The Sword & Shield to Stop the Islamization of America

God's Gift of Unalienable Rights & Article VI of the Constitution:


The Sword & Shield to Stop the Islamization of America


By Publius Huldah Monday, September 20, 2010


This is an encouraging paper, because it explains the moral and constitutional justifications to stop the Islamization of our country.



We face a grave threat - the Muslims are infiltrating our country and taking over. We seem powerless to resist: Our governments won’t acknowledge the threat; we are told Muslims have “constitutional rights” to come here, proselytize everywhere build mosques, and implement shariah in their communities and in the public square; and our governments are letting them do it.

The Muslims seek to replace our Constitution with shariah - their totalitarian political, economic, military, social & legal system - with the goal of incorporating our Country into a global Islamic caliphate. They are making progress in islamicizing our Country because we are not resisting.

And the dreadful message we are getting from all sources is that our Constitution renders us powerless to resist Islamization.

But read on, and I will show you how our Constitution & Declaration of Independence - properly understood - actually give our federal, State & local governments justification and authority to stop the Islamization of our Country. Once we understand two things, it becomes clear what we may - and must - do:

One: Islam is not a “religion” in the sense we understand religion. Islam is about TOTAL POWER. It is a system which controls every aspect of the lives of those who have the misfortune to be subjected to it. It masquerades as a religion, but once we understand that it is just another totalitarian system - like soviet communism, we can deal with it and defeat it.

Once in place, Islam is enforced with stone-age barbarism. It masquerades as a religion to recruit gullible fools who become suicide bombers, and to provide “cover” for officials in the Western countries who, indoctrinated with the Lies of multiculturalism & political correctness, look for an excuse to do nothing.

Two: We must understand Our Founding Principles - these are our Sword & Shield - that

(1) Rights come from God alone,
(2) Muslims do not have the right to divest us of our Rights, and
(3) the purpose of civil government is to secure the Rights God gave us.

Now let us learn more of our Sword and Shield.

1. Let us first consider Our Rights. What are our rights, and where do they come from? The Constitution? The First Ten Amendments? NO! The Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, ...

Those words are golden: Our Rights come from God Who Created the Universe; and the purpose of civil government is to secure the Rights GOD gave us.

● God gave us many Rights: Life! Liberty! Pursuit of Happiness!
To work and enjoy the fruits of our own labors. To earn, inherit and keep private property.

● To demand that the civil authorities obey the Law - and to hold them accountable when they don’t.

● To have a civil government which protects our God given rights, protects us from invasion and criminals, but gives fair trials to accused persons.

● Equal treatment under the law: Courts are not to favor the rich, or the poor, or males or females.

● God means for us to enjoy life! Healthy food, wine and strong drink (in moderation); attractive dress for women, the marriage relation between man & woman, prosperity, and liberty!

As long as we obey the criminal laws (don’t murder, steal, bear false witness, and the like), we have the right to be left alone.

Liberty is the rule in God’s Model for civil government. That is why our Liberty Bell quotes Leviticus 25:10 - “Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof.”

2. Do Muslims respect the rights God gave us?

Life? Theirs is a culture of death: murder, honor killings & suicide bombers.

Liberty? Theirs is a culture where women are slaves and prisoners, little girls toys for old men, and conversion to Christianity a capital offense.

Pursuit of Happiness? Theirs is a culture of torture & sadism. Young Muslim girls in America who talked to non-Muslim boys were shot to death by their father in the back seat of his taxicab. Wife-beating is commonplace. Women who don’t cover their hair are lashed. Women are mutilated and maimed on the faces and even in their private places.

Freedom of Speech? Theirs is a culture where criticizing Islam leads to a terrible death.

You can go down the list: For every Right God gave us, the Muslims take it away.

Let’s look at just one God-given right: The Right to a fair trial:

Bearing false witness is condemned. (The Ten Commandments); The evidence of two or more witnesses is required to prove a case (Deut 19:15 & Matthew 18:16); Public trials are required (Exodus 18:13); & Judges are required to be fair, impartial, & without favoritism. (Deut. 1:16-17).

Do Muslims respect this God-given right to a fair trial? NO! In Iran, judges in “morals” cases (adultery) are allowed to make their own subjective determinations that a person is guilty even in the absence of any evidence!

Do Muslims have the “right” to impose in this Country a shariah system which takes away the rights GOD gave us? No! God did not give Muslims the “right” to take away from us, the rights He gave us!

3. We are told Muslims have a “First Amendment right” to build mosques, proselytize, and implement shariah here. But is that what the First Amendment says? No! Let’s read it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment doesn’t grant any rights to anybody! All it does is prohibit CONGRESS from making laws about religion, speech, the press, or assembly!

So Muslims do not have a “First Amendment right” to build mosques, proselytize, and implement shariah here.

4. Not only do Muslims claim the “right” to impose shariah in the Muslim communities springing up throughout our Country, they also claim the “right” to impose shariah law in the public square: They demand shariah compliant financial institutions, foot baths in public places, that wine, sausages, and the like be banned from their presence, that they be allowed to shut down public streets for “prayers”, etc.Do Muslims have the “right” to apply their law here? No! Art. VI, clause 2 of Our Constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

OUR Constitution and laws authorized by OUR Constitution are the supreme law of this land - and anything to the contrary must fall. It violates Our Constitution for Muslims to practice shariah here! Muslims who thus seek to overthrow Our Constitution and replace it with shariah are guilty of criminal sedition. The federal government has the duty to prosecute them for sedition - or deport them.

5. Can the federal or state or local governments properly extend to Muslims a “right” to build mosques & proselytize here? No! Because The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of civil government is to secure the rights GOD gave us. Muslims to take away our God-given Rights. Civil government is supposed to protect us from those who seek to divest us of our Rights.

We must insist that our federal, State, and local governments STOP the islamization of Our Country. We must insist that they live up to the one legitimate purpose of civil government: to protect our GOD-given rights.

6. WE are a Christian Country based on Judeo - Christian principles. Our Constitution is not a suicide pact. It does not require us to permit Muslims to take Our Country over and destroy Our principles and impose their barbaric totalitarian system on us.

The Declaration of Independence recognizes God as Creator, supreme Judge and Regulator of the World, and as our Divine Protector.

Article VII of Our Constitution, just above the signatures, recognizes the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It says,

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven ...

7. So! Let us summarize the above three Principles:

(A) Our Rights come from God - they predate & preexist the constitution. our constitution doesn’t give “rights” to anybody. so muslims don’t have “constitutional rights” to come here, build mosques, proselytize, and impose shariah.

(B) All the Evidence shows that Muslims take away from People the Rights God gave them. Since Our Declaration of Independence acknowledges that the purpose of civil governments is to secure the Rights GOD gave us, it is the duty and responsibility of civil governments at all levels to protect us from islamization.

(C) Article VI, clause 2, U.S. Constitution - the “Supremacy clause” - makes it unconstitutional for Muslims to practice shariah law ANYWHERE in Our Country.

8. The Center for Security Policy recently issued a scholarly (but readable) report: “Shariah: The Threat to America”. Important suggested policy changes are listed on pages 141-144. Tell your Tea Party groups! Take delegations to your local, state, and federal representatives and tell them about it. Most of them are weak and ignorant, so you must educate them and demand that they do their job and defend your community from Islamization.

9. Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders lists ten steps western countries must take to stop the islamization of their countries. All ten steps are mandated by our Declaration of Independence, and consistent with our Constitution:

(1) Stop cultural relativism: We must formalize the Idea that we have one dominant culture that is based on Judaism & Christianity [Wilders adds “humanism”].

(2) Stop pretending that Islam is a religion.

(3) Show the true face of fundamentalist Islam. It is a brutal totalitarian ideology.

(4) Stop all immigration from Muslim countries. For Muslims who are already citizens, tell them that if they adhere to our values and our Constitution, they may stay as equals. But if they deviate, we will expel them.

(5) Outlaw shariah and deport practitioners.

(6) Require Muslims to sign legally binding pledge of integration and allegiance.

(7) Stop building mosques.

(8) Seek reciprocity with Saudi Arabia for western churches & synagogues.

(9) Close all Islamic schools - they are fascist institutions teaching hate.

(10) Remove our current weak leaders.

It is time to boldly stand up for Our God, OUR Declaration of Independence, and Our Constitution, and say, “No!” to those who are taking over Our Country. It is time to use Our God-given unalienable Rights and Our Constitution as the Sword & Shield they are meant to be. We can and must use these to defeat Islamization.
.

THE ANTI - CONSTITUTIONAL CHARACTER OF SHARIAH

The 177-page report itself is entitled: “Shariah, The Threat to America, An exercise in competitive analysis ( Download in pdf format ) from Family Security Matter

As a nation, we have lost our understanding of America’s founding principles and as a result have become increasingly ill-prepared to defend the superiority of those principles. This puts us at a distinct disadvantage in being able to identify, let alone understand and confront, hostile doctrines – both foreign and domestic – that are in conflict with our own. The result of this combination of confusion and lassitude is that, in the face of shariah’s violent and stealthy jihadist assaults, our peace and prosperity are at risk to the point where the core tenets of our nation – and ultimately its very existence – are in jeopardy. In this context, it is worth reexamining America’s founding principles and their incompatibility with the doctrines of Islam, especially those political, military and judicial doctrines embodied in shariah.

