A Search for the Truth Concerning Islam

As told to:

       George Sontag*

       I only knew as much about Islam as the average American with a reasonably good education—which is to say, not much more than I had been told in the media. I had no trouble believing what our government was saying: that we should read nothing into the fact that all the men in terrorist attacks were Muslims and that their actions were not representative of any religion or belief system; and that to the extent they were explaining their atrocities by citing Islamic scripture, they were twisting and perverting one of the world’s great religions, a religion that encourages peace.

       This seems like a complete contradiction yet we are being bombarded with this narrative constantly. I wanted to find out the truth. Not only what is really happening but also why it happens. Being in law enforcement I had access to many of these jihadists. What I have found is that their claims of religion of peace are false.

       I was able to talk to an Imam who is the leader of the terror cell. Our government was portraying him as a ruthless killer who was lying about Islam by preaching that it summoned Muslims to jihad or holy war. That was not the case. He turned out to be a globally renowned scholar, a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence who graduated from a Cairo University.  His area of academic expertise was sharia—Islamic law. There is no doubt that he was the unquestioned leader of the terror cell but was this because there was more to his interpretation of Islamic doctrine than our government was telling?

       As he was an expert I had no chance in debating what I knew of Islamic law with him but I did think that if what we were saying as a government was true—that he was perverting or radicalizing Islam—then there should be obvious contradictions that I could use to trip him up. What I found was alarming: whenever he quoted the Koran or other sources of Islamic scripture, he quoted them accurately. When he said the scriptures command that Muslims strike terror into the hearts of lslam’s enemies, the scriptures backed him up. When he said Allah enjoined all Muslims to wage jihad until Islamic law was established throughout the world, his scriptures backed him up. When he said Islam directed Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as their friends, his scriptures backed him up. 

       One could counter that there are other ways of construing the scriptures, however, is that what you’d be arguing is an interpretation, not the text. It is the jihadists who seem to be making sense because they have the words of scripture on their side. The fact is that the summons to jihad was rooted in a coherent interpretation of Islamic doctrine. He was not perverting Islam- he was, if anything, shining a light on it. 

       I came to the conclusion that Islam is not a religion of peace. There are ways of interpreting Islam that could make it something other than a call to war but even these do not make it a call to peace. Verses such as “Fight those who believe not in Allah,” and “Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war,” are not peaceful injunctions, no matter how one rationalizes.

       Moderate, peaceful American-Muslims may not be terrorists yet when questions about Islamic doctrine are discussed such as, —“What does jihad mean?” “What is sharia?” “How might sharia apply to a certain situation?”— these moderate, peaceful Muslims explained that they were not competent to say. In other words, for the answers, you’d have to turn to Islamic scholars like the Imam. In the minds of these moderate, peaceful Muslims, they were claiming to be too ignorant to be rendering authoritative opinions on the meaning of the core tenets of their own, so-called, religion. 

 

       It is not as if Western civilization had no experience dealing with Islamic supremacism—what today we call “Islamist” ideology, the belief that sharia must govern all societies. What about Islamic law? Sharia rejects freedom of speech as much as freedom of religion. It rejects the idea of equal rights between men and women as much as between Muslim and non—Muslim. It makes no separation between spiritual life and civil society. It is a comprehensive framework for human life, dictating matters of government, economy, and combat, along with personal behavior such as contact between the sexes and personal hygiene. Sharia aims to rule both believers and non-believers, and it affirmatively sanctions jihad in order to do so. 

       A report to the government in 1955 by Robert Jackson, FDR’s attorney general, justice of the Supreme Court, and chief prosecutor of the war crimes trials at Nuremberg. Here is what he concluded: 

"The law of the Middle East is the antithesis of our Constitution and Western law. The problem was not the people, he concluded. It was the doctrine". 

