Which is our most dangerous enemy, the liberal progressive democrat machine or Islam?

[PHILIP SCHNEIDER]

Government Looking for Witches Will Find Them

By Andrew P. Napolitano

October 3, 2013 Lew Rockwell.com

`

While the nation’s political class has been fixated on a potential government shutdown in Washington this week, the NSA has continued to spy on all Americans and by its ambiguity and shrewd silence seems to be acknowledging slowly that the scope of its spying is truly breathtaking.

The Obama administration is of the view that the NSA can spy on anyone anywhere. The president believes that federal statutes enable the secret FISA court to authorize the NSA to capture any information it desires about any persons without identifying the persons and without a showing of probable cause of criminal behavior on the part of the persons to be spied upon. This is the same mindset that the British government had with respect to the colonists. It, too, believed that British law permitted a judge in secret in Britain to issue general warrants to be executed in the colonies at the whim of British agents.

General warrants do not state the name of the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized, and they do not have the necessity of individualized probable cause as their linchpin. They simply authorize the bearer to search wherever he wishes for whatever he wants. General warrants were universally condemned by colonial leaders across the ideological spectrum — from those as radical as Sam Adams to those as establishment as George Washington, and from those as individualistic as Thomas Jefferson to those as big-government as Alexander Hamilton. We know from the literature of the times that the whole purpose of the Fourth Amendment — with its requirements of individualized probable cause and specifically identifying the target — is to prohibit general warrants.

And yet, the FISA court has been issuing general warrants and the NSA executing them since at least 2004.

Last week we learned in a curious colloquy between members of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and Gen. Keith Alexander and Deputy Attorney General James Cole that it is more likely than not that the FISA court has permitted the NSA to seize not only telephone, Internet and texting records, but also utility bills, credit card bills, banking records, social media records and digital images of mail, and that there is no upper limit on the number of Americans’ records seized or the nature of those records.

The judges of the FISA court are sworn to secrecy. They can’t even possess the records of what they have done. There is no case or controversy before them. There is no one before them to oppose what the NSA seeks. They don’t listen to challenged testimony. All of this violates the Constitution because it requires a real case or controversy before the jurisdiction of federal courts may be invoked. So when a FISA court judge issues an opinion declaring that NSA agents may spy to their hearts’ content, such an opinion is meaningless because it did not emanate out of a case or controversy. It is merely self-serving rhetoric, unchallenged and untested by the adversarial process. Think about it: Without an adversary, who will challenge the NSA when it exceeds the “permission” given by the FISA court or when it spies in defiance of “permission” denied? Who will know?

For this reason, the FISA court is unconstitutional at best and not even a court at worst. It consists of federal judges administratively approving in secret the wishes of the government. By not adjudicating a dispute, which is all that federal judges can do under the Constitution, these judges are not performing a judicial function. Rather, they are performing a clerical or an executive one, neither of which is contemplated by the Constitution.

And yet, the president and his secret agents and the politicians who support them would have you believe that the NSA’s spying has been approved by bona fide federal courts. It has not. Does the Constitution permit the federal government to put us all under a microscope? It does not. The government is supposed to work for us and derive its powers from the consent of the governed. Do you know anyone who consented to all this? I do not.

The traditional bar that the government must meet in order to begin gathering data on any of us is individualized articulable suspicion about criminal behavior. The purpose of that requirement is to prevent witch hunts and inquisitions and knocks on doors in the night. Without that bar, there are no limits as to whom the feds can pursue.

What will become of us if the feds can watch our every move and hear our every conversation and learn our every expenditure and read our every email and find out what we eat and whom we love and how we live? There are well over 4,500 federal crimes. The feds can find something wrong that anyone has done. Stalin’s chief of secret police, the monster Lavrenti Beria, once famously proclaimed: “Show me the man and I will find you the crime.” History teaches that a government on a witch hunt, unconstrained by law or Constitution, will not stop until it can brand someone as a witch. And an unbridled inquisition will not stop until it finds a heretic. The Constitution simply never entrusted the people who run the government with this awesome power. Rather, in the Fourth Amendment, it prohibited it.

If the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — which are the stated reasons for forming the United States of America in the first place — mean anything, they mean that we all possess the inalienable right to be different and the inalienable right to be left alone. Neither of these rights can be honored when the government knows all. And when the government knows all, and doesn’t like what it knows, we will have an authoritarian state far more odious than any history has ever known.

`

`(KNOW) your enemy

`

{On the face of an all-knowing secret government are large and awful eyes — and no smile.}

`

``

`

`_______________' Islam______________

`

Here is  a perspective by Dr. Peter Hammond, a doctorate in  Theology.
He was born  in Capetown in 1960, grew up in Rhodesia and converted to  Christianity in 1977.
(Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery,  Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary  Threat)

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest  form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other  components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient  Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious  privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well..

Here's how it  works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under  2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a  peace-loving
minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This  is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0..6%
Australia --  Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim  1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim  1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic  minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the  jails and among street gangs.
This is happening in:

Denmark  -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom --  Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim  4.6%

>From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in  proportion to their percentage of the population.
For example, they will  push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food,  thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims.
They will increase  pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along  with threats for failure to comply.

This is occurring  in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- 5%
Sweden --  Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands --  Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At  this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to  rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The  ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire  world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend  to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their  conditions.
In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings.  Any non Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats,  such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed  cartoons and films about Islam.
Such tensions are seen daily,  particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana -- Muslim  10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim  16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim  15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger  rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of  Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia --  Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres,  chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as  in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim  53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

>From 60%, nations  experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions  (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide),  use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such  as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim  60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim  70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad,  some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations  drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been  experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim  83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim  98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim  98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim  92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim  97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim  90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will  usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace.. Here  there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses  are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as  in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim  100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim  100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100%  states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of  reasons.

'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of  Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our  father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the  tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. --  Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some  countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the  minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100%  Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law.
The national police do  not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor  non-Muslim religious facilities.. In such situations, Muslims do not  integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They  learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime  punishable with death.
Therefore, in some areas of certain nations,  Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average  would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the  world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of  Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers.

Muslims will exceed 50% of the  world's population by the end of this century.

 

`

Liberal progressive democrat machine ?

 . . . . .   ISLAM ?

*

*

OR

*

*

Have they now merged in our White House?

*

*

[I.M. Patriot]

God provided monkey wrenches: they provide three uses basically. You can look at Islam and cite its manifestations, but if you don't look at it as if it were a disabled car that can injure and render roadkill,

expect roadkill. Fix it!