What Connection Between Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood?

Why does this anti-jihad blog disapprove of Obama as president or for any position in the U.S. Government?

On November 4,1979 a renewed Moslem aggression against the non-Islamic world was launched with the occupation of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran, Iran.

Twenty-two years later, Islamic adherents on jihad killed some 3000 people in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania.

There is no doubt that the jihadists of the Moslem world are at war with the United States. That no Islamic countries have declared war is beside the point, as there is financial as well as implicit support among the Moslem elites, masses and governments of this aggression with the goal of Islamizing the West, including the United States.

When the supposed leader of the United States is sympathetic to the Islamic world's aim, he can neither be regarded as a defender of the Constitution of the United States nor of its people.

From FaithFreedom.org comes the following:

Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood Links Deserve Second Look
Op-Ed

“The Speech” [Cairo] delivered by Barack Obama may have been intended to strengthen ties with the Muslim community, but it also served to add another chapter to Obama’s troubling history with the world’s oldest international terrorist organization – the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Islamic revivalist movement Muslim Brotherhood (MB), founded in 1928 by the Egyptian schoolteacher Hassan Al-Banna, seeks to establish a global Islamic Caliphate ruled by Shari’ah law. MB has spawned such terrorist groups as Hamas – which is actually the Palestinian chapter of MB – Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Al Qaeda. Despite being officially outlawed in Egypt, MB politicians – who run as independents – account for 88 seats, or just over 20% of Egypt’s parliament. In addition, MB has either founded or is linked to most major U.S. Muslim organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Students Association (MSA), the Muslim American Society, and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The MB denounced violence back in the 1970’s and now claim that they stand for democratic reform, but they support suicide bombings and are tied to international terrorist attacks.

At least ten MB members – including Mohammed Saad el-Katatni, the head of MB’s parliamentary bloc – were invited to attend the speech at Cairo University. The Obama administration claims that invitations were sent out exclusively by Egypt’s Cairo and Al-Azhar Universities. However according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, the Egyptian daily Al-Masyroon reported that the invitations were “extended at the request of U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Margaret Scobey.”

Reporters questioned Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough whether or not MB members were invited by the administration, but McDonough would not give an answer.

“I can tell you that invitations have gone out to the full range of actors in Egyptian political society,” responded McDonough. Apparently to the Obama administration the “full range of actors” includes those who see suicide bombing as “the greatest of all sorts of Jihad in the Cause of Allah.”

More . . .

Read the whole thing at http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/06/16/obamas-muslim-brotherhood-links-deserve-second-look/

The Symbol of the United States . . .

The Stars and Stripes . . . and here we are at Flag Day 2009 - June 14


















The first flag-raising on the island of Iwo Jima occurred at 10AM on Feb. 23, 1945 . . .

. . . shortly after Marines had fought and the top of Mount Suribachi.

Easy Company had been fighting 4 days. They had 40% casualties.

Four of the Flag Raisers (Bradley, Hayes, Sousley & Strank) appear with their jubilant buddies. Strank, Sousley and many of these boys would soon be dead.

Click to see a large view.








Japan's Iwo Jima Strategy
The US Invasion
The Land Battle
Epilogue

http://www.iwojima.com/raising/raisingb.htm

The First Flag-Raising

Scott Tank sent us ["EyeWitness to History"] this eyewitness account of Cpl. Charles W. Lindberg, a friend and the last surviving member of the team that raised the first flag on the crest of Mt. Suribachi. Scott asked that we share Mr. Lindberg's story with you - we are honored to do so. Thank you Scott for sending us this account, and thank you Mr. Lindberg for the sacrifices you made during that bloody nightmare called Iwo Jima:

It was the job of the 28th Regiment, 5th Division, to capture Mount Suribachi. They reached the base of the mountain on the afternoon of February 21, and by nightfall the next day the Marines had almost completely surrounded it.

As part of that Marine group, 24-year-old Corporal Charles Lindberg, a combat veteran of the Guadalcanal and the Bougainville campaign, watched the intense bombardment of Iwo Jima and realized that the landing at Red Beach One would be anything but easy. "The Japs had the whole beach zeroed in. Most of the fire was coming from Suribachi," he recalled. Surrounding Mount Suribachi were cliffs, tunnels, mines, booby traps, and ravines. The hostile terrain proved to be as tough an enemy as the Japanese who were firmly entrenched on the mountain.

At 8 a.m. on February 23, a patrol of 40 men from 3rd Platoon, E Company, 2nd Battalion, 28th Marines, led by 1LT Lieutenant Harold G. Schrier, assembled at the base of Mount Suribachi. The platoon's mission was to take the crater of Suribachi's peak and raise the U.S. flag. As a member of the first combat patrol to scale Mount Suribachi, Cpl Lindberg took his 72-pound flamethrower and started the tortuous climb up the rough terrain to the top.

As they reached the top, the patrol members took positions around the crater watching for pockets of enemy resistance as other members of the patrol looked for something on which to raise the flag. Present at the crest were six Marines of a 40-man patrol. They were 1LT Lieutenant Schrier, Sergeant Thomas, Sergeant Hansen, Private First Class Charlo, Private First Class Michels, and Corporal Charles W. Lindberg.

At approximately 10:20 a.m., the flag was hoisted on a steel pipe above the island. The sight of the small American flag flying from atop Mount Suribachi thrilled men all over the island. And for the first time during WWII, an American flag was flying above what was considered traditional Japanese territory. This symbol of victory sent a wave of strength to the battle-weary fighting men below, and struck a further mental blow against the island's defenders.
Marine Corps photographer Sergeant Lou Lowery captured this first flag raising on film just as the enemy hurled a grenade in his direction. Dodging the grenade, Lowery hurled his body over the edge of the crater and tumbled 50 feet. His camera lens was shattered, but he and his film were safe.

As Cpl Lindberg would later remark, "Suribachi was easy to take; it was getting there that was so hard!" Of the 40-man patrol, thirty-six were killed or wounded in later fighting on Iwo Jima including Lindberg himself who would be shot through the stomach and arm a week later on 1 March, 1945. For his heroism Lindberg would receive the Purple Heart and Silver Star Medal with the citation reading in part:

"Repeatedly exposing himself to hostile grenades and machine-gun fire in order that he might reach and neutralize enemy pill-boxes at the base of Mount Suribachi, Corporal Lindberg courageously approached within ten or fifteen yards of the emplacements before discharging his weapon, thereby assuring the annihilation of the enemy and the successful completion of this platoon's mission. While engaged in an attack on hostile cave positions on March 1, he fearlessly exposed himself to accurate enemy fire and was subsequently wounded and evacuated."

References: Ross, Bill D., Iwo Jima: Legacy of Valor (1985); Wheller, Richard, Iwo (1980).

How To Cite This[not this post but the referenced] Article: "Raising the Flag Over Iwo Jima, http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pfiwoflag.htm1945," EyeWitness to History, http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/ (2002).

