Sharia courts in Britain


No Sharia for America

ACT for America found a British video that was secretly taken in a Sharia Court that is legal in the UK. If the Muslim Brotherhood linked Muslim organizations like CAIR have their way then America could experience Sharia Courts which will act contrarily to the U.S. Constitution rule of law. Regardless of the propaganda that organizations such as CAIR use to deceive the MSM and the non-Muslim American people, the Counterjihad movement promoting American Laws for American Courts (ALAC – See Also HERE) is an imperative to make sure Constitutional Law trumps religious and foreign laws if those laws are not a part of Constitutional Law in the USA.

 

JRH 7/17/13

Please Support NCCR

******************************

Sharia courts in Britain:
A hidden camera report

 

Sent by ACT for America

Sent: 15 Jul 2013 09:27:40 -0700 (PDT)

 

This stunning, disturbing, eye-opening hidden camera investigative report is a MUST SEE!

Go inside a sharia court in Britain and ask yourself: Do we want this in the United States???

Hamas-connected CAIR claims that American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation is “anti-Muslim.”

When you watch this must see video below, you’ll see how dishonest that CAIR claim is. That’s because the Muslim women abused by the sharia court system in Britain would be protected under ALAC.

 

VIDEO: The Secrets Of Britain’s Sharia Councils: Hidden Camera Report

 

_______________________

Editor: The Bold Emphasis in the ACT email is arranged by me. Originally ACT emails are delivered in Bold Print.

 

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

 

Is There another Independence Day in our Future?


George Washington Portrait 1779

John R. Houk

© July 4, 2013

 

What were the issues that united 13 diverse British Colonies to revolt against one of the most powerful nations of the day? The Declaration of Independence was proclaimed on July 4, 1776. Will a mega-powerful central government in the USA cause another revolt in the 21st century? John W. Whitehead has written a book “A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State”.

 

Here is a roughly four minute video of Whitehead explaining the potential for a future American Police State.

 

VIDEO: On Target Pressure Points: Orwell Revisited

 

Posted by RutherfordInstitute

Jun 26, 2013

 

In conjunction with the upcoming release of his new book, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, John W. Whitehead sits down to discuss several “pressure points” that are threatening the Bill of Rights and undermining our essential freedoms. In part seven of this special series, Whitehead explains the ways in which George Orwell’s dystopian nightmare is slowly but surely becoming our reality.

 

Copyright © 2013 The Rutherford Institute

 

You know a lot of conspiracy theories are predicting global economic collapse and global social chaos. Conspiracy Theorists point to ramping up of various government agencies ramping up weaponry and police combat training which includes the IRS. Why in the world does the IRS need a force of physical coercion when there are agencies like the FBI and the ATF?

 

DHS and AMMO Act

 

Is Homeland Security Set to Arm TSA Agents?

 

DHS/FEMA Raising an Army: Arming & Training Latino Gang Members to Subdue Americans During Martial Law Ruse

 

Major General: Why Are Domestic Government Agencies Purchasing Enough Lethal Ammunition to Put 5 Rounds In Every American?

 

VIDEO: Mark Levin: ‘We have the elements of a police state’

 

Now I am certain there are those that follow Conspiracies more than I that can point to other websites that talk of the ever tightening vice-grip on the lives of Americans eroding our cherished Bill of Rights.

 

Unless this is straightened out you won’t have to a prophet to predict another American revolt will occur.

 

JRH 7/4/13

Please Support NCCR

Slouching toward a military junta


DOD Instruction law

Joseph Farah lines out the details on how the Federal government has eroded local authority up and including the U.S. Armed Services having the authority to intervene without even Presidential instruction during a “civilian disturbance”. That sounds like a police state that will make sure individual sovereign States will be prevented their Constitutional right to challenge government despotism by calling for a Constitutional Convention to again enable We the People to throw off the bonds of tyranny of a Federal government out of control and ignoring the Founding Father’s concept of Constitutional limited government in a civil non-violent rule of law manner.

 

JRH 6/4/13

Please Support NCCR

Stand For Liberty


Rand Paul filibuster

Justin Smith utilizes Senator Rand Paul’s recent filibuster as the foundational starting point to write about the Obama Administration’s – with Attorney General Eric Holder as a reference – abuse of the U.S. Constitution.