The Founding Documents

The authoritative statement of America’s founding principles is the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration defines the most fundamental of these in this brief, yet sweepingly comprehensive, passage: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

In conformity with the Declaration, the U.S. Constitution’s Preamble is similarly clear in the declaration of its purpose: “[To] secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

Note that “We the people” create the Constitution; the Constitution does not create “the people.” “The people” as a founding entity were constituted through the voluntary act of consenting to the principles of the Declaration. In creating the Constitution to secure natural rights and liberties, the people acted in their sovereign capacity.

Such is the basis of American government, rooted in “the laws of nature and nature’s laws.” Noted historian Harry Jaffa explained how the principles of the American founding were derived from a combination of reason and revelation:

What we call Western civilization is to be found primarily and essentially in the confluence of the autonomous rationalism of classical philosophy and the faith of biblical religion….The unprecedented character of the American Founding is that it provided for the coexistence of the claims of reason and of revelation in all their forms, without requiring or permitting any political decisions concerning them. It refused to make unassisted human reason the arbiter of the claims of revelation, and it refused to make revelation the judge of the claims of reason. It is the first regime in Western civilization to do this, and for that reason it is, in its principles or speech (leaving aside the question of its practice or deeds), the best regime.391

Separation of Church and State

America’s doctrine of separation of church and state exemplifies this balance. Popularly viewed as a secular doctrine, it actually has its basis firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian biblical scriptures such as “Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men”392 and “Render unto to Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”393

Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty, adopted by the Virginia General Assembly in 1786, exemplifies this concept:

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our Religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in His Almighty power to do.

As the Virginia Historical Society explains:

Jefferson considered the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom as one of his three greatest achievements, ranking it with the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the University of Virginia. According to the Virginia History and Government Textbook Commission, which was created by a resolution adopted by the General Assembly in its 1950 session, “Virginia was the first sovereign commonwealth, state, or nation in all the world to proclaim by law entire freedom of religious belief or unbelief.”394

Tolerance in America Versus the Quran

This brief examination of American principles establishes that American principles are principles of liberty are rooted in mutual toleration. It follows that, in the United States, liberty was never intended to tolerate the intolerant and its citizens were never intended to tolerate totalitarian doctrines. Put differently, intolerant, totalitarian doctrines are in direct conflict with the stated purpose of American government “to secure these rights [endowed by their Creator].”

Even a fairly superficial reading of the Quran and other primary source documents of shariah reveals that it is a political-military-legal doctrine, rather than a religion as defined by the American standards mentioned above. The prominent Islamic scholar Abdul Mawdudi concurs with this assessment, saying: “But the truth is that Islam is not the name of a ‘Religion,’ nor is ‘Muslim’ the title of a ‘Nation.’ In reality, Islam is a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals.”395

Shariah is, moreover, a doctrine that mandates the rule of Allah over all aspects of society. Specifically, in contrast – and fundamentally at odds – with the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty, shariah holds that God did not create the mind free, but in subservience to the will of Allah (as detailed in shariah). The condition of human beings is submission to Allah, not freedom.

Intolerance towards Apostates

As noted elsewhere in this report, one particularly clear-cut inconsistency of shariah with the rule of law pursuant to the U.S. Constitution is shariah’s requirement that apostates be killed. Quran 4:89 says, “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.” According to Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Mohammed declared, “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.”396 Clearly, such direction is incompatible with the Constitution’s First, Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections.

Virtually every provision of the U.S. Constitution can be juxt a posed with shariah practices that are in violent conflict with America’s foundational laws.

As noted in the next Chapter of this report, a minimum standard of professional competency for America’s political elites and national security professionals demands that they understand the enemy’s threat doctrine. To the extent that that doctrine is wholly incompatible with the Constitution, it is, moreover, a violation of their oaths of office if they fail to defend the latter.

