August 27, 2013
As a writer, I've been asked, more than a few times, "Are you liberal or conservative?" I've been accused by people calling themselves conservatives, of being a liberal. On the other side of the spectrum, liberals call me all sorts of names – "racist, hater, conspiracy theorist, birther, tin foil hat, alarmist" … you name it, I've been called it, along with more than a few expletives and pejoratives.
Back in the day of ignorance and naivety, I told people I was conservative. Today, when people ask me if I'm liberal or conservative, I tell them neither, that I believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights as written by our Founding Fathers. I invariably get the argument that I must be a conservative. No so. The reason is simple – there are only two kinds of people: 1) those who believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, established as the supreme law of our land, and 2) those who do not. There is no "right" or "left," there is no "liberal" or "conservative"; these are nothing more than labels; monikers that mislead people into believing that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are living documents that can be interpreted in different ways.
Thomas Jefferson said, in 1823,
"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
In studying the writings of our Founding Fathers, it becomes very apparent that our limited form of government, as established by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, was established as it was to allow the citizens of the several states the greatest amount of freedom possible to govern themselves, to control themselves, to sustain themselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.
John Adams made this very clear when he stated, "Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for any other."
On the steps of Constitution Hall, in Philadelphia, when asked what form of government we would have, Benjamin Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it." Like John Adams, Benjamin Franklin knew, although not a Christian himself, that our nation would only survive so long as the people choose to live by the Ten Commandments of God.
Both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution make it very clear that the flow of power, under the United States Constitution, is from God to the people to the government, that Natural Law was, and is, the basis of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
George Mason, Founding Father, statesman, 1772,
"The laws of nature are the laws of God, Whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to Him from Whose punishment they cannot protect us, all human constitutions which contradict His laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey."
When people talk about the "separation of church and state", they mistakenly believe that such means that those who represent us should leave their religious beliefs at the door as they enter our institutions of government. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reading the writings of our Founding Fathers, it becomes very apparent that they believed those who represented the people in the halls of government should be men of religious belief, Godly men who deliberated according to God's word, as the Higher Authority; statesman, if you will.
This brings me to the present day and the current sad situation in America. On August 22, 2013, Judicial Watch announced …
"…that it has obtained educational materials from the Department of Defense (DOD) depicting conservative organizations as 'hate groups' and advising students to be aware that 'many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.' The documents repeatedly cite the leftwing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a resource for identifying 'hate groups.'"
In reading the document, which is a training document for all "first duty station" personnel, it becomes apparent that what Judicial Watch is really referring to in the use of the term "conservative", in context, is those who believe, like myself, in the Constitution and Bill of Rights; in context "leftwing", especially in reference to the SPLC, is a group that does not believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights as written, only as interpreted.
You can download your own copy of the document at the link above.
The document, on page 35, defines "extremist" as,
“a person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights.”
The document then goes on, on page 45, to state,
"many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.”
This further defines the true meaning of the term "extremist".
The document cinches the meaning, on page 43,
“In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”
In other words, according to this document, our Founding Fathers were extremists, ergo, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are extremist doctrine that we should set aside and ignore. Furthermore, those who believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are extremists.
And, of course, by extension, this document paints anyone who believes in God as the Creator, the Higher Authority, who believes in the Bible and Natural Law, as an extremist. This was never the intent of our Founding Fathers who knew that the only religion, under which people could truly be free, was Christianity. And they were right, all other religions, whether humanism, atheism, agnosticism, or the bevy of other religions that believe in a godhead, are self-destructive and/or oppressive.
How far we have come from the work of our Founding Fathers.
Which brings us to what is very obviously not in the aforementioned DOD training document—While the document does make reference to 9/11, does make reference to the Sudan, both as "historical events" (page 44-45), there is not one mention of Islamic extremism!
This, in turn, brings us to recent events linking the man currently occupying our White House illegally (as he is not natural born), Barack Hussein Obama, and the Muslin Brotherhood, a radical extremist Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organization!
It is very important, given the information above, that people go to the website, Walid Shoebat, and they read every report found there, especially those found here and here. As with any "watchman on the wall," Walid Shoebat—who openly admits to having been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, who openly names relatives still active in that organization—is being called a "tin foil hat." How many of us, who have exposed the inner workings of systems philosophy have been called the same thing? Yet we weren't wrong, as time proved.
The reports on Shoebat's website outline the connections between Barack Obama and the radical Islamic terrorist organization, The Muslim Brotherhood. Remember when Michelle Bachmann wrote the 16-page letter to Rep. Keith Ellison about the infiltration of the U.S. Government by members of the Muslim Brotherhood; remember the attack on her by various talking heads who claimed it wasn't true, including Obama lap-dog, John McCain? While McCain and the rest never produced one iota of evidence to disprove Bachmann's allegations, anyone who claimed she was wrong was given access to a microphone.
Michelle Bachmann was more than right in her assertions. And one Muslim Brotherhood infiltrator, into the executive branch of our government, is Huma Abedin, wife of the former New York Representative who likes to expose himself to women – Anthony Weiner. Abedin has been a close associate of Hillary Rodham Clinton since 1996, then her top aide as Secretary of State. Huma Abedin, her brother, her mother and her father (now deceased) not only have direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood but also to Al Qaeda, the spawn of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is now known that a branch of Al Qaeda and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood were involved in the Benghazi embassy massacre.
Many will say, "How is it possible that a member of the Muslim Brotherhood (Abedin) could marry a Jew when such is forbidden under Islamic Law?" Westerners (called "infidels" by Muslims) are very ignorant about the Muslim culture. Muslims practice what is known as Muruna which is defined thusly,
“Is it permissible, then, to have alliances with powers that are non-Muslim? Can Muslims work in banks that practice usury?…For the young Muslims they should not leave their jobs in banks and insurance agencies despite their work being evil, since their experience in these agencies would gain experience for what would benefit the Muslim commerce… whoever examines the issues in light of the Doctrine of Balance would find that entry into these arenas is not merely a project, but a preference and a duty.” (source, page 19)
In other words, Abedin can marry a Jew "for an interest." In Abedin's case, that "interest" could be in making it appear that she is not a radical Muslim in the interests of her position as top aide to Hillary Rodham Clinton; but considering that Abedin is a radical Muslim, state secrets would more likely be her "interest." Abedin could not have possibly gotten a security clearance had she been vetted. Walid Shoebat questions whether she was and no proof exists that she was.
Think about the implications of this with regard to the claim that has been made that it was not Osama bin Laden (no proof has been provided that it was, government claims notwithstanding) who was killed at the compound in Pakistan. Even though Muruna allows for the sacrifice of Muslims, for the cause, bin Laden was too important a player to have been sacrificed, unless he had become a liability to Al Qaeda, of which there is no indication. To sacrifice a look-alike, however, would serve to focus the efforts of Al Qaeda.
The documents also talk about the Muslim "grand plan" for the take-over of the world. A scary thought but they are bringing it about in country after country, first demanding that their religious beliefs and religious law be honored within the legal and cultural institutions of that country, then slowly usurping existing law with Sharia – Islamic law based on the "absolute law of Allah." We have already seen instances in which American courts have observed Sharia law, instances where taxpayers have been forced to provide accommodation for Muslim practices in schools and universities, instances in public places, like airports, where the same is true.
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
Remember the Muslim sect that wanted to build a mosque on a piece of property in Texas and demanded the pig farmer next door move his operation, even though the farmer—and the pigs—were there long before the Muslims bought the land next door? They are seeking accommodation. If they get it, it won't end there.
There is a very real threat to America. At the pinnacle is Barack H Obama who is not legally our president. It continues with people to who he is giving access; to the people with whom he associates; to the people with whom he is connected including his own brother, uncle and first cousin, all powerful players in the Muslim Brotherhood.
These people are a real threat to our way of life, not those who believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Yet you will not find them listed anywhere by the SPLC or any other organization that does not believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
That, alone, should be a heads-up to us all.
I encourage everyone, reading this, to find out for yourself, the extent to which the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the government of our country. It is imperative that you do so.
Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.
© 2013 Lynn M. Stuter - All Rights Reserved
Activist and researcher, Stuter has spent the last fifteen years researching systems theory and systems philosophy with a particular emphasis on education as it pertains to achieving the sustainable global environment. She home schooled two daughters. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance, the sustainable global environment and education reform. She networks nationwide with other researchers and a growing body of citizens concerned about the transformation of our nation from a Constitutional Republic to a participatory democracy. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas.
Web site: www.learn-usa.com