Jihad U.

Prisons, jails and detention centers are becoming Jihad Universities for recruitment in America. These places are designed for punished for the convicted and restraint for the accused. How can Law Enforcement whether managed by the government or a private company under government contract allow this to happen?

Greater inspection of incarcerated written material and religious meetings (particularly of the Mohammedan kind) needs to be increased.

This should not be a First Amendment issue for convicted felons who have made the choice to challenge the rule of law by breaking it; however the innocent until proven guilty incarcerated may have to find how far Free Speech issues can be limited if it is incitement toward conspiracy to break the law further by teaching jihad/Islamist terrorism.

(Hat tip to Stakelbeck on Terror)

To secure these rights...

I am embarrassed to say I did not realize that December 15 is the anniversary date of the Bill of Rights – the first Ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Mark Alexander points out that on December 15, 2007 it will have been 216 years since the Bill of Rights were ratified. Alexander also has an awesome essay on the emergence of the first Ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

It is an excerpt from the Patriot Post entitled, “"To secure these rights ...”

JRH 12/17/07
**************************

“To secure these rights...”

By Mark Alexander
Excerpt: Patriot Post Vol. 07 No. 50
14 December 2007

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” —Alexander Hamilton

Saturday, 15 December, is the 216th anniversary of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments to our Constitution, as ratified in 1791.

The Bill of Rights was inspired by three remarkable documents: John Locke’s 1689 thesis, Two Treatises of Government, regarding the protection of “property” (in the Latin context, proprius, or one’s own “life, liberty and estate”); in part from the Virginia Declaration of Rights authored by George Mason in 1776 as part of that state’s Constitution; and, of course, in part from our Declaration of Independence authored by Thomas Jefferson.

James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights as amendments to our Constitution in 1789, but many of our Founders objected to listing the Bill of Rights at all, much less as “amendments.” Their rationale was that such rights might then be construed as malleable rather than unalienable, as amendable rather than “endowed by our Creator” as noted in the Constitution’s supreme guidance, the Declaration of Independence.

Alexander Hamilton argued this point in The Federalist Papers, the most comprehensive explication of our Constitution: “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous... For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” (Federalist No. 84)

George Mason was one of 55 who authored the U.S. Constitution, but one of 16 who refused to sign it because it did not adequately address limitations on what the central government had “no power to do.” He worked with Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams against the Constitution’s ratification for that reason.

As a result of Mason’s insistence, ten limitations were put on the Federal Government by the first session of Congress, for the reasons outlined by the Bill of Rights Preamble: “The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution...”

Read in context, the Bill of Rights is both an affirmation of innate individual rights (as noted by Thomas Jefferson: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time...”), and a clear delineation on constraints upon the central government.

However, as Jefferson warned repeatedly, the greatest threat to such limitations on the central government was an unbridled judiciary: “Over the Judiciary department, the Constitution [has] deprived [the people] of their control... The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will... It is a misnomer to call a government republican in which a branch of the supreme power [the judiciary] is independent of the nation... The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”

In Federalist No. 81 Alexander Hamilton wrote, “[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State.”

That admonition notwithstanding, the federal judiciary has become “a despotic branch.”

Indeed, since the middle of the last century, judicial despots have grossly devitalized the Bill of Rights, asserting errantly that our Founders created a “Living Constitution” amendable by judicial diktat.

For example, the Left judiciary has “interpreted” the First Amendment as placing all manner of constraint upon the exercise of religion by way of the so-called “establishment clause” and based on the phony “Wall of Separation” argument. At the same time, the courts have asserted that all manner of expression constitutes “speech.”

The judiciary and legislatures have undermined the strength of the Second Amendment, a right of which James Madison’s appointee, Justice Joseph Story, referred to as “...the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers...”

Equally derelict is the manner in which the Tenth Amendment has been eroded by judicial interpretation.

In Federalist No. 45, Madison outlines the clear limits on central government power established in the Constitution: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Alexander Hamilton added in Federalist No. 81 “...the plan of the [Constitutional] convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.”

There was a very bloody War Between the States fought over offense to the Constitution’s assurance of States’ Rights.

All is not lost, however.

Sunday, 16 December, is the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party (1773). The “radicals” from Marlborough, Massachusetts, who threw 342 chests of tea from a British East India Company ship into the Boston Harbor in protest of tyrannical rule, did so noting, “Death is more eligible than slavery. A free-born people are not required by the religion of Christ to submit to tyranny, but may make use of such power as God has given them to recover and support their... liberties.”

Three years later, this rebellion had grown to such extent that our Founders were willing to give up their fortunes and lives, attaching their signatures to a document that declared, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Judicial and political despots, take note.
____________________

The Patriot is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of our Patriot readers.

The Patriot is a publication of Publius Press, Inc. Copyright © 1981-2007 Publius Press, Inc. The Patriot is protected speech pursuant to the "unalienable rights" of all men, and in accordance with the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

One Pro-Terrorist Juror and the HLF

Remember the Holy Land Foundation mistrial that occurred not too long ago in Dallas because of a hung jury? I was totally mystified how such a compendium of evidence would result in a hung jury.

Well now that mystification has a little clarity. It turns out that ONE juror – William Neal – perjured himself in the jury selection portion of the trial. And as far as I am concerned the Prosecution totally bungled the jury selection in allowing Neal to be selected as a Juror.

You have to be thinking by now: “Why! Why! Why! Do you have the audacity to single out one juror as the reason for the occurrence of a hung jury?

After interviewing the jurors it was discovered that Neal whole sale supported the terrorists Hamas as a legitimate political cause and bled Leftism and anti-Israel verbage in an overbearing manner to the whole jury. In effect Neal bullied jurors to vote his way which was ONLY not guilty through out the deliberations. The jurors that switched to Neal’s version most likely did so to go home. The jurors that did not give in to Neal’s blatant manipulation voted for justice; however no justice was served because of Neal’s blatant pro-Arab which call themselves Palestinians mentality. Really if you think about it Neal in essence supports (cogently or unconsciously) the evil, the destruction, and the murder of innocent lives which Islamist terrorism represents.

JRH

That NIE Makes War against Iran More Likely

Remarkably, Daniel Pipes hypothesizes that the National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 will lead to direct intervention of Iran’s nuclear program by America and/or Israel rather than shelve the direct military approach.

He is the only person to utilize this logic so let us how he comes to the conclusion.

JRH 12/15/07
*********************
That NIE Makes War against Iran More Likely

by Daniel Pipes

Jerusalem Post
DanielPipes.org

December 13, 2007

[JP title: "Their own worst nightmare"]

With the Dec. 3 publication of a completely unexpected declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), "Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities," a consensus has emerged that war with Iran "now appears to be off the agenda." Indeed, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claimed the report dealt a "fatal blow" to the country's enemies, while his foreign ministry spokesman called it a "great victory."

I disagree with that consensus, believing that military action against Iran is now more likely than before the NIE came out.

The NIE's main point, contained in its first line, famously holds: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." Other analysts – John Bolton, Patrick Clawson, Valerie Lincy and Gary Milhollin, Caroline Glick, Claudia Rossett, Michael Rubin, and Gerald Steinberg – have skillfully dissected and refuted this shoddy, politicized, outrageous parody of a piece of propaganda, so I need not dwell on that here. Further, leading members of Congress are "not convinced" of the NIE's conclusions. French and German leaders snubbed it, as did the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and even the International Atomic Energy Agency expressed doubts. British intelligence believe its American counterparts were hoodwinked, while Israeli intelligence responded with shock and disappointment.

Let us skip ahead then, and ask what are the long-term implications of the 2007 report?

For the sake of argument, let us assume the May 2005 NIE was correct, in which sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies assessed "with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons." Let us also assume there are three possible American responses to the Iranian nuclear buildup:

1. Convince the Iranians of their own accord to stop the nuclear weapons program.

2. Stop it for them through military intervention (which need not be a direct strike against the nuclear infrastructure but could be more indirect, such as an embargo on refined petrochemicals entering the country).

3. Permit it to culminate in Iran's acquiring a nuclear bomb.

As for Option #3, President Bush recently noted that whoever is "interested in avoiding World War III, … ought to be interested in preventing [the Iranians] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." So far, the lame NIE has not changed his mind. He appears to share John McCain's view that "There's only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option. That is a nuclear-armed Iran."

Therefore, the real question is not whether Iran will be stopped, but how.

The 2007 NIE has effectively terminated Option #1, convincing the Iranians themselves to halt their nuclear program, because this route requires wide external agreement. When key countries banded together to pass Security Council Resolution 1737 in December 2006, it caused the Iranian leadership to respond with caution and fear; but the NIE's soothing conclusion undercuts such widespread cooperation and pressure. When Washington pressures some Western states, Russia, China, and the IAEA, they can pull it out of the drawer, wave it in the Americans' faces, and refuse to cooperate. Worse, the NIE has sent a signal to the apocalyptic-minded leadership in Tehran that the danger of external sanctions has ended, that it can go undisturbed about its bomb-building business.

That leaves Option #2, direct intervention of some sort. Yes, that seems unlikely now, with the NIE dropping like a bombshell and shifting the debate. But will this hugely-criticized one thousand-word exercise really continue to dominate the American understanding of the problem? Will it change George W. Bush's mind? Will its influence extend to a year from now? Will it extend yet further, to the next president?

Highly unlikely, for these projections assume stasis – that this one report can refute all other interpretations, that no further developments will take place in Iran, that the argument over Iranian nuclear intentions closed down in early December 2007, never to revive. The debate most assuredly will continue to evolve and the influence of this NIE will fade and become just one of many appraisals, technical and non-technical, official and unofficial, American and non-American.

In short, with Option #1 undermined and Option #3 unacceptable, Option #2 – war carried out by either U.S. or Israeli forces – becomes the more probable. Thus have short-sighted, small-minded, blatantly partisan intelligence bureaucrats, trying to hide unpleasant realities, helped engineer their own nightmare.
________________

All materials written by Daniel Pipes on this site ©1980-2007 Daniel Pipes.

Judge Declares Declaration of Independence Unconstitutional

Here is a very awesome essay that is of the opinion the concept of a living breathing U.S. Constitution that is malleable by the times as the Judiciary sees fit leads to tyranny.

And I say “AMEN!”
JRH

Sharia Law Slipping into Western Banking?

What do you think about when you here the phrase “Global Banking”?

I am no econ or finance major; however off the top of my mind I think of American and European Banking calling the shots for banking standards and procedures.

There is the World Bank designed to aid poor nations with funds and loans for development. The World Bank headquarters is located in Washington, D.C.

The International Monetary Fund is another Western banking powerhouse that is highly involved in global development. The IMF central administrative city is also in Washington, D.C.

A fellow named Patrick Wood has written an essay on how the Mohammedan principles of Sharia Law banking is mutually (i.e. Western flirting and Mohammedan demanding) becoming infused as the new Global Banking principle.

Some would call that a conspiracy theory of the Mohammedan agenda of using soft measures (i.e. utilizing Western Rule of Law to manipulate a slow transformation of Mohammedan harsh principles) to incorporate Sharia Law into gradual Mohammedan domination of Western Society.

I lean toward Islamophobia so I tend to buy into such agendas coupled with the writings and speeches of radical Islamists of both the Sunni and Shi’ite variety.

Since I am merely a voice of opinion and an expert of little I rely on those who study such subjects as economics, finance and banking to grasp a little understanding. I am wholly convinced that Islamism today as Communism in the Twentieth Century is the greatest threat to American and Western Liberty and Freedom.

So let us pay attention to Patrick Wood as he writes about “Global Banks Adopting Islam.” READ IT!

JRH

Fred Ain't Dead

The Mainstream Media seems to have predicted Huckabee will win in Iowa on January 4th.

The prediction places Romney a close second.

Rasmussen Reports as of December 11 has Huckabee at 39%, Romney at 23% and my man Thompson and Giuliani tied at third with 8%.

McCain is at 6% and Paul one point behind at 5%.

I heard on Fox News this morning that Huckabee is taking the strength of his poll numbers in Iowa and will do a three day media blitz in New Hampshire to make a solid challenge to Romney’s numbers there.

Since I am a Thompson man, the numbers look disappointing to me; however I came across a Quinn Hillyer article in the American Spectator that raised my political spirits.

Hillyer says, “Fred Ain’t Dead.”

Again it is the comparison to Ronald Reagan coming from behind to beat George Bush I to win the GOP nomination in 1980.

JRH 12/15/07