The Founders and Islam

America’s earliest presidents best understood our founding principles. They were not only deeply involved with their formal adoption. They were professionally competent. When confronted with an Islamic threat, they took the effort to consult primary sources and to conduct competent analysis of that threat. The first Muslim member of the House of Representatives recently made a spectacle of being sworn in on a copy of the Quran, rather than the Bible. He deflected some criticism by using one owned by Thomas Jefferson. Unremarked in all the controversy that ensued was the reason why our third President came to own a Quran.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, ambassador to France, and John Adams, ambassador to England, met with the emissary of the Islamic potentates of Tripoli to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, regarding the demands for tribute being made at the time by the so-called Barbary Pirates. Afterwards, Jefferson and Adams sent a four-page report to the Congress describing this meeting. The relevant portion of their report reads:

We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

After this, Jefferson read the Quran in order to know his enemy. That knowledge of his adversary led to his doctrine of “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.”

John Adams’ son, John Quincy Adams, offers further insights into the early presidents’ views on this subject. Like many Americans, he took an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And, when faced with an Islamic enemy, he understood his obligation to be educated on the factual aspects of the principles, doctrines, objectives, jurisprudence and theology of shariah that comprised his enemy’s threat doctrine.

John Quincy Adams’ 136-page series of essays on Islam displayed a clear understanding of the threat facing America then – and now, especially from the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad anddhimmitude.397 Regarding these two topics, Adams states:

…[Mohammed] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind….The precept of the Quran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that [Mohammed] is the prophet of God.

The vanquished [dhimmi] may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute.” As the essential principle of [Mohammed’s] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

This appeal to the natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Quran. The document [the Quran] does not attempt to disguise it, nor even pretend that the enmity of those whom it styles the infidels, is any other than the necessary consequence of the hatred borne by the Mussulmen to them – the paragraph itself, is a forcible example of the contrasted character of the two religions.

The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike—all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war – it has softened the features of slavery – it has humanized the intercourse of social life.

The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse.398

As we have seen in chapter two, Adams’ analysis of the meaning of jihad is validated in the English language translation of the authoritative 14th Century text, Reliance of the Traveller – A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.399 This book reveals in its opening Chapter on Jihad:

o9.0 – Jihad. Jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.…The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Quranic verses as: (1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Quran 2:216); (2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Quran 4:89); (3) “Fight the idolaters utterly” (Quran 9:36); …I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammed is the messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for rights of Islam over them.

In conclusion, it is clear from the writings of several of our earliest presidents, as well as the texts of the nation’s founding documents, that American principles are not at odds with – and imperiled by – some “radical” or “extreme” version of Islam. Rather, it is the mainstream doctrine of shariah that constitutes the threat to the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it enshrines.

That incompatibility has several practical implications: For one thing, the shariah legal code cannot be insinuated into America – even through stealthy means or democratic processes – without violating the Constitution’s Article 6 Supremacy Clause, which requires that the Constitution “shall be the supreme Law of the land.”

For another, those who advocate the imposition of shariah in America must be considered ineligible to serve in the military, or hold state or federal office, insofar as Article 6 requires them to swear an “oath…to support this Constitution” – not any other legal code, like shariah. The same disqualifier would appear to govern with respect to immigrants or would-be naturalized citizens.

Lastly, advocacy of and engagement in jihad, of even the dawa variety, for the purpose of imposing shariah, supplanting the Constitution and overthrowing the government it mandates would – as a practical matter – constitute a felony violation of the U.S. Code’s prohibitions on treason, sedition and subversive activities. From its founding, America has had a great tradition of tolerance and inclusion, on a mutual basis.

Our latter day tendencies, however, for cultural diversity, political correctness and unreciprocated ecumenism – all seen by our enemies as submission and the subject of the following Chapter – must not be allowed to create vehicles for our national destruction at the hands of those all-too-willing to use our civil liberties against us toward that end. In World War II, Americans would never have proposed that Nazi doctrine had some political or moral equivalency with American principles. We rightly identified the two as being completely and unalterably at odds. Today’s mortal peril, shariah, must be viewed and treated the same way.

As is discussed at greater length below, the relevant, seminal texts concerning shariah are available in English from online booksellers and in mosque bookstores across America. It is, consequently, inexcusable for our political elites to be ignorant of the doctrines that guide shariah-adherent organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Society of North America, the Council on American Islamic Relations, the North American Islamic Trust, etc. as well as al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, et al.

Even more reprehensible is the willingness of some among America’s elites, and it would appear even a subset of its elected leaders, to accede to these groups’ increasingly insistent contention that shariah is compatible with the U.S. Constitution. In fact, based on shariah’s tenets, its core attributes – especially its intolerance of other faiths and disfavored populations (e.g., apostates, women, homosexuals, Jews, etc.) and its bid for supremacy over all other legal or political system, there can be no confusion on this score: As the Framers fully understood, shariah is an enemy of the United States Constitution. The two are incompatible. 400