Wednesday, June 3, 2009

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
Sotomayor, Obama and the Legitimization of Racism

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
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

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.
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:


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.

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]


*"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.

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.



. . . 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.

More Important! See



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.

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


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

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment