America Ain't Britain

Some disturbing videos have been coming out of Britain over the past year in response to the Islamic element beginning to demand Shari'ah Law.

Pat Condell on Criminalizing Freedom of Speech by Islam (Oct 2009)



Below is a short video news cast from June 2010:


This is exactly what we here in America have been warned against.

"The principle source of Shari'ah is the Qur'an itself; the very core of the Shari'ah are the arkan ad-din, or the "five pillars of relgion," which prescribe all the rituals incumbent on a believer. There are, however, a plethora of social and ethical matters not covered in the Quranic revelations. For these, the Shari'ah bases its principles on the Sunnah of Muhammad. The Sunnah are the collected histories of the actions and words that Muhammad spoke outside of revelation; for the Shari'ah , the sayings of the prophet Muhammad (hadith) are the most vitally important aspect of the Sunnah. Still, the Qur'an and the Sunnah leave several social and ethical matters untouched; for these, the Shari'ah turns to the consensus (ijma') of the most religious and scholarly members of the community and to argument through analogy (qiyas), that is, by using established truths of the sacred law to come up with rules or judgements for matters not covered in the sacred law. These are the four principles of Shari'ah :the Qur'an , the Sunnah, consensus, and argument through analogy."-- Shari'ah, Sacred Law,by Richard Hooker, 1996

When the Muslim population in a host country is small, the Muslim leadership is willing to "play nice" and get along. As the population grows and Muslims begin to take leadership positions within the community, and then at the national level, they will begin to demand (note the word DEMAND) Shari'ah Law under the guise of wanting to follow their own law, intertwined with their religion in such a manner as to not allow it would be deemed a violation of a religious right.



In the video below, Anjem Choudary (Head of Islam4UK) explains what the future of Britain will be like under Shari'ah. There is NO COMPROMISE, there is NO TOLERANCE, there is NOTHING BUT SHARI'AH! This is how Britains will live, how the Queen will live. She will have to remove herself from Buckingham Palace and either convert to Islam or leave the country...HER OWN COUNTRY!



We in America know that happens in Britain usually happens over here within a year or two. Will America see this Islamic trampling of our Constitution and our laws? Will we see some Muslim leader begin to tell us, we can either convert or leave our country, our homes, family farms handed down for generations, family businesses handed down since great-grandfather emigrated from Italy, France, Germany, Scotland and even Britain?

Yes, I think we will see this...hear this.

Already in parts of the country we are seeing the movements of the coming wave of demands, first locally and soon nationally.

* 2005 - "Muslim lore has it that dogs are impure, so pious Muslims often try to avoid the animals. In most circumstances, this does not present a problem in the West, but it can when seeing-eye dogs are involved, for they have legal rights of entry. Interestingly, the Council on American-Islamic Relations often rushes to the defense of Muslims behaving illegally." -- Muslim Taxi Drivers vs. Seeing-Eye Dogs by Daniel Pipes
[Note the story a few weeks ago about the 1st dog, BO being flown in his own jet to the family vacation spot....hmm?]

* 2006 - "...Minneapolis-St. Paul is concerned that its taxi service is deteriorating. Citing their religious beliefs, some Muslim taxi drivers from Somalia are refusing to transport customers carrying or suspected of carrying alcohol."--Airport Check-in: Fare refusals in Minnesota USA Today

*2008 -- "The Muslim Students Association (MSA), a national group, has formed a Muslim Accommodations Task Force (MATF) that now leads efforts to bring foot baths, halal food, and Muslim prayer rooms to schools everywhere. As of the summer of 2007, MSA announced that at least nine universities had set aside prayer rooms for Muslims only. At least 17 universities had installed footbaths for their Muslim students or were in the process of doing so." --Schools Accommodate Muslim Students, Education Reporter

And let's NOT forget what happened in 2009 at Fort Hood, Texas in the name of Allah, the God of Islam:

"Thursday's massacre was the worst mass killing ever to take place on a U.S. military base. A female civilian police officer identified as Kim Munley who shot Hasan was the one who stopped the spree. She survived, contrary to earlier reports that she had died." -- Suspected Fort Hood Shooter Was 'Calm' During Massacre, May Have Shouted 'God Is Great!', FOXNews.com

Maybe that massacre at Fort Hood was a test run. Maybe Islamic fanatics think, based on this and Obama's support for the Ground Zero Mosque in NYC, that America will be an easy target.

Just because there are pockets of demands and concessions throughout the north and just because Muslims (Islamic Fascist) have not been thrown out of the country (yet), do not think America will go quietly as Europe has.

The only way Islamic radicals will ever take over America is to continue to breed like pigs, and over take this nation with sheer numbers. But how many of their children will be converted to Christianity in the mean time?

And will Americans tolerate the beheading of children on this soil?

What? You didn't think the Islamic-fascist-radical-Antichrist-type "religion" would do such a thing as behead children? Take the blinders off and at least learn the enemy you are welcoming into your "homes".

Three 12-year-old Indonesian Christian schoolgirls were beheaded by Muslims for walking home from school, unattended by a male family member. Is this what you want in America? If we allow the religion of the Antichrist to become a powerful force within our borders, this is what you will have secured for your children and grandchildren.



The complete story and the video can be found at Bare Naked Islam

Women in America won the right to vote, the right to have credit in their own name, the right to equal pay for equal work, and many other liberties their counter parts around the world do not enjoy. By allowing the religion of Antichrist to demand Shari'ah Law in the USA, we will become partners with the enemy in the abuse of our daughters, mothers, sisters and wives.

Just this month, Time's cover was very hard for many of us to view, but we must see what we are allowing here in the greatest country in the world.



Thanks to Obama and Eric Holder's views on gun ownership, Americans bought every bullet and gun they could within the four months of Obama taking possession of the White House.

"...honest Americans buying enough guns to outfit the current active army’s of China and India...firearm purchases or sales in the USA with a record 1,529,635 background checks being performed in March of 2009. Firearm Sales Continue to Climb in March 2009." -- Update: USA Buys Enough Guns in 3 Months to Outfit the Entire Chinese and Indian Army, AmmoLand.com

America is not Britain, or Australia or any country where the individual citizenry are unarmed. We are armed and "to the teeth" as the saying goes.

Somethin’ Funny’s Goin’ On

This article is reprinted with permission from the author. Originally posted August 10, 2010: "Somethin’ Funny’s Goin’ On" Adask's law Blog

The Manta.com website includes a database of over 63 million US and foreign companies. That database info is provided by Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B). Manta.com will provide preliminary information on each of these millions of companies for free. If you want more “in-depth” info, there’s a fee.

But since this article is about “funny” stuff, and paying fees isn’t fun, let’s run a few free searches and see what we can find. You might be surprised.

For example, if you type “Government of the United States” into the Manta.com search engine, you’ll be whisked to a list of “7,666 matching US companies”.

The first “company” on the list is:

“Government of the United States (US Government) HQ
“the u.s. Capitol Washington DC”

The “HQ” stands for “headquarters”.

If you scroll down the list of other companies below the “Government of the United States,” you’ll find “branches” like “Executive Office of the United States Government” (6 entries), “United States Department of the Air Force (US Government),” “The Navy United States Department of (US Government Naval Reserves),” and “United States Court of Appeals For The 11th Circuit United States Courthouse”.

Apparently, the Navy, Air Force and Courts are “companies”.

That’s kinda “funny,” doncha think?

If you click on the “Government of the United States HQ” link, you’ll see another website page with some fairly detailed—and possibly bewildering—information.

For example, you’ll see that this “Government of the United States” has its address at:

“the u.s. capitol

“Washington, DC 20515-0001”

Its phone number is “(202) 224-3121”. Business Hours are “24/7”.

You can click the “map” link and see a graphic indicating that this “Government” is located on “Capitol Hill” (same place as Congress) in Washington DC.

None of that seems particularly surprising (other than the idea that our “Government” might be a “company” and/or a conglomerate of “companies”). But the Manta.com report does begin to seem a little strange under the heading “About Government Of The United States” where we read:

“government, owner archbishop deric r. mccloud of basilica shrine michigan and 4th ne street washington,dc”.

Say whut? Does that abbreviated text really indicate that the owner of the “Government Of The United States” is an archbishop named Deric R. McCloud? Who could be dumb enough to think (or even mistakenly write) that the “Government of the United States” was owned by an archbishop?

A: Apparently, Dunn & Bradstreet was dumb enough.

And just in case you think we can’t be talking about the “Government of the United States,” take a gander at the “Additional Information” heading and you’ll read (as of August 6th, A.D. 2010):

“all receipents [sic] of federal funds that have any kind of criminal case or felony federal, state, local or served time in prison federal, state, benefits terminate 7/26/10 by barack obama administration.”

The reference to “barack obama” shows that this entry for “Government of the United States HQ” does, indeed, describe the very same “Government of the United States” that we all so love and admire. (Don’t forget that this “Government” and all its various “branches” are being reported by D&B to be individual, private companies.)

OK, OK—maybe this article isn’t really all that “funny” (ha-ha!), but it’s still pretty “funny” (strange).

• Go back to the top of the “Government of the United States” page and click the “More Info” tab. Under “Employees (Estimated)” you’ll read:

“2,768,886

“At this location

“3”

2.7 million federal employees sounds about right. This enormous number of employees confirms that we’re viewing information on the “Government of the United States”.

But if only “3” of those millions of employees are “At this location” (the “HQ”) who are the “chosen 3”? And where, precisely is “this location”? Capitol Hill? Yes—but where on Capitol Hill? In the Senate chamber? The House of Representatives? If there are only “3” people at the HQ, that HQ might be as small as some cloakroom.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Under “State of Incorporation” you’ll read “Information not found”. This could mean that this “Government of the United States” was never formally “incorporated”. Or it might mean that the information concerning that incorporation is intentionally concealed.

However, we can see a clue to the possible date of incorporation for this “Government of the United States” under the heading “Years in Business” which reads “223”. If the “Government of the United States” began 223 years ago, there should be a constitution or charter to mark its creation at that time.

This is A.D. 2010, so “223” years ago would be A.D. 1787.

But that’s odd.

Why? Because our current “Government of the United States” should have been created by “The Constitution of the United States” and therefore could not have existed prior to the ratification of the Constitution.

In A.D. 1787, the Constitutional Convention completed the final draft of the Constitution on September 17th. That proposed Constitution for a new “federal government” was then submitted to the Congress that already existed under the Articles of Confederation (ratified in A.D. 1781). The Confederation Congress quickly “approved” the proposed Constitution under Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation and then sent it out to We the People for ratification.

Article VII of the Constitution declares, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.” I.e., the Constitution (and resulting federal government) could not become effective and operational until it was ratified by at least nine of the States of the Union.

Thus, while the Constitution may have been “approved” by the existing Congress in A.D. 1787, it could not have been established and ordained by We the People until ratified by at least 9 States. But the 9th State (New Hampshire) didn’t ratify until June 21st, A.D. 1788.

Wikipedia article “Unites States Constitution” reports:

“Once the Congress of the Confederation received word of New Hampshire’s ratification, it set a timetable for the start of operations under the new Constitution, and on March 4, 1789, the [new, federal] government began operations.” [Bracketed insertion mine.]

Since the Constitution created the federal “Government” and could not have been ratified by We the People before A.D. 1788 (when the 9th State ratified), D&B’s report that the “Government of the United States” began “223” years ago (A.D. 1787) can’t be true. The earliest that the Constitution could’ve been deemed ratified and operations was A.D. 1788—222 years ago. Similarly, given that the new federal “Government” was not actually operational until A.D. 1789, the D&B report that this “Government” has been “in business” since A.D. 1787 also seems mistaken. Under this criteria, the earliest that the federal Government might become operational was A.D. 1789—221 years ago.

Big deal, hmm?

Who cares?

Aren’t I merely making a mountain out of data entry error mole hill? Didn’t the D&B clerk responsible for the data entry simply write “223” when she meant “222” or even “221”?

I doubt it. If I’m right, it is a “big deal”. Here’s why:

In A.D. 2008, I first learned about the Manta.com reports that suggest our government is some sort of conglomerate of “companies” and “branches”. When I first read the D&B “Government of the United States” report two years ago, Manta.com had a different website format. In that earlier format, Manta.com reported that “Government of the United States” started in “1787”. (Today, they report “223” years in business.)

In 2008, when I first saw “1787,” I knew that either: 1) the D&B data entry clerk made a mistake; or 2) the current “Government of the United States” is somehow presumed to have started at least one year before the Constitution itself was ratified and two years before the resulting federal government became operational.

If so, whatever currently passes for our “Government of the United States” is not based on the authority of We the People, but on some other “authority”. Thus, this is a potentially “big” deal.

I also knew that if the D&B clerk didn’t make a data entry error, that the Manta.com website might be changed to eliminate evidence that today’s “Government of the United States” is not be the same “Government” created by the Constitution ratified by People in A.D. 1788. So, in A.D. 2009, I downloaded and retained complete copies of about 25 Manta.com website pages for safekeeping.

As I’d anticipated, the Manta.com website has since been modified and some information found two years ago has been changed or “disappeared”.

For example, where Manta.com used to report that the “Government” began in “1787,” it now reports that it’s been in business for “223” years. That’s not a big change. It’s still possible that the numbers “223” and “1787” simply reflect some persistent data entry calculation error. But given the differences between “1787” and “223,” the probability of a mere data entry error is reduced. It therefore seems increasingly possible that the current D&B report on “Government of the United States” may correctly declare that that “Government” started the year before the Constitution was ratified by the People.

If so, as crazy as it sounds, it is therefore conceivable that there might be two editions of our “Constitution”: 1) one approved by the Confederation Congress in A.D. 1787; and 2) another, ratified by We the People in A.D. 1788. The text of both of these “editions” of the Constitution would be identical, but the underlying authority would be completely different.

Under the Constitution ratified by People in A.D. 1788, the enacting authority and national sovereigns would (consistent with the principles of the “Declaration of Independence”) be We the People. As individual sovereigns, We the People would enjoy the “republican form of government” guaranteed at Article 4 Section 4 of the federal Constitution.

However, under the possible Constitution “approved” by Congress in A.D. 1787, the enacting authority and national sovereigns would be the Congress. If Congress were the constitutional sovereign, our form of government would be an aristocracy of 535 men and women. Worse, under such aristocracy, you and I would be presumed to be subjects or even slaves. If the Constitution “approved” by Congress in A.D. 1787 were in effect today (rather than the Constitution ratified by the People in A.D. 1788), you and I can’t be free.

Yes, this conjecture sounds like another howling conspiracy theory. But even so, since the Constitution wasn’t ratified until A.D. 1788 and the resulting government didn’t become operational until A.D. 1789, D&B’s report that the government began “223” years ago and/or began in “1787” can’t be accurate. So, it seems at least “odd” that an entity as professional a D&B would make such a peculiar error.

It’s also curious that D&B describes the “Government of the United States” as a company and “HQ” over a number of other “branches” (like the Army, Navy, Air Force and courts) that are also deemed to be “companies”.

Somethin’ funny’s goin’ on here.

• If you’re up for even more funny stuff, enter “Nancy Pelosi” into the Manta.com search engine. You’ll be taken to a list of “2 matching U.S. companies”:

1) “United States House of Representatives (Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi) BRANCH” at her San Francisco address; and

2) “Representative Nancy Pelosi (Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi) BRANCH” at her Washington DC address.

Click the #1 link, look for the heading “About United States House of Representatives,” and you’ll read:

“United States House Of Representatives is a private company categorized under Legislative Bodies, National and located in San Francisco, CA . . . .”

Whut th’ . . . ?!

The US House of Representative is “a private company”?! And it’s “located in San Francisco, CA” (the home of the Speaker of the House)?

More?

Look under the heading “United States House of Representatives Business Information” and you’ll read:

“United States House Of Representatives also does business as Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.”

The House of Representatives not only “does business” but does so “as Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi”? Is “Nancy Pelosi” something like a trademark, alter ego or registered agent for the “private company” we call the “House of Representatives”? Is she the CEO and/or D/B/A for the House of Representatives, Inc.?

Incidentally, the 2009 edition of Manta.com’s report on Nancy Pelosi (that I recorded and saved) declared that the US House of Representatives was “also traded as Nancy Pelosi”.

Also traded as?! What does that mean? Are we talking about packages of bubble gum that include government “trading cards” featuring photos of the House of Representatives and Nancy Pelosi? Or is the House of Representatives and/or Nancy Pelosi some sort of stock? If so, who’s buying, who’s selling? Who owns that “company”?

• Enter “US Social Security Admin” into the search engine. Scroll down a bit and you’ll read:

“US Social Security Admin is a private company categorized under Federal Government-Social and Human Resources and located in West Branch, MI.”

So-So Security is a “private company” . . . ? That’s not located in Washington DC, but rather in “West Branch, MI” . . . ? I don’t know what that means, but I can’t help but laugh. Somethin’ funny is goin’ on here.

• Try “Internal Revenue Service”. Manta.com will produce “41,632 matching U.S. companies”. Some of these are clearly private entities that have no governmental pretense, but many or most are “governmental”.

If you click the link to “Internal Revenue Service, Internal Revenue Dst Council,” you’ll read “Internal Revenue Service is a private company categorized under Federal Goverenment-Finance and Taxation and located in Portland, OR.”


Click the “Internal Revenue Service, Andover Service Center . . . . Andover MA” link and you’ll read that “Internal Revenue Service is a private company categorized under Federal Government-Finance and Taxation and located in Andover, MA.”

Two different locations indicate two different “private companies”.

These reports (and scores more) suggest that each individual IRS office may be a separate “private company”. Therefore, if you’re contacted by an IRS office in Austin, Texas, you may be dealing with one “private company”. If you’re subsequently contacted by another IRS office from, say, Provo, Utah—you might be dealing with a completely different “private company”.

What’s your obligation to talk to several different “private companies” about your income taxes? Are there privacy concerns in sharing your tax information with several private companies?

And given that there are at least several score (and perhaps several thousand) “private companies,” operating as an “Internal Revenue Service,” who are you really paying your income taxes to? H&R Block?

• There are a host of additional “private companies” that you might want to research. I collected website pages for about two dozen in 2008 and 2009. I’m not sure how many of those can still be found, but if you can find ‘em and if you read closely, you may be fascinated. Search for: “United States Court of Appeals,” “District of Columbia,” “George W Bush,” and “Supreme Court of the United States”. All were listed by D&B as “private companies”.

You may find other D&B reports that are similarly fascinating or bewildering. What does D&B have to say about the CIA or Homeland Security? Inquiring minds wanna know.

• What’s it all mean? I’m not sure. Perhaps D&B is merely guilty of gross negligence when it comes to entering data on governmental entities.

Or, maybe the entire structure of what currently passes for “government” is actually a conglomerate of “private companies” run by an aristocratic Congress that’s owned by . . . who? The world’s bankers?

If so, the true nature of the “Government of the United States” might not be that of a “republic” or even a “democracy,” but rather a combination of governmental and corporate interests (“private companies”) that’s usually described as “fascism”. If so, we no longer have “government of the People, by the People and for the People” but instead have “government of the people, by the Congress, and for the Corporations.”

Whatever the explanation, somethin’ funny is goin’ on here.

Today, when it comes to government, an appearance of reality appears to have been substituted for reality. Our government is not what it appears to be; not what it professes to be—and that’s not funny at all, is it?

Written at arm’s length and at my political choice of venue within The United States of America,

Alfred Adask

Confederate flags will be flown all across America

Over the latter part of the twentieth century, a segment of our society, Southerners and people with Confederate ancestry, have been denied their right to freedom of expression and the pursuit of [their] happiness due to another group within our society who believe this modified Saint Andrew's Cross represents a support of slavery or pro-slavery ideology.

Southerners and Confederate supporters see the CSA battle flag as a representation of the battle for States Rights against an overstepping and tyrannical federal government.

This is their flag and that is their reason for wanting to fly the Confederate flag, yet because others have stated they are offended by this flag, the CSA battle jack has become politically incorrect and the "offended" have grown so bold as to remove the smaller versions of the flag from the graves of Confederate veterans, often with little or no consequences. In one case in 2009, an Auburn, AL city councilman removed CSA flags from four graves the day before Confederate Memorial Day because the flags were offensive to him and represented the Ku Klux Klan.

The "offended" win and history loses. The rights of people with Southern historical beliefs are trampled by the opinions of others who shout loud enough and protest loud enough to block out Constitutional protections.

Now take this same argument, the one of "I'm offended so you can't enjoy your rights under the Constitution" and apply it to the Ground Zero Mosque.

Many have argued that the people wanting to build a mosque, which has become known as the "Ground Zero Mosque", 200 yards from the 2001 Sept 11th massacre should be allowed to do so because of THEIR rights under the Constitution. Please note that this would not even be an issue if not for the belief system held by those who want to build the mosque in the first place.

OK. They have a Right to buy and build whatever they want, where ever they wish. IF the stated purpose of "in the spirit of understanding and healing" is actually the truth, they have a moral and ethical duty to NOT build the mosque so close to the hallowed ground of the former WTC.

I suspect this purpose is nothing more than propaganda.

In battles, when an opposing side wins the ground from the enemy, do they not raise a flag? This was done in the American Revolution when the Patriots took ground from the British, it was done in every battle against the Native Americans with the building of a fort and the raising of the Stars & Stripes. The Indians understood the presence of a fort and flag would indicate they had lost control of the land.

During World War II, did not one of the most famous war-time photos in history depict the raising of the American flag on the eight square mile island of Iwo Jima?



Most of the countries of the world will raise flags over their battle fields and conquered lands. Why the middle eastern mindset is to build a mosque on the land as a testament to their victory is beyond my understanding but I do not have to understand the "why?" to believe it is so.



In every poll where the question is whether a mosque should be built so near to the place where innocent lives were destroyed, the overwhelming answer is "NO".

New Yorkers don't want it and the rest of America doesn't want it.

If this mosque is allowed to be built, then I say the "I'm offended" argument is pure poppycock and Confederate supporters should start flying their flags every where they wish, any time and without one single whimper from any one.

I especially do not want to hear from the U.S. Dept. of [in]Justice, or the perceived "closet Muslim-in-Chief" sitting in the White House, or the Black Panthers from any town. I don't want any city councilman, any La Raza-type group, or any self-righteous, indignant person even thinking of claiming an offense to the flag of my ancestors.

At least my ancestors were and I am, an American!