      Sixty years later the world still calls this cult, a religion, and it is the mainstream interpretation in many parts of the world. When videos of beheading or other atrocities surface, American and European politicians can't get to microphones fast enough to insist that these had nothing to do with Islam. Yet when the government of Saudi Arabia beheaded people for various violations of sharia—the law that governs Saudi Arabia, there is silence. It is absurd to claim—as President Obama did during his recent visit to a mosque in Baltimore—that it is not a mainstream interpretation. Even if only ten percent of all Muslims believe this it means there are 2 million Islamic terrorists world-wide. Why is it that they can’t say two plus two equals four when Islam is involved?

       The reason is simple: being unwilling to deal with the true reality of Islam, our leaders have constructed an Islam of their very own. Are we not all tired of hearing the robotically repeating of the phrase, “Islam is a religion of peace,” every time radical Muslims murder someone because of their religion. We know these radicals are murdering people because of their religion since they go out of their way to tell us this. This triumph of willful blindness and political correctness over common sense and obvious truth is a dangerous course we are taking in the west.. We have an obligation to our national security and our children's future to understand our enemies for what they truly are - and are not.

* Many thanks to the insights of Andrew McCarthy

    

Democratic Socialists Continue to Attack the First Amendment

By

       M. Richard Maxson

     The FIRST AMENDMENT:

"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."

      An appalling undercurrent has sprung into the current political scene. It is as anti-American as the Socialist-Progressive-Communism from which it has sprung. We have seen it this week as roads are

blocked to deny fellow citizens their rights. We have seen it in political rallies where Leftists, bent on stopping free speech that they don't agree with, are disrupting these events in an attempt to affect the coming election. In the name of "tolerance" it is being allowed to unfold and patriotic Americans are powerless to stop it. The "IT" is the destruction of the First Amendments guarantee of Freedom of Speech. 

      We are watching the coming of age for a new generation. An anti-American generation of youth molded in closet Communism in our own schools and universities and led to believe that these ideals are fair and moral when nothing could be further from reality. They are becoming a generation of sound-bites, mis-information, and intolerance.  A generation schooled by Marxist ideology that will one day shutdown free speech completely. A generation that will purge dissenting viewpoints. A generation that will shutter our churches and burn our books. We are watching the generation that is destroying America.

      Free speech has never been, in the history of our Republic, more comprehensively, aggressively, and dangerously threatened than it is now.  University campuses are supposed to be a place for an open exchange of ideas, but liberals on many college campuses are no longer willing to hear both sides of the conversation. Student groups across the country have decided that a free exchange of ideas is no longer a welcome quality on college campuses—unless they agree with all the ideas being exchanged.  There is a belief that the First Amendment is a mistake and that the real right people have regarding speech is the right to avoid speech.  On our campuses there has never been more intellectual ingenuity devoted towards rationalizing the disappearance of the First Amendment. Its an attack on the theory of freedom of speech. It is an attack on the desirability of free speech.

      Our nation's public universities are now breeding grounds for anti-American and un-Constitutional beliefs as a new survey from the Pew Research Center reveals that a shocking number of Millennials support curbing free speech. According to their findings, 40 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 believe the government should be able to ban any speech that is offensive. The Leftist Progressive party has already attempted to legally dismantle this Constitutional right. Every single Democrat in the United States Senate voted to repeal the essential guarantee of freedom of speech by voting for Senate Joint Resolution 19, a constitutional amendment introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.). Thank goodness it failed, but had it passed and been ratified as part of our Constitution, the words “Congress shall pass no law” would have been blotted out of the First Amendment!

      Many pundits have done a tremendous job documenting the methodical way in which our public institutions, our political parties, and our media have been turned against us and our Constitution. Those who do not agree with the rampaging mob of anti-free speech protesters have been threatened,  ridiculed, and minimized– their voices silenced. We, as all true Patriots and Americans, cannot and must not be silenced.

President Harrison's Death - Not What It Appeared

by

       Zeno Potas

       The 9th President of the United States, William Henry Harrison,

was born FEBRUARY 9, 1773. He was the son of Benjamin Harrison, signer the Declaration of Independence, and he was the grandfather of Benjamin Harrison, the 23rd President. 