 

JRH 3/15/13

Please Support NCCR    

************************************

Stand For Liberty

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 3/14/2013 3:23 PM

 

In a fascinating and charismatic stand for Our U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Liberty for all Americans, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) demanded on March 6, 2013 that Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder specifically give clarification regarding the Obama administration’s policy on using unmanned armed aircraft (drones) overseas and on American soil. When Holder gave several ambiguous statements and circled any honest answer pertaining to provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, enacted by Executive Order on 12-31-12, allowing the president to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely and to kill Americans who are deemed terrorists or “enemy combatants,” Senator Paul vowed to block the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA until he received some satisfactory answers (Presidents have long used the word “privelege” in Article I Sec 9 as a tool to ignore habeas corpus). And thus ensued an amazing lesson in government and the U.S. Constitution, as Senator Paul delivered a thirteen hour filibuster!

Twelve other Republicans and one Democrat, Ron Wyden (Oregon) supported Paul during his 13 hour soliloquy, but the bulk of the Republican Party was notably and unfortunately missing in action during this intense, momentous and historic moment, which prompted Senator Paul’s observation, “If there were an ounce of courage in this body I would be joined by other senators… saying they will not tolerate this.” So, in stark contrast Senator Rand Paul struck a blow for all Americans and Liberty, as Republican-in-name-only Senator Lamar Alexander’s (R-TN) office would not divulge his whereabouts during the filibuster; and, RHINO Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), who had dinner with Obama and eleven others during the filibuster, gushed like a teenage girl over the attention they received, as they were groomed to once more betray their constituency and the American people regarding upcoming financial matters.

Senators Graham (R-SC) and McCain (R-AZ) suggested that Senator Paul was doing “a disservice to Americans by making them think that somehow they’re in danger from their government.” As McCain added, “They’re not. But we are in danger from a dedicated longstanding, easily replaceable-leadership enemy that is hell bent on our destruction,” I thought that statement was fairly applicable to Obama and the Progressive Democrats as much as it was to Al Qaeda.

Remember that Holder has been undermining the U.S. legal system for a long time. The Holder Justice Department has prosecuted U.S. agents unfairly due to previously approved methods of interrogating terrorists, who have no standing under the U.S. Constitution (parallels “piracy”) or the Geneva Convention. Holder himself has represented Al Qaeda terrorists pro bono during his time with the law firm of Covington and Burling. He has unconstitutionally overseen the military trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Mohammed; now, he once again has conferred Constitutional rights on a terrorist/enemy combatant where none should exist and, in fact, do not exist in the case of Sulaiman Ghaith, Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law and chief propagandist for Al Qaeda. And this is the man we are supposed to trust when he states that “no intention” exists to use drone strikes in America… the very same Eric Holder who ignored due process in the international child custody case of Elian Gonzalez.

Due process of the law has been integral to the American way since George Mason and others penned the Bill of Rights, and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) pointedly stated, “The question of whether the United States government can kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil when that individual does not pose an imminent threat or grievous bodily harm is a fundamental issue of Liberty. It is an issue of enforcing the explicit language of Our Constitution.” It is within this context that all Americans must take pause and object to Holder’s reluctance and hesitancy to offer an unequivocal and certain, “No…the president does not have the authority to kill a U.S. citizen on American soil who is not engaged in combat,” as he eventually did on March 7, after a month and a half of pressure from Congress!

This controversy largely arose over the Obama refusal to allow Congress to see the legal opinions that authorize drone strikes, although regular reports have been made to the House and Senate Intelligence and Armed Forces Committees. The critical question centers on Congressional oversight of a covert war against suspected terrorists, as Obama has grabbed too much power and violated the U.S. Constitution in his so-called “efforts to keep the nation safe.”

Virginia E. Sloan, the president of the Constitution Project (civil liberties group/DC), stated in February, “We have this drone war, and the American public has no idea what the rules are, and Congress doesn’t know much more… speeches are absolutely no substitute for the actual memos in hand.”

Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said: “What Rand Paul had to say about drones absolutely fired up conspiracy theorists on the left as well as the right.” Setting aside conspiracies, a known fact represents reality; and, America’s reality is an Obama administration and Homeland Security who warned of the ranks of potential terrorists being filled by “right wing extremists” and “Christian conservatives.”

Attorney General Holder has not told us the criteria used to mark a person as an enemy combatant. He also did not back off his contention that the president has the authority to pursue military action inside the U.S. in extraordinary circumstances, which is currently and technically correct; however, this also requires numerous signatures from the other branches of government, and it still gives the impression of flying in the face of Posse Comitatus [NCCR Editor: Read HERE, HERE and HERE]. And it was this assertion that sparked Senator Paul’s filibuster, as he declared, “I have allowed the president to pick his appointees… But I will not sit quietly and let him shred the Constitution.”

One should also note that the U.S. has developed miniature drone listening devices that go unnoticed as they hover over areas, like something out of Bradbury’s ‘Fahrenheit 451’ or Orwell’s ‘1984’. That’s well and good if they’re hovering over a terrorist camp, but do we really want to use this in America? … Embrace Big Brother… And even if we do, shouldn’t we still demand the application of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments?

Over the course of the filibuster several senators, such as Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, attempted to lessen the strain of the effort on Senator Paul by asking questions and speaking themselves. Cruz read passages from ‘Henry V’ and lines from the movie ‘Patton’. At one point, Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), who struggles with a cane due to a stroke, delivered hot tea and an apple to Paul’s desk, but a doorkeeper removed them; not to be outdone, House Republican Louie Gohmert from Texas stood off to the side of the Senate floor in a show of support.

One person can make a difference when they stand up for a righteous cause, and no one should take any U.S. President’s word, especially this one’s, that his administration’s policy in any area remains consistent with our laws and systems of checks and balances, regardless of claims of “transparency”. By offering his resolution stating that the use of unmanned, armed aircraft on U.S. soil against American citizens violates the Constitution and delivering 13 hours of explanation and education, Senator Paul opened the eyes of many Americans, who want a better balance between protecting our security and protecting our Liberty; even CodePink called and thanked him “for standing up against abuses of power.” So, the next time you hear Senator Rand Paul, or anyone, ask “are you so afraid that you are willing to trade your freedom for security,” reply “No!”…and stand up for Liberty!

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Justin O. Smith

WEBCAST – Free speech under attack!


Muslim Cleric gags Lady Liberty

Intro to ACT for America Webcast Announcement

John R. Houk

© February 16, 2013

 

Have you ever been labeled an Islamophobe merely for criticizing Islam? Well then, YOU need to listen to this webcast on Free Speech presented by ACT for America on March 11, 2013 at 7:30 PM Eastern Time. I understand from the email I received that the webcast will be related to the United Nations Resolution 16/18 which even in watered down form is designed to criminalize criticism of Islam. Here are a few more links concerning UN Res. 16/18:

 

§  Report of Istanbul Process: Implementation of UN HRC Relustion (sic) 16/18 (OIC Perspective)

 

 

§   Report of the United States on the First Meeting of Experts to Promote Implementation of United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 (State Department Perspective pdf)

 

§  Blasphemy and Islam (Andrew C. McCarthy)

 

§  IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT RESOLUTION 16/18 IS THEN YOU ARE ASLEEP AND IN DANGER (Freedom Rings 1776 – Danny Jeffrey)

 

 

§  Video: Free Speech vs. Anti Blasphemy: The Frontline Battle of 2012 (Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Deborah Weiss, Brooke Goldstein and Panel Question and Answer)

 

Below is the ACT for America Webcast link scheduled for March 11:

 

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/radical-islam-how-it-threatens-free-speech

 

JRH 2/16/13

Please Support NCCR

*************************

WEBCAST – Free speech under attack!

Americans United to Defend Free Speech

 

Sent by ACT for America

Sent: 2/14/2013 1:13 PM

 

Your First Amendment right to express an opinion about Islam is under attack.

Not just from those who have no recourse but to call you an “Islamophobe.”

But from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)—and our very own State Department.

 

On Monday night, March 11th, in a two hour national webcast, ACT! for America will unveil a new campaign to push back against this threat.


You can tune in to this very important webcast by using this web address:

 

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/radical-islam-how-it-threatens-free-speech

 

The webcast will begin at 7:30 P.M. EST, and will feature Brigitte Gabriel, Executive Director Guy Rodgers, and Deborah Weiss, an investigative journalist, attorney and expert on the Istanbul Process and UN Resolution 16/18.


Tune in to this extremely important webcast to find out how UN Resolution 16/18 threatens your First Amendment rights and what ACT! for America plans to do to fight it.

You’ll also have the opportunity to email questions.

This is a call to patriots everywhere!

 

If you don’t want to see sharia law’s prohibition against any speech that supposedly “defames” Islam or Muhammad gain a foothold in America, you need to tune in to this webcast.

If you cherish the right to free speech as much as we do, you need to tune in to this webcast.


For even if we win the war on terrorism, if we lose our freedom to speak out against the tyranny of radical Islam, we still lose.

_______________________

Intro to ACT for America Webcast Announcement

John R. Houk

© February 16, 2013

______________________

WEBCAST – Free speech under attack!

 

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

 

About ACT for America

 

 

Stick With the Founding Fathers Original Design


Founding Fathers sm

John R. Houk

© November 27, 2010

 

Here is an interesting American Thinker article with ideas to balance the economic ship USS Economy. In politics I am on board with the principles of balanced budgets, Free Market economics, Less Government, Less Taxes and so on. I am on board with these principles on faith more than knowledge. Frankly I am a Conservative more because of Social Conservatism, Pro-Family Values, Pro-Biblical Christian faith, a Conservative slant on First Amendment Rights, I am very Second Amendment (i.e. that of individuals to bear arms), the reinstitution of State Sovereignty according to the Tenth Amendment and so on.

 

When it comes to Conservative Economics or Tea Party Economics I am in a position of choosing who to trust in what is good for America. As a student of history I can read what the effect Liberal or Leftist Economics has accomplished to benefit people. That benefit is nonexistent.

 

Leftist Economics have the modern world’s greatest genocides into existence. The worst thing Right Wing Economics have done is exploitation of working class people by Big Business. By Big Business I mean organized markets that benefit companies and corporations more than or perhaps rather than the well-to-do that might employ them. This means in the early days of Big Business when the ruling elite of nations were most often European Noblemen or close offspring thereof, the common man was way more exploited economically and in Human Rights than what should have been morally unacceptable as members of Christian nations.

 

I suspect a few national revolutions changed this unequal existence between the upper class and the common man. Here are a few of those revolutions which are not exhaustive, but are from skimming the top of my humble mind:

 

The Magna Carter of 1215 and later revisions

 

Magna Carta (Latin for “Great Charter”, literally “Great Paper”) was drawn up in 1215 to limit the power of English Monarchs, especially King John, from absolute rule.

 

Magna Carta was the result of disagreements between the Pope and King John and his barons over the rights of the king: Magna Carta required the king to renounce certain rights and respect certain legal procedures, and to accept that the will of the king could be bound by law.

 

Magna Carta is widely considered to be the first step in a long historical process leading to the rule of constitutional law, much of English Common Law can be traced back to Magna Carta.

 

The gist of the gripe the Barons had with King John was that he had too much power and they too little.

 

The Barons had the populace behind them, in as much as anyone took any notice of the populace.

 

The Glorious Revolution (1688-89)

 

The deal struck between Parliament and the royal couple in 1688-89 was that Parliament would support the war against France, while William and Mary would accept new constraints on their authority. The new constitution reflected the relative weakness of William’s bargaining position more than any strength in Parliament’s position. Parliament feared the return of James, but William very much needed England’s willing support in the war against France because the costs would be extraordinary and William would be focused on military command instead of political wrangling.

 

The initial constitutional settlement was worked out in 1689 in the English Bill of Rights, the Toleration Act, and the Mutiny Act that collectively committed the monarchs to respect Parliament and Parliament’s laws. Fiscal power was settled over the 1690s as Parliament stopped granting the monarchs the authority to collect taxes for life. Instead, Parliament began regular re-authorization of all taxes, Parliament began to specify how new revenue authorizations could be spent, Parliament began to audit how revenue was spent, and Parliament diverted some funds entirely from the king’s control (Dickson 1967: 48-73). By the end of the war in 1697, the new fiscal powers of Parliament were largely in place.

 

American Revolutionary War (1775 – 83) and Formation of the USA

 

·       Many, many things caused the revolution. From the economic problems, to the discontent with autocratic rule.

 

·       Also, the colonies were not allowed their own economy to flourish, not letting the colonials print legal tender money which also in turn, since any monies printed was not considered by the King, it made it much harder to pay royal taxes. After the Boston Tea Party, came the Coercive Acts, or the Intolerable Acts on Boston, which really upset them and made them want to take even more action, rather than just using effigies (dolls made to look like the redcoats and used to scare the redcoat’s and boycotting.

 

·       Reasons for American Revolution: Taxation without representation in parliament. Colonials thought the English could not control colonies from so far away. (across the pond) Money, people like John Hancock did not want to pay taxes on his goods being brought into the docks or sent to England, import and export. (Some Wiki answers listed on Answers.com)

 

The objective of the constitution was to create a strong elected government that would be responsive to people’s will. Although many founding fathers believed that the new government had to be insulated from the will of the people. The constitutional features were included like the Electoral College and the election of the senate by state legislatures. (From: U.S. Constitution: A Short History)

 

… As adopted, the Constitution included only a few specific rights guarantees: protection against states impairing the obligation of contracts (Art. I, Section 10), provisions that prohibit both the federal and state governments from enforcing ex post facto laws (laws that allow punishment for an action that was not criminal at the time it was undertaken) and provisions barring bills of attainder (legislative determinations of guilt and punishment) (Art. I, Sections 9 and 10).  The framers, and notably James Madison, its principal architect, believed that the Constitution protected liberty primarily through its division of powers that made it difficult for an oppressive majorities to form and capture power to be used against minorities.

 

… In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that.  With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of  a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress  comes into session.  The concession was  undoubtedly  necessary to secure the Constitution’s hard-fought ratification.

 

James Madison was skeptical of the value of a listing of rights, calling it a “parchment barrier.”  … Despite his skepticism, by the fall of 1788, Madison believed that a declaration of rights should be added to the Constitution. Its value, in Madison’s view, was in part educational, in part as a vehicle that might be used to rally people against a future oppressive government, and finally–in an argument borrowed from Thomas Jefferson–Madison argued that a declaration of rights would help install the judiciary as “guardians” of  individual rights against the other branches. …

 

Some members of Congress argued that a listing of rights of the people was a silly exercise, in that all the listed rights inherently belonged to citizens, and nothing in the Constitution gave the Congress the power to take them away.  It was even suggested that the Bill of Rights might reduce  liberty by giving force to the argument that all rights not specifically listed could be infringed upon.  In part to counter this concern, the Ninth Amendment was included providing that “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.” …

 

 

In the end, we owe opponents of the Constitution a debt of gratitude, for without their complaints, there would be no Bill of Rights.  Thomas Jefferson wrote, “There has just been opposition enough” to force adoption of a Bill of Rights, but not to drain the federal government of its essential “energy.”  George Washington agreed: “They have given the rights of man a full and fair discussion, and explained them in so clear and forcible manner as cannot fail to make a lasting impression.” (Excerpted from: The Bill of Rights: Its History and Significance)

 

The French Revolution took a different path of bringing balance between the common man and the upper class. That path was bloody and little to do with offering Liberty and more to do eliminating the French Nobility Class including the French Monarchy with death sentences to transform French society from a nation of an entitled ruling class to an egalitarian Republic. The difference between the Republic of the United States of America and the French Republic are that the rights of man applied to all classes (at least in theoretical law) in America while the rights of man in France were based on fear of the French Republic government rooting out French Nobles (i.e. outright despotism).

 

The American Thinker article mentioned at the beginning of this post has to do with utilizing the tools the Founding Fathers left as a heritage and legacy of regrouping in potential perilous times. There are three authors to this essay: Raymond Richman, Howard Richman, and Jesse Richman. They postulate utilizing tariffs as a means of America equalizing trade with nations that undercut American production with cheap labor producing less expensive products. Then they postulate eliminating corporate income taxes in favor of sales taxes or Valued Added Taxes to encourage Corporations to keep their financial homes in America as well as foreign Corporations establishing American divisions in America. I’ll leave the details of these three author’s thoughts for you to read. The goal is to bring up employment in America which means an infusion of money into the economy which means economic growth.  

 

JRH 11/27/10