Natural Born Citizen provision: Mother of all Ironies

While Barack Hussein Obama has to date never produced his long form birth certificate establishing his "natural born" U.S. citizenship status as required explicitly by the U.S. Constitution, Article II, which results in no one knowing for sure whether Hussein meets this requirement as a legitimization of his presidency and all of his enactments as POTUS, we can be assured of one thing -

Barack Hussein Obama IS a natural born Muslim, and beyond as we are about to be informed by someone in the know..

At Gates of Vienna we read excerpts from a Forbes article written by a Muslim woman, Asma Gull Hasan, who writes in part:

Perhaps it is my — and most Muslims’ — loyalty to the umma that is behind our insistence on seeing Obama as Muslim. Islam survived and continues to survive because Muslims believe we have to respect and take care of each other, as members of the umma. If we were to start excluding members, or revising our broad guidelines for admittance, the very essence of the community feeling that is important in Islam, that gives me and other Muslims comfort everyday, would be undercut.

Hasan continues:

So when Obama says he’s not Muslim, my umma mentality says I know better. Once you have a Muslim parent, especially a dad, you’re in. Whether you like it or not, Muslims all over the world see you as one of them. (emphasis mine)

There you have it. As I wrote in a comment to the GoV entry, "Hussein Obama may not be a natural born U.S. citizen, but he is definitely a natural born Muslim and all of Islam knows it." So while we in the Uni ... ummm ... fractured States argue over whether Hussein is a Muslim or not, there is, for all intents and purposes, absolute unity on the question within Islam - Barack Hussein Obama IS a natural born Muslim, thus he'll always be a Muslim. Muslims, by Allah, have no choice in this matter. Once you're in, you are regardless how you got in, and in the strictest sense possible, IN. Or as it's so well put in the Eagles' song Hotel Isla ... er ... Hotel California,

"you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave."

In other words, once your fraternal parent makes the mistake of checking you into the elaborately adorned hotel of Islam in the act which results in your conception - or especially once she makes this mistake, to be more exact - you are, in point of fact, and by no right of choice or free will inherent to your being, a lifelong Muslim; a prisoner of Islam not of your own device.

Resistance is futile.

Furthermore, I find it quite ironic indeed that no single (non-Muslim) liberal Hussein Obama supporter can be any more sure of Obama's natural born U.S. citizen status (minus perhaps a few inner circle elites) than any opponent of Obama can be. Yet they defend him to the hilt, saying emphatically and dogmatically that they both can and do know that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen, and not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond, in fact, any doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

Notice how close this "thinking" is to the thinking of Miss Hasan and the Muslim comminity in general as concerns Hussein Obama's lifelong status as a birthright Muslim. She and they know all about Hussein's denial that he is a Muslim, his self-proclaimed conversion to/acceptance of Christianity, yet they refuse to believe that he is not in fact a Muslim. And based on what? Not on anything he himself says about it, or any evidence he produces to support what he says about it. No; they believe he's a Muslim, and perhaps more importantly they refuse to disbelieve he's a Muslim, or to even entertain such an heretical thought, because Islam was conferred on him, not at birth but at conception, by his Muslim paternal parent Barack Hussein Obama I. So in strictness Barack Hussein Obama (or any person conceived in Islam, for that matter) is not a birthright or a natural born Muslim, he is by conception a Muslim, or, a natural conceived Muslim if you will. (This guy is an honor killing waiting to happen.)

This, my friends, is fundamentalist Islamism at its most basic elementary level. And I want us to realize that this is coming from someone who some of us, in our self-righteous quest to find and show the good that exists in pure evil, would call a "moderate" Muslim, which is to say someone not directly and actively involved in Jihad against the infidels, i.e., all non-Muslims but with a particular emphasis on Jews and Christians - Islam's greatest and most capable enemies. This sort of thinking inherent to Islam is the kind of thinking that naturally progresses, as Muslims become more self-aware and seek to become more Mohammed-like, or to express their faith in a more genuine Muslim fashion through various stages at various rates of speed depending on the individual, and eventually arrives at its natural climax - full-blown Islamism, or, world domination in the name of Allah. This woman, Miss Hasan, has thus crossed over the rubicon as all Muslims, everywhere and at all times, are susceptible to doing. Once that happens there is virtually no chance of ever crossing back over.

But let us reflect as well on the fact that modern Western liberalism contains some of the very same elements or building blocks that we see in Islam, thus revealing to us that they both emanate from the same source. Liberalism is at its core, as with Islam, deceptive and fundamentally oppressive, not merely towards those who exist outside its destructive mind-altering influence mind you, but towards those also who have been taken in by its deceptive lure. Keep in mind too, and as an illustration of the point, that when pressed on the question of Hussein's natural born citizen status liberals will make as a last-ditch argument, as Miss Hasan does above concerning his status as an Islamite, that he is, in point of fact, a natural conceived American, by which they mean to say that liberalism trumps any and all explicit provisions in the U.S. Constitution including the natural born citizen requirement imposed on U.S. presidents. Irregardless of whether Hussein actually is a natural born U.S. citizen according to U.S. law made in pursuance thereof, liberalism has redefined what the term means. It's basically that simple. Thus we as a nation have crossed over the rubicon.

Liberalism only cares about the U.S. Constitution insofar as it can be utilized to advance its own destructive ideology, as is the case with Islam. When you boil it all down liberalism is arguing that it matters not whether Hussein was actually born on American soil; it matters not the circumstances surrounding his birth - his mother's age, Hawaiian law at the time, his father's British/Kenyan citizenship at the time of his birth, etc... - what matters most, and the only thing that matters to a liberal when you boil it all down, is that Barack Hussein Obama was conceived a liberal with a liberal's genetic makeup, thus he is a natural conceived U.S. citizen, a status which overrules everything else including the Constitution's natural born citizen provision contained in Article II. We see again when such arguments are made by liberals that they themselves have too crossed over the rubicon and into the realm of leftist extremism.

The implications of these ideologies taken to their extremes, which is the natural course for them both as they are both radical ideologies as inherent to their natures, should be strikingly obvious and quite disturbing to anyone not yet completely brainwashed by either/or; to anyone who has not yet taken that fatal step across the rubicon. Which is the reason our founding fathers built in certain components integral to our system of government as safeguards to prevent such radicalism from becoming dominant in America thus destroying the very foundations upon which this once great Republic was built. Many of those essential components were long ago compromised and some have since been destroyed, of course, which opened the way for modern liberalism to do exactly what the founders were trying to prevent in establishing the components as integral to the system to begin with - the prevention of our collectively taking that fateful step over the rubicon and into the realm of extreme self-delusion and self-destructiveness, which is modern liberalism.

God help us all.

Read More

Homegrown Jihad?

Gates of Vienna is plugging a new documentary video - Homegrown Jihad - showing evidence of terrorist organizations and at least 35 individual terrorist training camps scattered about across the U.S.:

Baron Bodissey writes:

Martin Mawyer, Jason Campbell, and the other brave people of the Christian Action Network have spent the last three years researching, videotaping, and gathering material for their documentary Homegrown Jihad. They have done the country a tremendous service, and I recommend that you visit the CAN site and get yourself a copy of the DVD.

While I too encourage you to visit the CAN site and watch the trailer video, and certainly order your own copy of the movie which I intend to do, may I express a minor quibble with the use of a certain term, as well as to offer an alternative?

Is it possible for us to agree to stop referring to these Muslim terrorists living and training in America as "homegrown"? Admittedly it's a catchy word, but homegrown seems to me to imply that they were born and raised and educated in America, which I'm sure is true for some of them, but surely the vast majority of them are not "homegrown," and they didn't become jihadists while living on American soil. Rather, they are grown and developed elsewhere, or foreign-grown if you will, and make their way to, and manage to stay in, America via a variety of avenues, legal and illegal. Therefore I suggest that we stop using the term "homegrown" in relation to this particular group of jihadist terrorists, and replace it with "home-based" until such time as we gain smarts enough to remove them from American soil and repatriate them back to the lands from whence they came. At which point we'll no longer need the term to distinguish between them and foreign terrorists and terrorist organizations. They'll all just be jihadist mercenaries confined to the lands of their forbears.

Am I asking too much or being too nitpicky?

Read More

New addition to "On Islam"

Readers familiar with this blog immediately recognize the On Islam label in the post title. For those new, or relatively new to the blog, On Islam is the title of a section in this blog's left sidebar containing permanent links to sites and articles by authors who are knowledgable about the subject of Islam, its propagation and advancement in the West, and the ultimate reason its [Islam's] adherents seek empowerment in the West.

The propagation and advancement of Islam in the West is obviously a major concern of this blog and its owner, and I'm on constant lookout for articles and authors who are knowledgable and informative on the subject. Indeed, as I wrote in the introduction to to my webpage Lawrence Auster on Islam,:

The purpose of the page is twofold: it is to provide the inquisitive seeker of information concerning Islam with factual material on the nature of the religion of Mohammed which you may have heretofore been unacquainted with or simply unaware of. ...

Likewise, it is one purpose of this blog, and the specific purpose of the On Islam section of the blog, to provide the inquisitive reader with the same type of factual material taken from the Quran and other Islamic sources, and to allow him to draw his own conclusions from the material presented.

I do not pretend to be open minded when it comes to the advancement of Islam in America and the West. Indeed, I freely own that I'm vehemently oppose it and anything that leads to Islam's westward advancement; specifically Muslim immigration to America and the West. Why? Because, very simply stated, Islam in practice means nothing less than an attempt at complete and utter world domination by various means including, but certainly not limited to, religious deception. And since Muslims are the practitioners of Islam, or Islamic world domination, then they do not belong in this country or the West. In other words, I know enough about Islam at this point to justify closing my mind to any and all attempts to sugar-coat what Mohammed's "religion" is all about, and/or, any and all stated attempts to eviscerate from the historical record who and what this piece of garbage Mohammed was. And I know enough about it to know that "radicals" did not "hijack" a great religion on Sept. 11, 2001. Islam may well be by some standard a "great religion", but it most certainly has never been hijacked by radical islamists unless you consider its demented radical founder to have hijacked the very religion he himself invented and became the embodiment of by his own barbaric, murderous, anti-semitic, pedophile example - the example that all good Muslims are to follow.

I cannot acquiesce in what appears to be a new innovation on the final stanza of Berkeley's famous poem:

Westward the course of Islam takes it way.

The first five acts already past, a sixth shall close the drama with the day.

Time's most violent offspring is the last.

Notwithstanding all of that, I'm happy to report that a permanent link to a worthy site has now been newly added to the On Islam section of this blog. Thanks to Mr. Winn for his scholarly service in this cause, and thanks to Gates of Vienna commenter Henrik R. Clausen for turning me and other GoV readers on to the site. I hope you'll take the time to visit and read it, particularly the online book Prophet of Doom.

Read More

That's Islam

How do you turn young females with their whole lives ahead of them into suicide killers? Well, here's one ingenious way of doing it.

That's Islam, always on the cutting-edge of mass murderer creating technology.

Read More

How long before the U.S. goes belly-up?

Have a look at and contemplate the implications of this GoV entry.

Baron Bodissey writes:

Last night I mentioned the imaginary money that is being used to bail out the favorites of Treasury Secretary Paulson and other members of the Washington Mandarin class. The government has paid off bad bank loans and bailed out failing businesses by borrowing enormous quantities of money from — well, from future taxpayers who will somehow become three or four times richer than they are now under the new Socialist regime.

But it’s even worse than I thought: the level of federal indebtedness has moved beyond mere profligacy into a new realm of total financial fantasy. The national debt is about to surpass the net worth of every man, woman, and child in the USA.

As I said in a comment to the entry, I have no economic expertise, but I can add, and the numbers seem to me not to add up given current longstanding trends. Other commenters have pointed out that debt to net worth ratio needn't favor the latter for a person or an entity to remain economically viable. This is true I think and can be proven by a couple of simple examples. For instance, people frequently make large purchases which exceed their family's total net worth -- a house is a good example, but for some even the purchase of a 30 thousand dollar vehicle exceeds the individual's total net worth, whether he might like to admit it or not. I'm not saying it's wise (for an individual or a government) to do so, but it is pretty commonplace and it doesn't always end in financial ruin.

But again, the issue for me is the number of net taxpayers compared to the number of non-net taxpayers, current and future. What that comes down to in simple terms is the number of people who pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits vs. the number of people who receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, and what that ratio will be in the coming years.

My view has always been that we have to reverse this trend. And that comes down to a little self-sacrifice on the part of individuals. Yes, it can be painful. But what that's truly valuable isn't painful in acquiring or achieving?

Read More

GoV supports CAIR's mission?

Am I picking fights unnecessarily with those who are largely in agreement with me on the issue of Muslims in the West? I don't believe so, but maybe you do.

Under this GoV thread Auster pointed out that Dymphna had wrongly asserted that many Muslims are American citizens of several generations, showing that in point of fact few Muslims are American citizens of several generations. Like Auster, I had also picked up on the falsity of Dymphna's statements, and intended to respond, only to find that I had been railroaded by Mr. Auster who beat me to the punch. ;-)

Nah, as I've written before, one of the fundamental tenets of CAIR's mission -- openly announced in so many words in each and every of their articles -- in America is to empower American Muslims. And as I've questioned, rhetorically, before, how are Muslims in America to do this, and to what purpose do they seek empowerment? The answers to those questions are very obvious to my mind.

But the implications of Dymphna's statements to the effect that we cannot even discuss removing Muslims, and thus the Muslim threat, from America and the West because they are already well established third and fourth generation citizens here, when in truth they are not, are what compelled me to respond the way I did in the thread. As I said, when you boil it all down to its fundamentals, what Dymphna is basically saying is that she supports a permanent Muslim presence and empowerment of Muslims in the West; what her position means, if followed, is that while her statements are false at the moment, they will become truthful a couple of generations down the road, at which point our progeny will be in a much weaker position to deal with the Muslim threat than we in our generation are.

What is fundamentally different, then, about Dymphna's position as she stated it in the thread, and that of CAIR as they incessantly state it under every article they post at their site? Both positions lead to the very same results -- a permanent empowered Muslim presence in the West -- which is, from any truly conservative pro-Western perspective, unacceptable.

Read More

The upside-down world we live in

Over at Gates of Vienna, Baron Bodissey cites a story in the Sydney Morning Herald concerning the French government's plans to outlaw three types of internet crime, Child pornography, Terrorism, and Racial hatred. Baron's understandable concern is with the government of France effectively declaring "racism" (French government's definition, of course) as a crime equal to that of Child porn and Terrorism.

Baron writes:

This last little fillip — the “pledge” that the new rules will not infringe on “fundamental liberty” — is a sure sign that the authorities have every intention of using the plan to exert political control and clamp down on any speech that interferes with the entrenched European power structure.

As we have seen recently in Finland, Sweden, and Britain, as well as France, “racism” is a conveniently elastic term. It can be stretched to apply to any independent-minded behavior by the citizens of Europe that is considered unacceptable by the elites who run the show. Specifically, anyone who disapproves of or even questions the mass immigration of millions of Muslims into European cities is by definition a racist.

Virtually anything posted here at Gates of Vienna — or at the Brussels Journal, or Mission Europa, or Snaphanen, or Europe News, or Politically Incorrect, or Tundra Tabloids, or Beer n Sandwiches — is “racist”, and therefore actionable under the French scheme.

As I said, the Baron's concern is understandable and well founded in my opinion. But take a look at the comments to the post:

Commenter Henrik writes:

Good post. I've been saying this over and over. Personally I have not even seer a single pieces of child porn - couldn't care less - but the principle is important. Watching some despicable picture of naked children can hardly be a crime in itself - but in the failure to cope with what really matters - the child abuse - governments have decided to attack derivatives instead.

This is a violation of the Rule of Law, in that non-crimes are being punished, and this is a problem. Further, once the government gets the idea to block particular content, the idea will not stop.

What is coming to pass is exactly what I expected.

In Denmark, the Constitution is quite good on so-called 'preventive measures', and I've tried to sound the alarm about what they're doing (blocking at the DNS level), but so far to no avail.

This is a difficult issue to deal with.

And "Homophobic Horse" responds:

So you don't think that people who masturbate to child pornography are themselves participating in and encouraging child abuse?

A few comments later, "Pogo" replies to Homophobic Horse directly:

Homophobic Horse,
I once arrested an arsonist who got his kicks setting fires and watching them burn. Does this mean that matches should be outlawed?

At which point I enter the fray:

Pogo wrote:

I once arrested an arsonist who got his kicks setting fires and watching them burn. Does this mean that matches should be outlawed?

You're arguing that internet child pornography should be legal based on the idea that we don't ban the sale of matches which, when misused, have the power to destroy physical property? How do you equate the two?

Why don't you argue instead for the sale and distribution of child porn in magazine form at your local Seven Eleven?

In my passionate disbelief of what I was reading coming from Pogo (a law enforcement officer, nonetheless), I forgot to finish my thoughts before rushing to post my reply. When I qualified my statements about the legal sale of matches with the phrase "when misused," I meant to follow up on that thought regarding child pornography, to wit: When is child pornography ever not misused; what is the usefulness of child pornography to anyone???

I'd like for Pogo, or anyone else, to answer me that.

**********

Read More