      He was one of the first men running for the office to have a  campaign slogan which was "Tippecanoe and Tyler too." This refereed to his days as a military officer who was the hero of the Battle of Tippecanoe in 1811, and the Battle of the Thames in 1813, recovering Detroit from the British and their Indian allies led by Shawnee chief Tecumseh. He gave the longest Inaugural address, 8,445 words, but served the shortest term, only 32 days. He was the first President to die in office. As we now know, the true nature of his death was falsified. This has given rise to the suspicion that his demise was perhaps - arraigned.

      Elected as a Whig, he was surrounded by Jacksonian Democrat holdovers from the previous administration. This faction of the Democratic party, the Jacksonians, were in disagreement with the traditionalists within party itself. Previously Andrew Jackson's attempt to expand the power of the presidency while diminishing the role of the elitist bankers was stated in his veto of the bank charter renewal. In what has been called one of the most "popular and effective documents in American political history", Jackson outlined a major readjustment to the relative powers of the government branches. "The executive branch, Jackson averred, when acting in the interests of the American people; was not bound to defer to the decisions of the Supreme Court, nor to comply with legislation passed by Congress. Further, executive power was no longer limited to suppressing clear violations of the Constitution – it could be asserted on social, political or economic grounds.

      This was a subversion of the Constitution to Harrison. In his

inaugural address he railed against the powers in and behind the government that were attempting to change what the Founding Fathers had in mind for separation of powers as laid out in the Constitution. His concern that the presidency could be turned into a quasi-dictatorship was his message to the country. In his address, written with help from Daniel Webster, President William Henry Harrison warned, March 4, 1841:

      "The great danger to our institutions does...appear to me to be...the accumulation in one of the departments of that which was assigned to others.... Limited as are the powers which have been granted, still enough have been granted to constitute a despotism if concentrated in one of the departments.... particularly...the Executive...The tendency of power to increase itself, particularly when exercised by a single individual...would terminate in virtual monarchy..."

      Harrison continued:

      "Republics can commit no greater error than to...continue any feature in their...government which may...increase the love of power in the bosoms of those to whom necessity obliges them to commit the management of their affairs...When this corrupting passion once takes possession of the human mind, like the love of gold it becomes insatiable."

       "It is the part of wisdom for a republic to limit the service of that officer...to whom she has intrusted the management of her foreign relations, the execution of her laws, and the command of her armies and navies to a period so short as to prevent his forgetting that he is the accountable agent, not the principle; the servant, not the master..."

       Harrison warned:

      "The great dread...seems to have been that the reserved powers of the States would be absorbed by...the Federal Government and a consolidated power established, leaving to the States the shadow only of that independent action for which they had so zealously contended...There is still an undercurrent at work by which, if not seasonably checked, the worst apprehensions of our anti-federal patriots will be realized...Not only will the State authorities be overshadowed by the great increase of power in the Executive department...but the character of that Government, if not its designation, be essentially and radically changed.....as it is...the never-failing tendency of political power to increase itself...."

      The other burning issue of the day was the reintroduction of the National Bank Bill. His possible assassination may have been approved by the elite of the day as the fight for a new Bank of the United States began to warm up again with his inauguration. His warnings on the control of the nation's currency were made very clear that day.

      "It is not by the extent of its patronage alone that the Executive department has become dangerous, but by the use which it appears may be made of the appointing power to bring under its control the whole revenues of the country...The first Roman Emperor, in his attempt to seize the sacred treasure, silenced the opposition of the officer to whose charge it had been committed by a significant allusion to his sword...I know the importance...to the divorce...the Treasury from the banking institutions...It was certainly a great error in the framers of the Constitution not to have made...the head of the Treasury Department entirely independent of the Executive....It is in periods like this that it behooves the people to be most watchful of those to whom they have intrusted power..." That wisdom still rings true today and may have given reasonable fear to the elites who made their profits in banking.

       With his death  John Tyler, Harrison's successor and a former Democrat, abandoned the Whig agenda, effectively cutting himself off from the party and giving control of the government back to the Democratic party while continuing the un-constitutional ideas of his predecessor that the president should set policy instead of deferring to Congress. As the clouds of Civil War began to form in the chaos that was the pro-slavery Democratic Party he was marginalized by both parties and became ineffective. He became the first president to have his veto's overturned by Congress.

