apes are being detained unlawfully. Even if that hearing fails to uphold the chimps’ “personhood,” the head of the Nonhuman Rights Project says a major victory has already been won.

“We have scientific evidence to prove in a court of law that elephants, great apes, and whales and dolphins are autonomous beings and deserve the right to bodily liberty,” she said. “[This ruling] strengthens our argument that these nonhuman animals are not property.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth