Saturday, April 28, 2007

Immigration Question

Should we allow certain people or groups to immigrate into the United States who hold to a system or ideology whose core belief denies, will not recognize, or whose practices nullify inalenable rights?

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

A Call for a Policy Change Limiting Immigration into the U.S.

Why do I call for limiting immigration, and point at Islam as an excellent example for a policy change in D.C.? If there is a big enough shift in the population in a few generations, then we will see inalienable rights no longer upheld, but if in name only, redeifined into something that no longer resembles those rights which are taught in the Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta, Lex Rex, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

I propose we develop a strenuous immigration policy that will no longer grant access into the U.S. those who profess any political and or religious views, or hold to ideologies that are anti-thetical to inalienable rights, and that will in time compromise the safety and security of the citizens within. Inalienable rights will be compromised if there is a big enough shift in the population in a few generations. At the very least, ever citizen who is granted U.S. Naturalization and are preparing for citizenship should be taught rigorously U.S. History, documents from the hands of our founding fathers, and Federick Bastiat's The Law. Therefore, it is the solemn duty of our elected official to protect and ensure the safety for the people who are already here-for those who have been here for generations and have given so much to America.

What would happen if the America that developed inalienable rights under God, and has fought and protected it for other nations, would become Islamic and nuclear?

Is it NOT the solumn duty of our elected officials to immigrate people here who will most likely vote for them? They swore to uphold the constiution and protect us here and now, and ensure our future by weighing the threats that contront our nation.

The Muslim population is growing large enough in England, notably in Birmingham, where groups are beginning to call for Muslims to create a "State within a state", like Lebanon. That's the nature of Islam: The revolution never ends. There is no peace until all submit. Then within their system--the same system that grants killing those who "oppose Islam"--will continue to kill one another until the "purest" form of Islam emerges. The blood letting will never end with this religion until the victor has forced his own Muslim brothers to submit to his version of the purest form of Islam.

Would we allow practicing Aztecs or Mayans into our country? The nature of Islam advances through the sword, baptises through the sword, and grants adherents entrance into paradise throw the sword.

"The gates of Paradise are under the shadows of the swords." Mohammed

There are forces at work to destroy it. Once they are here, they have their first amendment rights--given to them by the God who gives inalienable rights--to change anything by law. I’m not going to stop them from using their first amendment rights, but want to preserve the "good foundations" the pilgrims worked so arduously to lay, and laid their lives down in the process.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Response by George Grant

George Grant responded: "Several correspondents have recently asked me about the history and character of Islamic imperialism, conquest, and terror across the centuries. In my lectures on Islam, I often refer to the fact that no nation has ever willingly converted to Islam.

Every scrap of land, every person, every tribe, and every country currently under Muslim dominion was forcibly conquered and brought into submission--which probably should not surprise us since "submission" is actually the meaning of the word "Islam."

This is a fact, however, often denied by modern historiography--citing the isolated and unusual instances of Malaysia and Indonesia which were conquered, but by Muslim pirates rather than by Muslim armies.

These two thoroughly documented books, one focusing on Muhammad's life and teachings and the other focusing on the history of the movement following his demise, help to give the plain historical facts new currency. Both books put an effective end to the notions that Islam is a noble religion of peace and that there ever has been an Islamic "golden age." Karsh, a professor of Mediterranean Studies at King's College in London and Craig Winn, a dotcom entrepreneur and widely published author, have assembled a massive amount of research--sure fodder for future academic inquiry." Goorge Grant

George Grant's Blog: Grantian Florilegium

U.S. Policy on Immigration

I'm very troubled with a U.S. immigration policy which does not seem primarily concerned about the security of our citizens, the long term protection of inalienable rights, and our nation's long-term survival. The U.S. policy on immigration should limit the people who are granted access onto our shores to those peoples, cultures, and nations who are most likely to support and uphold inalienable rights and constitutional democracy, and curtail the immigration of those who hold views that are antithetical to inalienable rights, and wish to replace them with another set of values. The liberal view of "multiculturalism" is a guise to allow antithetical world-views into America in order to undermine its foundations.

I want Americans to be protected and safe.

A liberal immigration policy in Europe and low birth rate from Europeans has caused a problem where, in a generation or two, Europe could be Islamic, with minority groups who do not share the beliefs of Islam being subject to coercion, violence, discrimination, and persecution. America is heading down that road. In England, Islamists are telling Muslims to demand a "state within a state" like Lebanon. Jordan is now flooded with "Christian" refugees who are fleeing their homeland of Iraq because of the increased explicit targeting by Shiite and Sunni Muslims t0 persecute and kill Christians, and other minority religious groups . On the same score, thousands of "Christians" are leaving Lebanon to Northern Europe and America because the Muslims are so violent. I ask you,

Who wants too see America torn like Lebanon or as England is beginning to experience in 100 years? The writing is on the wall.

Where will people go if America falls and the globe is under control by militant Islam? Our elected officials need to be looking to the future now! They should be doing everything to protect and ensure the safety for the people who are already living here in the United States, and for the families, whose members--for generations--have built this country with their own hands.

Inalienable rights and Sharia Law are not compatible. The U.S. Constitution is built upon inalienable rights. Certain rights are given by God to man that can not be violated by the state. However, there are always a group of people in every society who are attracted to a type of ideology that breeds revolution and sedition. There are lots of angry people in the world, and they grab onto philosophies and religions that will seize the institutions delivered by God to man, to exact "justice" by force.

In the U.S. we have clean water, food at every street corner, electricity coming into our homes, phones that work, medical facilities, and free schools, and they are still angry and have an ax to grind, and they want to set things straight. Islam is an attractive solution to some because of its promotion in the use of force upon a society for socio-political change.

At the core of the problem of Islam and Inalienable Rights is the Islamic teaching that it is not how one ultimately lives ones life in Islam that guarantees paradise, but how one dies for Allah that counts. A Muslim is guaranteed paradise if he dies fighting against the infidel in Jihad (it is actually argued if a woman has the same guarantee under the same circumstances).

If the U.S. becomes Islamic, how can one have their fundamental inalienable rights protected by a state that does not recognize those rights, but holds to a core belief that finds favor with God by violating every one of those inalienable principles?

That's a fundamental difference between Christianity and Judaism, in matters of civil law. But in Egypt, Muslims are making Coptic Christians pay "protection money" in their neighborhoods; they are targeted for their wealth, killed, and plundered. And then their property and wealth are used to fund jihad. In Bethlehem, Muslims are seizing Christians of their property, and clerics and other Islamic organizations are sending letters to longstanding Churches and Christian groups that their community service is no longer needed, and that they need to stop or they can't guarantee "protection" for their persons and property. That violates inalieanable rights given by God in the Ten Commandments. We are to love our neighbor as ourselves, promote their well being, help secure their property. Sheiks for the last 30 years have been saying that "any one who opposes Islam should be put to death." They openly reject "give unto Caesar what is Caesars" because every aspect of life, your hair, your dress, are all dictated under Sharia. The history is too clear. Our elected officials have a solemn duty to protect the people who are already here first, who have built up this country, from a collective body of people who hold to a belief system that practices deceit, subterfuge, collusion, and a system that supports slavery and death in its reward system.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Question to Historian, Educator, George Grant

I heard your lecture on Islam given at the Vision Forum conference on History. You said to the effect, "Every Islamic country that exists today was conquered through military might, violence, and coercion." I have been telling this to a lot of people. If this is true, then it's a pretty startling track record of Islam: not one example of a Jonah or a St. Patrick in Islamic history. Jonah is the Old Testament example of a nation turning from sin through preaching alone: AfterJonah preached of the pending judgement of God to the ancient Ninahvites--the king and all his people--repented of their sins individually and as a nation. But on the contrary, every Islamic nation by your account was forced to turn and bow towards Mecca by means of the sword.

Someone responded recently to me by saying "Malaysia and Indonesia are two Muslim majority countries that were never invaded any Muslim armies. India remained under Islamic rule for 1000 years, but most of the ruler were secular. Emperor Akbar had Hindu wives and started his own religion. Islam spread their because of Muslim saints. If Islam spread by force, then 1000 years of rule in India and 400 years of rule in Spain should have been sufficient to convert both nations to Islam."

My questions to you are 1. Can you provide me the list of currently existing Islamic countries you had in mind when you made that statement, and can you provide the historical circumstances that led to their Islamic majority, and 2. How did Malaysia become Islamic, and 3. to what extent historically has India been under Islamic rule?

6 Imams and my letter to Congress

Today I wrote to the congressman of my district. You can use it for your own, if you like.

Dear [Congressman],

Thank you for serving my district. I appreciate your vigilence for preserving our American Liberties intended by our Founding Fathers. I don't know who else to approach about the Imam's shake down of U.S. Airways. I haven't gotten very far with writing the US Dept of Justice or U.S. Airways.

We need to prosecute these six Imams who are trying to shake-down the US airline industry. They disturbed the peace, haulted commerce, created fear, and are attempting to use our laws to intimidate us into quite submission.

"Weather most Americans know it or not, the attack on our inalienable rights by the legal arm of the Islamists is just as much part of jihad as anything our armed forces face."

Our elected officials ask us to be "vigilant". Are our elected officials being vigilent to know where our enemy's beliefs originate?

Security of our airways is vital to our liberty and economic freedom. This is just another arm of the Islamists: weaken our defenses by using our laws against us.

We, the American people, know they are trying to destroy our ability to use reason, common sense, and self-preservation by suing U.S Airways and a private citizen.

CAIR is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, a known organization (with a violent past) that claim they have renounced using violence, but work along side those who have not. They instead are waging their own form of political jihad in Egypt. And this is one of CAIR's first volleys to Islamisize the U.S. through the legal system. They are trying to weaken our security by this new legal attack.

Legislators and policy makers in Egypt have made the ignorant mistake that the moderates are a much more attractive alternative to militant Islam. But the truth of the matter is "moderate" islamists",--although claiming to denounce violence, have not denounced deceit, collusion, and subterfuge. The Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, and the militants are both working aggressively for the same goal: The islamisization of every society, with Sharia law as the goal.

Islam is a revolutionary, expansionist ideolgogy, that justifies deceit and violence as a means to an end. That's a hard pill to swallow, but we must look soberly at the past--and most importantly--at the present means by which Islamists use to achieve their goals.

Please continue to be a bastion of safety for us in the commercial air-space. Please help find a way to prosecute those six Imams who are trying to shake-down the US airline industry.

I will continue to write other congress people, but I consider you as both mine and my family's voice, who want you to represent us in the Halls of Congress for those who see a very uncertain future for our nation and our children's children. I pray, and hope, you will be amoung the other representatives who will take a very pro-active, constitutional stand with us who see through the attempts of those who try to use our laws againtst us: Sharia vs. Inalienable rights. Personal Sharia, that's one thing. But CAIR's ties with the Muslim Brotherhood is not about that. They are the legal arm of the Jihadist army.

Please let me know your views on this issue.


[Your Name Here]

Cited Matrial:

Pentagon report
Pentagon briefing Tasked with pinpointing motivation, concludes terrorists 'rational actors' following 'holy book': "Suicide bombers follow Quran"

Historian, George Grant
"...every Islamic nation that exists today was conquered by force and/or coercion. Not one Islamic nation that exists today became Islamic willingly." He said it's a historic fact that's documentable:
A must read:
Mary Anne Weaver gave the clarion call in 1997, documenting, most clearly, the deceitful and deadly tactics used by "moderate" Islamists to advance Islam in Egypt.

Her book: A Portrait of Egypt: A Journey Through the World of Militant Islam, 1997.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

First Post - Reasons for This Blog

First post.

THESIS:I wanted a place where I could discuss the historical developments of the concepts of inalienable rights under God, vs Sharia law. Mohammed's Sharia law borrows Old and New Testament principles, but at the root of its system it violates God's law, the Ten Commandments; and, hence, Sharia Law violates The Law of Moses, where true inalienable rights are derived.

  • 1446 B.C. - The Ten Commandments: Man's Public and Private Duties to both God and to Man
  • 30 A.D. Jesus summarizes the ten commandments in to two commandments: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and Mind, and Your neighbor as yourself."  

  • 1215 A.D. - Magna Carta - Civil Liberties and Basic Rights

  • 1620 A.D. - The Mayflower Compact: "A Civil Body Politic" (arguably the world's first Constitution)

  • 1644 A.D. - Lex Rex: Samual Rutherford presented a theory of limited government and constitutionalism

  • 1646 A.D. -  The Protestant Reformation: The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 23, "Of the Civil Magistrate" provides the basis for securing citizens to feel safe and flourish in Western Europe.

  • 1646 A.D. -  The Protestant Reformation: The Westminster Confession of Faith, Shorter Catechism question, Q. 74. What is required in the eighth commandment?", provides the foundation and moral clarity for  civil behavior in their laws and practice toward their neighbor, establishing citizens to feel safe and secure in their persons and personal wealth.
  • 1776 A.D. - The U.S. Constitution: The foundations of republicanism and constitutional democracies are based upon the Ten Commandments.

  • 1791 A.D. - U.S. Bill of Rights (Amendments to the U.S. Constitution)

  • 1850 - The Law (Frederick Bastiat) the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

  • Document and demonstrate how Sharia Law violates God given, truly Biblical "inalienable rights"

  • "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" vs. Sharia Law.

  • Daily blog the behavior of Muslim and Christian behavior globally

  • City news sources of political and cultural reactions of "Western" cultures and "Islamic" cultures.

  • Cite from news sources the reactions of political leaders and "magistrates" as they grapple with retaining or throwing off our inherited liberties of "life, liberty, and property": hence, inalienable rights.

  • Juxtapose this dialogue of true historic inalienable rights against the view of the modern civil rights movement--an often a diluted, abused, and capricious form of "rights".

    • Sharia Law vs Inalienable Rights.

      The concepts of Inalienable Rights which were borne out of the Christian Scriptures just prior to the Protestant Reformation, and subsequently developed further during and after that time, came both from the Old and New Testaments. Every citizen of the West is threatened by political Islam, which seeks to impose Islamic law (Sharia), as Muslims' separatism and refusal to integrate into their host cultures causes them to be perceived as threats to national cohesion and to democracy in historically "Christian" nations.

      Inalienable rights are historically derived, not from the state, not from man, but from the God, primarily from the Law of Moses, and secondly from the New Testament. Inalienable rights deal more often with "civil" or public laws which the state and/or private citizens should uphold to protect everyone his neighbor's "life", "liberty" and "property".

      Of concerning Civil Magistrates and their role in society, the Westminster Confession is one of the key landmarks of Western Civilization for defining the role of the "state" and their "magistrates" (legally elected officials, monarchs, or rulers, etc.).

      I start my first quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith because 1. it is a sin for a Christian to take personal vengeance upon the state or individuals, and 2 . civil magistrates are the God given institution to bear the "sword" for protecting and defending the innocent against eveildoers.

      On the other hand,

      Daily, on a global scale, we see Islamists continually taking vengeance in their own hands--in groups and as single individuals--acting apart from the state, not holding any official capacity, and by pointing to the Koran and Hadith in pre-suicide attack photos as the justification for their behavior to be above the law of their countries; hence, creating anarchy and disturbing the harmony that God has established in society.

      Instead, Notice the vast difference in this quote, taken from the New Testament. 
      "God is not the author of confusion". "Do not repay evil with evil..." "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, I will repay [not you]." [emphasis added]

      Westminster Confession Quote. (this confession has been called one of the pillar documents of Western Society. 

      The Civil Magistrate: A mercy and blessing given by God.

      Chapter XXIIIOf the Civil Magistrate

      I. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers.

      II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto: in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.

      III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

      IV. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute or other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, does not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted, much less has the Pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoever.

      [end quote]

      God is not the author of confusion. The magistrate is the only one mentioned having the "Sword" in the New Testament.  Self defense is a right of any individual; but the all too common practice of Revenge in Islamic countries is clearly prohibited by Scripture, with a promise:  "'I will repay', says the Lord."  The Maker of all things, arises and He, Himself, personally repays the evil doer.  

      The Magistrate, as the true bearer of the sword in society, was a transforming and powerful concept in the West:  People believed that God was always watching, and that even if no one else saw what they did in private, God knew and they would have to stand before God one day and give an account for disobeying his revealed will.  Fearing God, they believed His promise that, He, who can not lie, will repay vengeance upon those who took revenge in their own hands, instead of bringing a suit against the one who they believe has brought real harm or damage that violated their "life, liberty property."