      The query is: After his two hour inaugural address in which he clearly laid the groundwork for a change in the unconstitutional drift that he felt the country was in, was he deliberately poisoned with enteric fever? Was it the bankers for his views on a new national bank or was it the Jacksonians who wanted more power to their president? We do know that he became ill three weeks after his address so the story of a cold turning into pneumonia is false. We may never know the real truth.

Why We Are Not Defeating ISIS?

by

       Phillip Todd

      The truth coming out of the mid-east is chilling as ISIS continues to grow(despite false news reports) and it appears that the United States is aiding them.  What is going on here? Who is really in control? People from within the system have been raising these concerns for a long time. Some fearless politicians have been warning us about the secret government, the power that is found in big corporations and big banks. Bernie Sanders also admitted something many people were already feeling: that it doesn’t matter who is elected, because the power the elitists hold over US policy is too well established to be challenged by any one person.(see JFK) The war on terror is being purposefully prolonged for the benefit of the many powerful people who maintain vested interest in that prolongation — the people for whom profit is derived from conflict. Below are quotes from those on the ground and in the know who are risking their lives to tell the truth.


      As Canadian economist and Ottawa’s Emeritus Professor of Economics stated  the International Conference on the New World Order, which was organized and sponsored by the Perdana Global Peace Foundation, 
 “We are dealing with a criminal undertaking at a global level … and there is an ongoing war, it is led by the United States, it may be carried out by a number of proxy countries, which are obeying orders from Washington … The global war on terrorism is a US undertaking, which is fake, it’s based on fake premises. It tells us that somehow America and the Western world are going after a fictitious enemy, the Islamic state, when in fact the Islamic state is fully supported and financed by the Western military alliance and America’s allies in the Persian Gulf."
 -   Link: Professors & Politicians Gather To Warn Us About The New World Order


       ".....there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an intensified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the United States.”
                                                                             - Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook

        "... the US had provided terrorists in Beiji with their military hardware and ammunition. “The military hardware and weapons had been airdropped by the US-led warplanes and choppers for the ISIL in the nearby areas of Beiji.”  Al-Zameli said that reports come in every day to the government in Baghdad claiming that the US is airdropping weapons and supplies for the terrorists. He also claims that the most prominent reason for the ongoing survival of ISIL is the result of this very support.
                     -  Head of Iraq’s National Security and Defense committee, Hakem al-Zameli 

        In June Aaron Klein, writing for World Net Daily, reported that members of ISIS were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan, according to informed Jordanian officials. The CIA has shipped weapons to al-Qaeda affiliated groups in Syria since at least 2012, a fact revealed by The New York Times.

         This is proof that the US and the international coalition are “not serious in fighting against the ISIL organization, because they have the technological power to determine the presence of ISIL gunmen and destroy them in one month.”
               - Iraqi Parliamentary Security and Defense Commission MP Majid al-Gharawi  

        Why is this happening? One reason is clear to Iraqi MP Majid al-Gharawi,  "the US is trying to expand the time of the war against the ISIL to get guarantees from the Iraqi government to have its permanent bases in Mosul and Anbar provinces." The powers that be want new bases near the Iranian border to keep tabs and continue in their attempt to destabilize that country. In addition they are a stones throw away from the Russian border, the ultimate prize and the continuation of the proxy war against them.

       So far, Putin outwitted Obama in Syria, effectively challenging his dirty game. He’s determined to eliminate the scourge of terrorism and keep it from spreading, especially to Central Asia and Russia. A proxy state of war between America and Russia now exists – a hugely dangerous situation, risking possible direct confrontation between the world’s two nuclear superpowers. Expect Putin to go all-out to avoid it. Put nothing past neocon lunatics in Washington – willing to risk destroying planet earth to own it.

 *Phillip Todd is the overseas correspondent for The American Constituitonalist.