Washington, D.C.--(ENEWSPF)--June 11, 2009. In the midst of a war for our Nation's independence, on June 14, 1777, the Second Continental Congress adopted a flag as a symbol of our fledgling Union. The Congress resolved that the flag be "thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation." For generations to come, this pattern would serve as a compass bearing toward equality and justice for all.Our flag's journey has been long. It has seen our Nation through war and peace, triumph and tragedy. It flew above the walls of Fort Sumter, South Carolina, at the outset of the Civil War. It stood on Mount Suribachi on the island of Iwo Jima during World War II.
http://www.enewspf.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8139:presidential-proclamation-re-flag-day-and-national-flag-week-2009&catid=88888983:latest-national-news&Itemid=88889930
　
A holiday widely respected by veterans, Flag Day has been around for years, and some individuals say they believe it should be as valued as any other celebration.

Flag Day is the anniversary of the Flag Revolution of 1777. It was officially established by a proclamation of President Woodrow Wilson on May 30, 1916. However, on Aug. 3, 1949, President Harry Truman signed an Act of Congress making June 14 of each year the National Flag Day.
http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20090614/NEWS01/906140318/1010

The Power of a President

We have currently a president (legitimately or illegitimately in office) who fancies himself to be in the mold of Abraham Lincoln.

It behooves us to learn as much as possible about Lincoln's acts during the secession of some states from the union and the resulting civil war.












Did President Lincoln suspend Habeas Corpus?
Answer: Yes, in 1861 and 1862

From www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm

As the Civil War started, in the very beginning of Lincoln's presidential term, a group of "Peace Democrats" proposed a peaceful resolution to the developing Civil War by offering a truce with the South, and forming a constitutional convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to protect States' rights. The proposal was ignored by the Unionists of the North and not taken seriously by the South. However, the Peace Democrats, also called copperheads by their enemies, publicly criticized Lincoln's belief that violating the U.S. Constitution was required to save it as a whole.

With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus.

In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.

Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him.

The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling.

Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.

Copyright, 1999
American Patriot Network
www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm

Lincoln's Crackdown Suspects jailed. No charges filed.
http://www.slate.com/id/2059132/
By David Greenberg
Posted Friday, Nov. 30, 2001,

[A] . . . wartime leader who locked up civilians and resorted to army courts . . . Abraham Lincoln . . . his civil liberties record stands as a rare blot on his reputation.

In his authoritative Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties (1991), Mark Neely has argued that during the Civil War these two policies—summary arrests and military justice—were of a piece. Both stemmed from the emergency of having an armed rebellion in the nation's midst, and they were viewed as two parts of a single policy.

First a definition: The Latin phrase habeas corpus means "you have the body." The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus refers to a common-law tradition that establishes a person's right to appear before a judge before being imprisoned. When a judge issues the writ, he commands a government official to bring a prisoner before the court so he can assess the legality of the prisoner's detention. When the privilege of the writ is suspended, the prisoner is denied the right to secure such a writ and therefore can be held without trial indefinitely. Habeas corpus is the only common-law tradition enshrined in the Constitution, which also explicitly defines when it can be overridden. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says, "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."

Several times during the war, Lincoln or his Cabinet officers issued orders suspending the writ. The first came early in his presidency. Lincoln had been in office for barely a month when Confederate troops attacked the federal garrison at Fort Sumter in April 1861, starting the Civil War. One of his immediate concerns was how to keep an unobstructed route between Washington, D.C., and the North. He worried that if Maryland joined Virginia and seceded from the Union, the nation's capital would be stranded amid hostile states. On April 19, 20,000 Confederate sympathizers in Baltimore tried to stop Union troops from traveling from one train station to another en route to Washington, causing a riot. So on April 27 Lincoln suspended the habeas corpus privilege on points along the Philadelphia-Washington route. That meant Union generals could arrest and detain without trial anyone in the area who threatened "public safety."

***
In the last 140 years, America has not faced a crisis anything like the Civil War, and the power to suspend habeas corpus has mostly gone unused. Although (as I'll explain next week) the Supreme Court never definitively ruled Lincoln's suspensions unconstitutional, his actions did come to be seen as a blemish on an otherwise heroic record of wartime leadership. That disrepute into which his behavior fell just may have helped deter his successors from using such measures themselves.
More at http://www.slate.com/id/2059132/

Military tribunals for American Civilians
From America's military tribunals through the ages.
By David Greenberg
http://www.slate.com/id/2059375/

Lincoln prosecuted American civilians. Still, now as then, using Army courts to try anyone but U.S. soldiers is to court the reproach of posterity.

***
Lincoln's Army tribunals began operating just a few months after the Civil War began. Disorder was acute in border states such as Maryland and Missouri, which remained loyal to the republic but contained many citizens who sympathized with or aided the Confederate rebels. In Maryland, Lincoln sought to quell the chaos by suspending habeas corpus (as discussed in last week's "History Lesson"). But Missouri was more intractable. In June 1861, the state's governor declared war on the Union forces even as he swore his fidelity to the United States; a month later, all-out combat had consumed the state. Union Gen. John C. Frémont imposed martial law in August.

Yet Frémont and his successor, Henry W. Halleck, believed (incorrectly) that they could legitimately employ military courts in Missouri because they had imposed martial law there. This belief probably stemmed from innocent confusion since, despite a Lincoln administration white paper spelling out the differences between the two concepts, few people understood them.
The defendants who came before these tribunals weren't Confederate soldiers, who, when captured, typically became prisoners of war and weren't put on trial. Rather, the defendants in military court were mainly civilians suspected of aiding the rebels. Gen. Halleck explained the rationale: In Missouri, he said, those burning bridges or buildings weren't "armed and open enemies" but "pretended quiet citizens living on their farms." These civilian rebels couldn't be treated as prisoners of war, but neither could they be entrusted to the local courts, which Halleck deemed "very generally unreliable"—not least because so many locals were likely to sympathize with the South. (International war crimes tribunals, like those used to try the Nazis at Nuremberg after World War II, weren't yet common practice.) So starting in September 1861, Missourians were prosecuted under military tribunals that Union generals established. Lincoln did nothing to deter his generals from doing as they saw fit to subdue Missouri.
Eleven months later, such tribunals were given explicit sanction to operate nationwide. In August 1862, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, on Lincoln's orders, suspended habeas corpus across the country and decreed that a range of civilian criminals and dissenters would face arrest and trial before military courts. Of the 4,000-plus military trials throughout the war, about 55 percent took place in the border states of Missouri, Maryland, and Kentucky (where the Union military maintained a strong presence and where generals wouldn't trust juries composed of locals). Roughly 32 percent occurred in the Confederate states. The rest occurred in Washington, D.C. (which was also under martial law for some of the war), and the North.

More at http://www.slate.com/id/2059375/


LINCOLN'S ABUSE OF POWER DURING THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
ByBrian Pulito
http://www.civilwarhome.com/pulito.htm

When one considers all that occurred during the very turbulent period of the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln is usually considered to be a hero. During his presidency, he managed to keep the United States of America together and gave a people held in bondage, American slaves, the freedom they so desperately deserved. Like almost every president who preceded him, Lincoln's actions at the time were somewhat controversial. Some of his most controversial decisions might actually be considered now to be abuses of the Presidential power. During his terms as president, he suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and upheld the Declaration of Independence above the Constitution.

The writ of Habeas Corpus protects Americans from being unjustly imprisoned. Without it, law is a sham. The writ creates the gap between freedom and despotism. Its origin dates back to the formation of our country, and the tenet that all men have equality under the law. The writ ensures that no on can be unjustly imprisoned. Any prisoner feeling this right is being abused has the ability to petition to be seen before a judge, who can declare his arrest unlawful and have him released. Yet, during the initial year of the American Civil War, Lincoln used his power and removed that right, first in Baltimore, New York, and eventually the entire union. He authorized military officers to suspend the writ before he made an official proclamation. Joshua Kleinfeld, an author who has researched this issue, wrote that "when Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, he clothed himself with more power then any individual had possessed in America before, or since.

Lincoln contended that he removed the Writ in order to ensure victory and preserve the union. In fact he preserved more power for himself and removed a great deal from the United States legislative and judicial branches. The first proclamation to remove the Writ of Habeas Corpus was made in September of 1862. Not only did this proclamation, which had no scheduled end, remove the writ, it also established Mar[tial] law. It gave full power to close down "hostile, anti war newspapers," and to arrest individuals for protesting the war.

Lincoln removed a great deal of power from the legislative branch with this proclamation. He was not empowered under the Constitution to make such a declaration. In fact, that right belonged to Congress alone. Roger Taney, Supreme Court Chief Justice, contended that Article I of the Constitution declares: "a state of rebellion is the only time when Congress could declare the writ removed." He also believed: "This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive branch.."

The Supreme Court went on to order Lincoln to bring prisoners who had been arrested without reason before the court. He refused on the notion that the writ's suspension gave him that right to do so. Lincoln contended that, "It was not believed that any law was violated". The fact that he got away with suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus gave more power to the presidency during a time of war than ever before. Nearly 100 years later, Franklin D. Roosevelt, would once again abolish the writ in order to imprison Japanese Americans during the Second World War. Lincoln set a precedent which F.D.R later used to justify his own wartime actions.

By ignoring the rights of the judicial and legislative branches of the government, Lincoln abused the power of the presidency by giving it more power than it was allowed by the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is simply a document, not a tool--a paper that declared this country's intentions and justification for separation from a hostile tyrant, England. The founding fathers of our country never intended for it to be held above the Constitution. During his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln tried to justify the emancipation of slaves, which until that time had been considered unconstitutional, by upholding the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration states "all men are created equal," while the Constitution is very selective in its wording of which men are in fact considered to be equal.

More at http://www.civilwarhome.com/pulito.htm

OUR RABBLE-ROUSER-IN-CHIEF - HIS EARLY YEARS

"He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better."
--Mike Kruglik
　
[quoted from American Thinker (Photo from my archives)]


















The agitator's job, according to Alinsky, is first to bring folks to the "realization" that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them to bond together to demand what they deserve, and to make such an almighty stink that the dastardly governments and corporations will see imminent "self-interest" in granting whatever it is that will cause the harassment to cease.

In these methods, euphemistically labeled "community organizing," Obama had a four-year education, which he often says was the best education he ever got anywhere.

***

[some format editing, comments in orange]


Obama's Alinsky Lessons
From http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/obamas_alinsky_jujitsu.html

Barack Obama had just graduated from Columbia and was looking for a job. Some white leftists were looking for someone who could recruit in a black neighborhood in the south side of Chicago.

Obama answered a help-wanted ad for a position as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago. Obama was 24 years old, unmarried, very accustomed to a vagabond existence, and according to his memoir, searching for a genuine African-American community.

Both the CCRC and the DCP were built on the Alinsky model of community agitation, wherein paid organizers learned how to "rub raw the sores of discontent," in Alinsky's words.

One of Obama's early mentors in the Alinsky method was Mike Kruglik, who had . . . [the Kruglik quotation at the head of this post] to say to an Ryan Lizza of The New Republic, about Obama.

Read on about our "Chief's" further education in "what black folks like in what goes for religion."


Obama Not Starry-Eyed Like His Followers

Alinsky considered himself a realist above all, the ultimate pragmatist. As a confirmed atheist, Alinsky believed that the here and now is all there is, and therefore had no qualms about assorted versions of morality in the pursuit of worldly power. He didn't coddle his radical acolytes or encourage their bourgeois distinctions between good and evil when it came to transferring power from the Haves to the Have Nots. Alinsky saw the already formed church communities as being the perfect springboards for agitation and creating bonds for demanding goods and services.

When Obama first undertook his agitating work in Chicago's South Side poor neighborhoods, he was un-churched. Yet his office was in a Church and most of the folks he needed to agitate and organize were Church people -- pastors and congregants -- who took their churches and their church-going very seriously. So, this became a problem for the young agnostic, who had been exposed to very little religion in his life. Again and again, he was asked by pastors and church ladies, "Where do you go to Church, young man?" It was a question he dodged for a while, but finally he relented and joined a church.

Not just any church, but a huge black nationalist church with a pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who unabashedly preaches a "black" gospel. Rolling Stone Magazine ran with a story on Obama and his church, entitled, "Destiny's Child," which included this excerpt from one of Rev. Wright's sermons:

"Fact number one: We've got more black men in prison than there are in college," he intones.

"Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!"

"We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. . . . We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!"

The crowd whoops and amens as Wright builds to his climax: "And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS S**T!"

--Rolling Stone Magazine

***

Among some of the black nationalist signs hanging in this church are a list of admonishments to black solidarity, called the "Black Value System," and a sort of moral code calling for the "Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness." I don't recall the Ten Commandments or anything at all in the Gospel about race, so this seems a bit strange.

But Obama isn't starry-eyed when it comes to protecting himself from the possibility of bad press regarding his church affiliation. When he was preparing to announce his campaign for the Presidency in February, he called his minister, Reverend Wright, the night before and disinvited him to stand on the podium in front of all the cameras. Rather than face questions, he simply eliminated the target, a perfect Alinsky action meant to forestall an enemy reaction.

Obama had returned to Chicago and practiced civil rights law for 3 years, when he spied an opportunity to run for the state senate.

The rest--state senate, U.S. Senate, presidency--we know all too well.

ACORN's Man in the White House
http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2008/10/audacity-of-lying-about-everything.html

The Shadowy Figures Behind the Obama Phenomenon
http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2008/11/ghosts-in-obama-machine.html

How the "Chief" Bamboozled the "White Middle Class"
http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-obama-needs-white-middle-class.html

The Other side of the Coin from the "Chief's" Black Christianity
http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-fulfillment-of-moslem-marxist.html
http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2008/08/barack-obama-through-muslim-eyes_28.html

OBAMA DOESN'T KNOW SQUAT ABOUT ISLAM

Educating "America's Savior," the "Czar of Czars" also known as Barack Hussein Obama, who currently occupies the office of President of the United States

Obama Has a Lot to Learn About Islam's Contribution to Civilization
　
In his Moslem education during the mysterious "early years," Obama was taught to recite koran,delighted to the yowling of muezzins from minarets, and probably thought himself as quite an informed little Moslem.

. . . now as holder of the highest office in the United States, he still thinks himself as such--albeit no longer "little."

Granted, he's "big" now, as big as you can get to be here in this land of opportunity. He got himself a good education--Occidental College, Columbia, Harvard Law--whether Affirmative Action--racial preferences--helped or not is beside the point for our purposes here--his knowledge of history--including the history of Islamic "civilization"--is as deficient as that of any other "believer" --in the superiority of Islam, in its contributions--zero, algebra, astronomy, etc., everything that led to the "rebirth" of white Europe from the savagery it supposedly had sunk to.

The following is . . .

[From the] text of President Obama's prepared remarks to the Muslim world, delivered on June 4, 2009, as released by the White House. (New York Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html?_r=1
　
[Comments on the text are mine--Leslie White]

The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights.--Obama

If Obama believes that Islam is not "hostile" to human rights, then he is a worse intellectual clown (a$$-clown) than he appears and sounds. Need I repeat the lack of rights for "unbelievers,' for women, for belly-crawling "dhimmis" --those non-Islamics who live under Islamic domination?

America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.--Obama

Justice, tolerance, and dignity under Islam apply only to Moslems. If you do not believe me, read or listen to news reports of what goes on in Islamic countries and/or read the koran. As for "progress"--there has been none springing from Islam since its unfortunate inception in the 7th Century C.E.

Progress has been purloined by Islamics from the civilizations it ruined and tossed by them into the future, claiming it (progress) as its own.

And now comes the crux ("heart" so as not to offend non-Christians) of the matter:

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.--Obama

OK, he qualifies or thinly coats his lauding of "Muslim communities" NOT the Moslems themselves for developing algebra, navigation tools, medical knowledge, etc. with the facts: that these advances if civilization were not developed by devout Mohammedans who were bound by the nonsense spouted out by Mohammed in what became the koran, but passed on after translation by Moslems who dared go outside of the restrictions choking their culture and keeping it some 13 centuries behind civilizations. He does, however sing the praises of arches (not invented by Moslems but by Romans), soaring spires (perches for muezzins and not much use to civilization), "timeless poetry"--often by the denizens of Moslem-subjected previously formed civilizations--music, I can't recall world-wide-appreciated Moslem music at this moment, and "places of peaceful contemplation," that are when under Islamic rule, for Muslims only--Juden verboten! and Christians not welcome either. Of course, he, Obama, qualifies as one who would be welcome into these places of peaceful contemplation.

The final sentence of this outpouring of admiration for Islam's accomplishments, " . . . throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality," makes one want to retch with disgust at Obama's tail-wagging approach to Islam (as he did in demonstrating fealty to the king of the Saudis).

"Religious tolerance?" What was he thinking of? Pagans are kufar and killed if they did and do not accept Allah and its "prophet." And "racial equality?" For the abd (the blacks, abd means slave)? Equality on the slave trails that the Arabs used from Zanzibar to capture or buy blacks for pleasure and profit?

Back to the Obama's praise of Islamic Civilization.

As concerns the existence of such a civilization, let us turn to one surely better qualified than I am to discuss the contribution of the Arab-Mohammedan caliphates to what is accepted as "civilization" on this world.

[quoting Andre Sevier from his Ch. I ( 1) Mind of the Musulman ]

. . . historians have been deceived by appearances. The rapid expansion of Islam, which, in less than half a century after the death of Mahomet, brought into subjection to the Caliphs an immense empire stretching from Spain to India, has led them to suppose that the Arabs had attained a high degree of civilization. After the historians, the contemporary men of letters, in their fondness for exoticism, contributed still more to falsify judgment by showing us a conventional Arab world, in the same way as they have shown us an imaginary Japan, China, or Russia. (1)
______________________
1 Dr. Gustave Le Bon, "La Civilization des Arabes.'
_______________________
It is in this way that the legend of Arab civiliza-tion has been created. Whoever attempted to combat it was at once assailed with Caliph Haroun-al-Raschid's presents to Charlemagne-that wonderful clock that struck with astonishment the contem-poraries of the old Emperor with the flowing beard. Then so many illustrious names are quoted: Averrhoes, Avicenna, Avenzoar, Maimonides, Alkendi, only to mention those best known. We shall show later on that these names cannot be invoked in favour of Arab civilization, and that moreover that civiliza-tion never existed.

There is a Greek civilization, and a Latin civiliza-tion; there is no Arab civilization, if by that word is meant the effort personal and original of a people towards progress. There may, perhaps, be a Musul-man civilization, but it owes nothing to the Arabs, nor even to Islam.

Nations converted to Mahomet-anism only made progress because they belonged to other races than the Arab, and because they had not yet received too deeply the impress of Islam. Their effort was accomplished in spite of the Arabs, and in spite of Islamic dogma.The prodigious success of the Arab conquest proves nothing. Attila, Genseric and Gengis Khan brought many peoples into subjection, and yet civilization owes them nothing.A conquering people only exercises a civilizing influence when it is itself more civilized than the people conquered. Now, all the nations vanquished by the armies of the Caliph had attained, long before the Arabs, a high degree of culture, so that they were able to impart a little of what they knew, but received nothing in exchange. We shall come back to this later. Let us confine ourselves for the moment to the case of the Syrians and the Egyptians, whose Schools of Damascus and Alexandria collected the traditions of Hellenism; to North Africa, Sicily, and Spain, where Latin culture still surVived; to lPersia, India, and China, all three inheritors of illustrious civilizations.The Arabs might have learnt much by contact with these diff'erent peoples, It Was thus that theBerbers of North Africa and the Spaniards very quickly assimilated Latin civilization, and in the same way the Syrians and the Egyptians assimilated Greek civilization so thoroughly that many of them, having become citizens of the Roman or of the Byzantine Empire, did honour in the career of art or letters to the country of their adoption.In striking contrast to these examples, the con-quering Arab remained a barbarian; but worse still, he stifled civilization in the conquered countries.

Read the rest--read it all--at WHEN YOU HEAR SOMEONE SHOUT "ALLAHU AKBAR!" Shoot the Bastard.
http://islamicdangerstill.blogspot.com/2007/12/when-you-hear-someone-shout-allahu.html

And note this:

From ANDRE’ SERVIER’S ISLAM AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE MUSULMAN (Translated by A. S. Moss-Blundell, with a preface by Louis Bertrand; Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York; 1924)

"Islam is Christianity adapted to Arab mentality, or, more exactly, it is all that the unimaginative brain of a Bedouin, obstinately faithful to ancestral practices, has been able to assimilate of the Christian doctrines. Lacking the gift of imagination, the Bedouin copies, and in copying he distorts the original. Thus Musulman law is only the Roman Code revised and corrected by Arabs; in the same way Musulman science is nothing but Greek science interpreted by the Arab brain; and again, Musulman architecture is merely a distorted imitation of the Byzantine style." (Servier, page 61)
　

NOTES ON ISLAM'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE UNITED STATES

By the way, dear friends, you readers of these posts here, there is more in that Obama in Cairo speech, especially that regarding Islam's contribution to the United states, starting with Tripoli (pirates) and their "contributions" to America (Yes, they did us a service by forcing the birth of the United States Navy to stop these Mohammedan Barbary pirates):

[t]he first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. and "the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796"--Obama
　
. . . but that's another story and the main one posted above these NOTES contains the flavor of what I wanted to say here.
　
AFTERTHOUGHT:

"Civil resistance is a horrid alternative, but so is a socialist-fascist dictatorship--or Islam"

Racism: The Road to Islamization

New Material Added!

In the Shadow of a fraudulent election of a President who may not have been born in the United States . . .
. . . Obama is Ruining the United States in Preparation to Accept Islam as One of the Pillars of America.

Socialist-Fascism Precedes Islamization
　
Racism and Disarming the American People
　
1. The Return of "Racism" to America
　
. . . courtesy of Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Dunham, Barry Sotero, Barack Obama)
There once was a time when most everyone who came to the United states to stay and most everyone born here strove to be "American."

I say"most," because you had Communist who wanted to see the overthrow of the U.S. government, Nazis who wanted to see American Jews undergo the same fate as the Jews of Nazi-conquered Europe, anarchists, etc.

That was the time when all who wanted to be, considered themselves as "American" started to ignore superficialities as skin colors grading from white through cafe-au-lait, brown, to cocoa brown (few blue-black as you can see in the Caribbean islands and in parts of Africa) and hair from straight to tightly wound, from straw to black.

Yes, there was discrimination. Jews could not get into the exclusive clubs of gentiles, and neither could non-whites*. Dark-skinned people of African descent lived apart--as they still do by choice or economic circumstances--and the military was not fully integrated nor sexually blind. As to the last two words, neither women nor homosexuals (or "gays" as they prefer to be called) are races, so they wil not be included as such here.

Since the ascent of the half-African Obama, race has again become a major issue in America.
　
American by virtue of some "Certificate of Live Birth," meaning he was registered as "born" somewhere and issued in Hawaii, Obama stresses race in all his actions, if not all his words.

He--along with his Multi-culti following among public and the media--has made America race-conscious to the point of friction.

Some Americans of African descent feel empowered enough to be openly rude to Americans of non-African heritage--especially to their European--descended fellow citizens.

So-called "Latinos" and "Latinas"--far from qualifying for descent from the Latin-speaking Romans of old--and "Hispanics" that have nothing but language to connect them to Hispania and Iberia have rallied to "La Raza" and Aztlan--both anti-white-European racial organizations of empowerment.

Obama is seeking to scrape the dregs of the American culture barrel and make that rise to the top, whilst taxing the cream of the culture--black, white, olive, whatever--to make it trickle down to the noxious bottom.

Of course in that procedure--Bottom-feeders to the surface--he is racially blind, to a point. Just take a look at his appointments.

But is this empowerment of the non-productive underclass subsisting on entitlements that Islam finds its converts. A majority of these people go in and out prisons where Moslem clerics gather converts.

No majority, not even a plurality of homegrown Moslems is needed, A few, some in public office, backed and hailed by the foreign Moslem groups such as CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood offsprings are sufficient to effect the toppling of the Constitution and the government governing under its restrictions concerning govermental tyranny.

Hence, Socialism-National Socialism leads to Islamization.

More on Race in America at
Lost in the Labyrinth of Race
The Sotomayor Nomination and the Politics of Racial Identity
By Victor Davis Hanson
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/lost-in-the-labyrinth-of-race/
　
Sotomayor, Obama and the Legitimization of Racism
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11567

Disarming the American People

To make the American people bend to his will, the arrogant up-from-the "communities" Obama first has to disarm it. Here is where the "wise, life-enlightened-by-not-being-white Latina" Sotomayor will come in handy.

from Pajamas Media by Bob Owens:

The Supreme Court nominee is a gun-banning radical who has ruled that cities and states can disarm you.

Long before he was the president of the United States or even the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama made his opposition to the Second Amendment of the Constitution painfully clear. As a director of the Joyce Foundation for eight years (1994-2002), Obama participated in the creation and funding of prohibitionist-minded anti-gun groups to the tune of millions of dollars.
This fact does not surprise the millions of Americans who have responded to the threat by purchasing millions of firearms since the president was elected and who purchased at least 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition in December alone.

What far fewer Americans know about Obama is that he was one of the Joyce Foundation’s directors when they embarked on a plot to undermine the Second Amendment by targeting the Supreme Court of the United States: (Coninue reading at http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/sotomayor-obamas-end-run-on-the-second-amendment/)
***
Obama now claims he always held the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, and that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms." But as a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation’s attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms.
from Sotomayor: Obama’s End Run on the Second Amendment
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/sotomayor-obamas-end-run-on-the-second-amendment/

Once the Second Amendment has been skewed so that the Right to Bear Arms is applicable only to a "government-organized militia," confiscation of firearms rom the public is the next step.

Once you can ride rought-shod over the Bill of Rights, anything goes. The Obama tyranny will roll on, disregarding the Fourth Amendment to confiscate arms by "unreasonable search and seizure." Why "unreasonable?" Because the Second Amendment will be bent to allow following it with a similar fitting the Government's purpose of arms confiscation by application of a re-interpreted Fourth.

For a further discussion of how these two Amendments originated and see the APPENDIX.


"The United States as One of the Largest Moslem Nations in the World" -- Obama



















Photo from
TARIQ RAMADAN: ‘MUSLIMS DEMAND RESPECT AND HUMIILITY’ TOWARDS ISLAM!’
by sheikyermami on June 4, 2009

From "The Caucus" The political Blog of the Times (New York Times) comes this:

In an interview with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station, Mr. Obama noted that the United States also could be considered as "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." He sought to downplay the expectations of the speech, but he said he hoped the address would raise awareness about Muslims.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/obama-signals-themes-of-mideast-speech/
　
And from Richard Fernandez at Pajamas Media, comes this:

Le Monde quoted Barack Obama as saying that the US is one of the largest Muslim countries on the planet:

[Translation]

The United States is "one of the largest Muslim country on the planet," said June 2 Tuesday on Canal + U.S. President, Barack Obama, who must decide Thursday in Cairo a landmark speech of reconciliation towards the Muslim world ( see Barack Obama’s interview on Canal + here).
The United States and the Western world must learn about Islam, and indeed if we count the number of American Muslims, we see that the United States is one of the largest Muslim country the planet, "he said.

"Whatever their faith, those who build and not destroy those who leave behind a lasting legacy," he continued. "I think there is now a real conflict between those who argue that Islam is irreconcilable with modern life and those who believe the contrary, Islam has always evolved along with the progress", at - he added.
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/06/02/americathedutiful/
　

A "Manchurian Candidate?"
You Make the Call . . .


[BE SURE TO READ. . .Islam's "Manchurian Candidate?" At the tail-end of . . . The Islamization of America - conquering Americans from within]

and
http://sheikyermami.com/2009/06/03/the-new-yawk-slimes-tries-damage-control/



____________________________________________
*"The Jews' Golden Age in America began in 1950, when social restrictions were eased in universities, banks, businesses, clubs, etc. This period may now be ending with the growth of the American Muslim population. Within that community, there are significant elements that see American Jewry as their prime enemy; they perceive Jews as the cause of Islamic failure. To counteract this, the Jewish community has to develop a greater understanding of how Muslims think; in particular their more radical elements, those supporters of militant Islam known as Islamists.
http://www.danielpipes.org/1759/the-end-of-american-jewrys-golden-era

The blacks, Afro-Americans, finally African-Americans came out of the shadows in the upsurge of the 'Sixties when the Left was intent on disrupting the rhythm of government. Civil Rightsm Freedom Rides, Voter Registration, and Affirmative Action brought blacks into the univesities, corporations, and government.

See . . .
10 Reasons Why We Fight Against Obama

Obama & Sotomayor Photo: AP Photo SUSAN WALSH
President Obama stands with his Supreme Court choice, Sonia Sotomayor.




















From The All-Inclusive Obambi Nation
by sheikyermami on June 4, 2009

Provisional title for this post: A Raisin in the Royal Sun


APPENDIX

FROM THE 2nd TO THE 4th AMENDMENT

. . . disarming the people to bend them to his will

. . . the planned disempowerment of the Resistance to Barack Hussein Obama

Once the Second Amendment has been skewed so that the Right to Bear Arms is applicable only to a "government-organized militia," confiscation of firearms from the public is the next step.

Once you can ride rought-shod over the Bill of Rights, anything goes. The Obama tyranny will roll on, disregarding the Fourth Amendment to confiscate arms by "unreasonable search and seizure." why "unreasonable? Because the Second Amendment has been bent to allow the negation of the Fourth.
　
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms
Amendment Text
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

More Important! See

GUN RIGHTS
http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2008/08/heller-gun-rights-supreme-court.html

AND

The People in Arms: Jomini, The Art of War, p.31
" . . . a people wholly or almost wholly in arms, and making means of resistance out of everything, each individual of whom conspires against the common enemy."

Fourth amendment to the Constitution:
Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
Amendment Text
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

Both of these amendments are to safeguard the people from the tyranny of the Government.

ORIGIN OF THESE TWO AMENDMENTS:


Understanding the Intent of these Amendments via their Origins:
　
1. from "The Ideological Origins of theSecond Amendment"
　
. . . Drawing heavily upon the libertarian thought of the English commonwealthmen, colonial Americans believed that a republic's very existence depended upon the character and spirit of its citizens. A people noted for their frugality, industry, independence, and courage were good republican stock. Those intent upon luxury lost first their desire and then their ability to protect and maintain a republican society. Republics survived only through the constant protection of the realm of Liberty from the ceaselessly aggressive forces of Power. America would remain a bastion of Liberty, in stark contrast to the decadent and corrupt societies of Europe, only so long as its people retained their virility and their virtue.
***
." If those in government were heedless of reason, the people "must patiently submit to [their] Bondage, or stand upon [their] own Defence; which if [they] are enabled to do, [they] shall never be put upon it, but [their] Swords may grow rusty in [their] hands; for that Nation is surest to live in Peace, that is most capable of making War; and a Man that hath a Sword by his side, shall have least occasion to make use of it."[15]

The essays of Trenchard, Gordon, and Moyle subtly blended several distinct, yet related, ideas: opposition to standing armies, dependence upon militias, and support of the armed citizen. Thus, while the concept of the armed citizen was sometimes linked with that of the militia, libertarians just as often stressed this idea as an independent theme or joined it to other issues.

This latter tendency is evident in the writing of James Burgh, the libertarian most attractive to Americans. His Political Disquisitions provided a grab bag of ideas which Americans integrated into their vision of republicanism. Stressing the relationship between arms and power in a society, Burgh declared: "Those, who have the command of the arms in a country, says Aristotle, are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please." Thus, "there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." For Burgh the very nature of society was related to whether or not its citizens had arms and were vigorous in their use. "No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion."[16]

A number of significant ideas came together in Burgh's Disquisitions. Like all libertarians he opposed a standing army and praised the militia as the bulwark of liberty. Then, going beyond these stock ideas, he clearly articulated the idea that the very character of the people--the cornerstone and strength of a republican society--was related to the individual's ability and desire to arm and defend himself against threats to his person, his property, and his state. An integral relationship existed between the possession of arms and the spirit and character of the people. For this reason Burgh lamented the state to which English society had fallen. Having become a people interested only in luxury and commerce, Englishmen had surrendered their arms. Lauding the Scots ("bred up in hardy, active, and abstemious courses of life, they were always (p.605)prepared to march") Burgh lamented that "the common people of England, on the other hand, having been long used to pay an army for fighting for them, had at this time forgot all the military virtues of their ancestors."[17]

Burgh's distress over the loss of virility and virtue in English society echoed that of his fellow libertarians since Harrington. These men related the downfall of English society to an increasingly luxury-loving people who freely chose to yield their military responsibilities to a professional army. Once armies were paid for by taxes, taxes were collected by armies, and the liberties of the English were at an end. True virtue sprang from the agrarian world of self-sufficient warriors. This was gone from England and with it all opportunity for a virtuous republic. There was, however, still some hope in the libertarians' minds: America was an agrarian society of self-sufficient husbandmen trained in arms. There the lamp of liberty might still burn brightly.
More at http://www.guncite.com/journals/shalideo.html
　
2. Search and Seizure - The Fourth Amendment: Origins, Text, And History
Like most of the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment has its origins in seventeenth-and eighteenth-century English common law. Unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment's origins can be traced precisely—it arose out of a strong public reaction to three cases from the 1760s, two decided in England and one in the colonies.
***
. . . each involved the investigation and prosecution of what might fairly be called dissidents—ordinary law-abiding citizens who disagreed strongly with the laws they were disobeying, and who enjoyed some substantial support among the citizenry.
***
The two English cases are usefully treated as a pair. Both Wilkes v. Wood, 19 Howell's State Trials 1153 (C.P. 1763), and Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell's State Trials 1029 (C.P. 1765), involved pamphleteers charged with seditious libel for criticizing the king's ministers and, through them, the king himself. In both cases, agents of the king issued a warrant authorizing the ransacking of the pamphleteers' homes and the seizure of all their books and papers. (An aside is necessary at this point: Warrants are means of giving government officials permission to search or arrest someone whom they otherwise might not be allowed to search or arrest. In American practice, warrants are issued only by judges or magistrates after reviewing an application from a police officer. In eighteenth-century England, warrants were sometimes issued by agents of the Crown on their own initiative.) These searches were duly carried out.

Wilkes and Entick sued for damages, claiming that the warrants were void and that the searches pursuant to them were therefore illegal. Both Wilkes and Entick won, with powerful opinions issued by Lord Camden, the judge in both cases. These decisions made Camden a hero in the colonies; a number of towns and cities were named after him because of his opinions in Wilkes and Entick.
***
Historians generally agree that the Fourth Amendment was designed to affirm the results in Wilkes and Entick, and to overturn the result in the Writs of Assistance Case. Three principles seem to follow. First, the government should not be allowed to search without some substantial justification, some reason to believe the place being searched contains the evidence being sought.

That was the problem with the writs of assistance—they authorized searches based on no more than the unsupported suspicion of the inspector. Second, searches, particularly of private homes, should not go beyond their justification. That was the problem with the searches in Wilkes and Entick–the authorities did not simply search for and seize illegal writings, but took all the books and papers in the suspects' houses. Third, the government should not use blanket warrants to evade the first two principles. That was a problem in all three cases. English common law held it a trespass to invade someone's home without some kind of authorization; the warrants in Wilkes and Entick and the writs of assistance looked like efforts to evade that common law right. This explains why, at the time of the Founding era, search warrants—now viewed as a protection against police overreaching—were seen as more of a danger than a safeguard.

Read more: http://law.jrank.org/pages/2014/Search-Seizure-Fourth-Amendment-origins-text-history.html/lixzz0HVhNb5QK&C

Racism: The Road to to Islamization

New Material Added!

In the Shadow of a fraudulent election of a President who may not have been born in the United States . . .
. . . Obama is Ruining the United States in Preparation to Accept Islam as One of the Pillars of America.

Socialist-Fascism Precedes Islamization
　
Racism and Disarming the American People
　
1. The Return of "Racism" to America
　
. . . courtesy of Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Dunham, Barry Sotero, Barack Obama)
There once was a time when most everyone who came to the United states to stay and most everyone born here strove to be "American."

I say"most," because you had Communist who wanted to see the overthrow of the U.S. government, Nazis who wanted to see American Jews undergo the same fate as the Jews of Nazi-conquered Europe, anarchists, etc.

That was the time when all who wanted to be, considered themselves as "American" started to ignore superficialities as skin colors grading from white through cafe-au-lait, brown, to cocoa brown (few blue-black as you can see in the Caribbean islands and in parts of Africa) and hair from straight to tightly wound, from straw to black.

Yes, there was discrimination. Jews could not get into the exclusive clubs of gentiles, and neither could non-whites*. Dark-skinned people of African descent lived apart--as they still do by choice or economic circumstances--and the military was not fully integrated nor sexually blind. As to the last two words, neither women nor homosexuals (or "gays" as they prefer to be called) are races, so they wil not be included as such here.

Since the ascent of the half-African Obama, race has again become a major issue in America.
　
American by virtue of some "Certificate of Live Birth," meaning he was registered as "born" somewhere and issued in Hawaii, Obama stresses race in all his actions, if not all his words.

He--along with his Multi-culti following among public and the media--has made America race-conscious to the point of friction.

Some Americans of African descent feel empowered enough to be openly rude to Americans of non-African heritage--especially to their European--descended fellow citizens.

So-called "Latinos" and "Latinas"--far from qualifying for descent from the Latin-speaking Romans of old--and "Hispanics" that have nothing but language to connect them to Hispania and Iberia have rallied to "La Raza" and Aztlan--both anti-white-European racial organizations of empowerment.

Obama is seeking to scrape the dregs of the American culture barrel and make that rise to the top, whilst taxing the cream of the culture--black, white, olive, whatever--to make it trickle down to the noxious bottom.

Of course in that procedure--Bottom-feeders to the surface--he is racially blind, to a point. Just take a look at his appointments.

But it is through this empowerment of the non-productive underclass subsisting on entitlements that Islam finds its converts. A majority of these people go in and out prisons where Moslem clerics gather converts.

No majority, not even a plurality of homegrown Moslems is needed, A few, some in public office, backed and hailed by the foreign Moslem groups such as CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood offsprings are sufficient to effect the toppling of the Constitution and the government governing under its restrictions concerning govermental tyranny.

Hence, Socialism-National Socialism leads to Islamization.

More on Race in America at
Lost in the Labyrinth of Race
The Sotomayor Nomination and the Politics of Racial Identity
By Victor Davis Hanson
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/lost-in-the-labyrinth-of-race/
　
Sotomayor, Obama and the Legitimization of Racism
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11567

Disarming the American People

To make the American people bend to his will, the arrogant up-from-the "communities" Obama first has to disarm it. Here is where the "wise, life-enlightened-by-not-being-white Latina" Sotomayor will come in handy.

from Pajamas Media by Bob Owens:

The Supreme Court nominee is a gun-banning radical who has ruled that cities and states can disarm you.

Long before he was the president of the United States or even the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama made his opposition to the Second Amendment of the Constitution painfully clear. As a director of the Joyce Foundation for eight years (1994-2002), Obama participated in the creation and funding of prohibitionist-minded anti-gun groups to the tune of millions of dollars.
This fact does not surprise the millions of Americans who have responded to the threat by purchasing millions of firearms since the president was elected and who purchased at least 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition in December alone.

What far fewer Americans know about Obama is that he was one of the Joyce Foundation’s directors when they embarked on a plot to undermine the Second Amendment by targeting the Supreme Court of the United States: (Coninue reading at http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/sotomayor-obamas-end-run-on-the-second-amendment/)
***
Obama now claims he always held the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, and that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms." But as a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation’s attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms.
from Sotomayor: Obama’s End Run on the Second Amendment
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/sotomayor-obamas-end-run-on-the-second-amendment/

Once the Second Amendment has been skewed so that the Right to Bear Arms is applicable only to a "government-organized militia," confiscation of firearms rom the public is the next step.

Once you can ride rought-shod over the Bill of Rights, anything goes. The Obama tyranny will roll on, disregarding the Fourth Amendment to confiscate arms by "unreasonable search and seizure." Why "unreasonable?" Because the Second Amendment will be bent to allow following it with a similar fitting the Government's purpose of arms confiscation by application of a re-interpreted Fourth.

For a further discussion of how these two Amendments originated and see the APPENDIX.


"The United States as One of the Largest Moslem Nations in the World" -- Obama

From "The Caucus" The political Blog of the Times (New York Times) comes this:

In an interview with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station, Mr. Obama noted that the United States also could be considered as "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." He sought to downplay the expectations of the speech, but he said he hoped the address would raise awareness about Muslims.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/obama-signals-themes-of-mideast-speech/
　
And from Richard Fernandez at Pajamas Media, comes this:

Le Monde quoted Barack Obama as saying that the US is one of the largest Muslim countries on the planet:

[Translation]

The United States is "one of the largest Muslim country on the planet," said June 2 Tuesday on Canal + U.S. President, Barack Obama, who must decide Thursday in Cairo a landmark speech of reconciliation towards the Muslim world ( see Barack Obama’s interview on Canal + here).
The United States and the Western world must learn about Islam, and indeed if we count the number of American Muslims, we see that the United States is one of the largest Muslim country the planet, "he said.

"Whatever their faith, those who build and not destroy those who leave behind a lasting legacy," he continued. "I think there is now a real conflict between those who argue that Islam is irreconcilable with modern life and those who believe the contrary, Islam has always evolved along with the progress", at - he added.
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/06/02/americathedutiful/
　

A "Manchurian Candidate?"
You Make the Call . . .


[BE SURE TO READ. . .Islam's "Manchurian Candidate?" At the tail-end of . . . The Islamization of America - conquering Americans from within]

and
http://sheikyermami.com/2009/06/03/the-new-yawk-slimes-tries-damage-control/



____________________________________________
*"The Jews' Golden Age in America began in 1950, when social restrictions were eased in universities, banks, businesses, clubs, etc. This period may now be ending with the growth of the American Muslim population. Within that community, there are significant elements that see American Jewry as their prime enemy; they perceive Jews as the cause of Islamic failure. To counteract this, the Jewish community has to develop a greater understanding of how Muslims think; in particular their more radical elements, those supporters of militant Islam known as Islamists.
http://www.danielpipes.org/1759/the-end-of-american-jewrys-golden-era

The blacks, Afro-Americans, finally African-Americans came out of the shadows in the upsurge of the 'Sixties when the Left was intent on disrupting the rhythm of government. Civil Rightsm Freedom Rides, Voter Registration, and Affirmative Action brought blacks into the univesities, corporations, and government.

See . . .
10 Reasons Why We Fight Against Obama

Obama & Sotomayor Photo: AP Photo SUSAN WALSH
President Obama stands with his Supreme Court choice, Sonia Sotomayor, during the announcement this morning in the East Room of the White House in Washington.

APPENDIX

FROM THE 2nd TO THE 4th AMENDMENT

. . . disarming the people to bend them to his will

. . . the planned disempowerment of the Resistance to Barack Hussein Obama

Once the Second Amendment has been skewed so that the Right to Bear Arms is applicable only to a "government-organized militia," confiscation of firearms from the public is the next step.

Once you can ride rought-shod over the Bill of Rights, anything goes. The Obama tyranny will roll on, disregarding the Fourth Amendment to confiscate arms by "unreasonable search and seizure." why "unreasonable? Because the Second Amendment has been bent to allow the negation of the Fourth.
　
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms
Amendment Text
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

More Important! See

GUN RIGHTS
http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2008/08/heller-gun-rights-supreme-court.html

AND

The People in Arms: Jomini, The Art of War, p.31
" . . . a people wholly or almost wholly in arms, and making means of resistance out of everything, each individual of whom conspires against the common enemy."

Fourth amendment to the Constitution:
Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
Amendment Text
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

Both of these amendments are to safeguard the people from the tyranny of the Government.

ORIGIN OF THESE TWO AMENDMENTS:


Understanding the Intent of these Amendments via their Origins:
　
1. from "The Ideological Origins of theSecond Amendment"
　
. . . Drawing heavily upon the libertarian thought of the English commonwealthmen, colonial Americans believed that a republic's very existence depended upon the character and spirit of its citizens. A people noted for their frugality, industry, independence, and courage were good republican stock. Those intent upon luxury lost first their desire and then their ability to protect and maintain a republican society. Republics survived only through the constant protection of the realm of Liberty from the ceaselessly aggressive forces of Power. America would remain a bastion of Liberty, in stark contrast to the decadent and corrupt societies of Europe, only so long as its people retained their virility and their virtue.
***
." If those in government were heedless of reason, the people "must patiently submit to [their] Bondage, or stand upon [their] own Defence; which if [they] are enabled to do, [they] shall never be put upon it, but [their] Swords may grow rusty in [their] hands; for that Nation is surest to live in Peace, that is most capable of making War; and a Man that hath a Sword by his side, shall have least occasion to make use of it."[15]

The essays of Trenchard, Gordon, and Moyle subtly blended several distinct, yet related, ideas: opposition to standing armies, dependence upon militias, and support of the armed citizen. Thus, while the concept of the armed citizen was sometimes linked with that of the militia, libertarians just as often stressed this idea as an independent theme or joined it to other issues.

This latter tendency is evident in the writing of James Burgh, the libertarian most attractive to Americans. His Political Disquisitions provided a grab bag of ideas which Americans integrated into their vision of republicanism. Stressing the relationship between arms and power in a society, Burgh declared: "Those, who have the command of the arms in a country, says Aristotle, are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please." Thus, "there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." For Burgh the very nature of society was related to whether or not its citizens had arms and were vigorous in their use. "No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion."[16]

A number of significant ideas came together in Burgh's Disquisitions. Like all libertarians he opposed a standing army and praised the militia as the bulwark of liberty. Then, going beyond these stock ideas, he clearly articulated the idea that the very character of the people--the cornerstone and strength of a republican society--was related to the individual's ability and desire to arm and defend himself against threats to his person, his property, and his state. An integral relationship existed between the possession of arms and the spirit and character of the people. For this reason Burgh lamented the state to which English society had fallen. Having become a people interested only in luxury and commerce, Englishmen had surrendered their arms. Lauding the Scots ("bred up in hardy, active, and abstemious courses of life, they were always (p.605)prepared to march") Burgh lamented that "the common people of England, on the other hand, having been long used to pay an army for fighting for them, had at this time forgot all the military virtues of their ancestors."[17]

Burgh's distress over the loss of virility and virtue in English society echoed that of his fellow libertarians since Harrington. These men related the downfall of English society to an increasingly luxury-loving people who freely chose to yield their military responsibilities to a professional army. Once armies were paid for by taxes, taxes were collected by armies, and the liberties of the English were at an end. True virtue sprang from the agrarian world of self-sufficient warriors. This was gone from England and with it all opportunity for a virtuous republic. There was, however, still some hope in the libertarians' minds: America was an agrarian society of self-sufficient husbandmen trained in arms. There the lamp of liberty might still burn brightly.
More at http://www.guncite.com/journals/shalideo.html

　
2. Search and Seizure - The Fourth Amendment: Origins, Text, And History

Like most of the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment has its origins in seventeenth-and eighteenth-century English common law. Unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment's origins can be traced precisely—it arose out of a strong public reaction to three cases from the 1760s, two decided in England and one in the colonies.

***
. . . each involved the investigation and prosecution of what might fairly be called dissidents—ordinary law-abiding citizens who disagreed strongly with the laws they were disobeying, and who enjoyed some substantial support among the citizenry.
***
The two English cases are usefully treated as a pair. Both Wilkes v. Wood, 19 Howell's State Trials 1153 (C.P. 1763), and Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell's State Trials 1029 (C.P. 1765), involved pamphleteers charged with seditious libel for criticizing the king's ministers and, through them, the king himself. In both cases, agents of the king issued a warrant authorizing the ransacking of the pamphleteers' homes and the seizure of all their books and papers. (An aside is necessary at this point: Warrants are means of giving government officials permission to search or arrest someone whom they otherwise might not be allowed to search or arrest. In American practice, warrants are issued only by judges or magistrates after reviewing an application from a police officer. In eighteenth-century England, warrants were sometimes issued by agents of the Crown on their own initiative.) These searches were duly carried out.

Wilkes and Entick sued for damages, claiming that the warrants were void and that the searches pursuant to them were therefore illegal. Both Wilkes and Entick won, with powerful opinions issued by Lord Camden, the judge in both cases. These decisions made Camden a hero in the colonies; a number of towns and cities were named after him because of his opinions in Wilkes and Entick.
***

Historians generally agree that the Fourth Amendment was designed to affirm the results in Wilkes and Entick, and to overturn the result in the Writs of Assistance Case. Three principles seem to follow. First, the government should not be allowed to search without some substantial justification, some reason to believe the place being searched contains the evidence being sought.

That was the problem with the writs of assistance—they authorized searches based on no more than the unsupported suspicion of the inspector. Second, searches, particularly of private homes, should not go beyond their justification. That was the problem with the searches in Wilkes and Entick–the authorities did not simply search for and seize illegal writings, but took all the books and papers in the suspects' houses. Third, the government should not use blanket warrants to evade the first two principles. That was a problem in all three cases. English common law held it a trespass to invade someone's home without some kind of authorization; the warrants in Wilkes and Entick and the writs of assistance looked like efforts to evade that common law right. This explains why, at the time of the Founding era, search warrants—now viewed as a protection against police overreaching—were seen as more of a danger than a safeguard.

Read more: http://law.jrank.org/pages/2014/Search-Seizure-Fourth-Amendment-origins-text-history.html#ixzz0HVhNb5QK&C