WAKE UP AMERICA! RELIGIOUS WAR: RADICAL ISLAM VS. JUDEO-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
Islamic Sharia Law is Direct and Imminent Threat to the United States!
All the More Reason to Fight for Your Second Amendment Rights!
RECOMMENDED READING & VIEWING:
Citing David B. Kopel, Dhimmitude and Disarmament, 18 Geo. Mason U. Civ. Rts. L.J. 305 (2008). Available through Lexis-Nexis Academic.
Bat Ye’or, Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide 56, (book) Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, Madison, NY (January 31, 2002);
Mark Durie’s review of Bat Ye’or, Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, (book review of Bat Ye’or, Islam and Dhimitude: Where Civilizations Collide) Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. 2002. Dr. Mark Durie is an Anglican Minister at St. Hilary’s Kew, and a former head of Linguistics and Language Studies at the University of Melbourne. He has written several books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, a Muslim people group in Indonesia. John Mark Ministries. http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/520.htm
More Recommend Reading and Online Video Viewing under Theory No. 22 below.
Admiralty Jurisdiction: Second Amendment Rights of American Merchant Seamen
Will someone please talk some sense into THE NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, the Gun Owners of America, and the rest of the Second Amendment advocacy grougs!! I can use some help with legal representation and fundraising!
My forthcoming Admiralty Civil Complaint is primae impressionis (a case of first impression). It is impossible for a U.S. merchant seaman to exercise Second Amendment and Ninth Amendment rights to intrastate, interstate, nautical, and maritime travel while openly armed for personal safety and security. Finding truth in centuries old legal latin maxims the following latin maxims are bundled for effect supporting the merits of my forthcoming Admiralty Complaint:
Argumentum ab impossibili, plurimum valet in lege. (An argument from an impossibility has very great weight in law). Impunitas continuum affectum tribuit delinquendi. (Impunity provides a constant inclination to wrongdoing). Ubi cessat remedium ordinarium, ibi decurritur ad extraordinarium remedium. (When an ordinary remedy ceases, then we have recourse to an extraordinary remedy). Recurrendum est ad extraordinarium quando non valet ordinarium. (We must have recourse to what is extraordinary when what is ordinary fails). Bonum defendentis ex integra causa, malum ex quolibet defectu. (Good is the result of a person defending from an entire cause : evil results from one defending from any defect). Malum quo communius eo pejus. (The more frequent the evil, the worse it is). Adversus periculum naturalis ratio permittit se defendere. (Natural reason allows one to defend himself against danger). Necessitas quod cogit, defendit. (What necessity compels to do, it defends). Jus naturale est quod apud omnes homines eandem habet potentiam. (Natural law is that which hath the same power among all men). Quod ad jus naturale attinet, omnes homines sequales sunt. (With respect to natural law, all men are equal). Quod vero naturalis ratio inter omnes homines constituit, id apud omnes peraeque custoditur quod semper aequum ac bonum est. (What, indeed, natural reason hath constituted among all men, is observed among all in the same degree, which is always just and good). Atma in armatos sumere jura sinunt. (The laws allow to take arms against the armed). As for perpetual and excessive gun control laws coming from the U.S. Congress? Summum jus summa injuria. (Law carried to extremes, is the height of injustice). As for restoring the Second Amendment right to open carry in interstate, nautical, and maritime travel? Semper pro legitimatione praesumitur. (There is a presumption in favour of legitimation). Benedicta est expositio quando res redimitur a destructione. (It is a blessed exposure when the thing is redeemed from destruction).
PRIRACY ALERT: Pirates are firing automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenades in an attempt to
A Petitory Action Quasi In Rem Suam Et Jus Tertii for Second Amendment rights of U.S. seamen as wards of the Admiralty in interstate, nautical, and maritime travel under federal common law, United States laws, maritime laws and treaties, whether or not employed as seamen for my own rights and for the rights of third parties (jus tertii doctrine) for those who are required to possess a Transportation Worker’s Identification Card (TWIC) for their occupation (occupational discrimination against Second Amendment rights under civil rights laws 42 U.S.C. § 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, is an analogous proceeding to an Action In Rem under Rule C.(1)(b) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions.
► The Second Amendment is Intangible Property under Admiralty Law.
► The Second Amendment is a Religious Right under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment
► The Second Amendment is jus nobilius [a superior right] to Property Rights as Gun-Free Zones are unconstitutional and presents the Emergence of a New (or Old) Peremptory Norm of General International Law (“jus cogens”) under Article 64 in both the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1657 Priority of Civil Action, this Civil Complaint has good cause for the Court to expedite this case because my rights and the rights of third parties under the Constitution of the United States and Federal Statutes would be maintained in a factual context because this case now has confirmed constitutional and federal law merits in light of District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07‑290, 554 U.S. 290; 478 F. 3d 370 (2008).
“Admiralty rules of pleading are to be liberally construed, and in dealing with sailors’ rights, admiralty will grant them relief if justice is served and adjudge their rights where equity and expediency are gained.” Ancich v. The Marsha Ann, s.d. Cal. 1950, 92 F.Supp. 929, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds 191 F.2d 392, cert. denied 72 S.Ct 293, 342 U.S. 905, 96 L.Ed. 677, rehearing denied 72 S.Ct. 374, 342 US 934, 96 l.Ed. 695.
“Procedure in admiralty and other in rem cases should be the same as in cases in law and equity unless strong policy or statute prevents this uniformity of treatment.” United States v. Article Consiting of 216 Cortoned Bottles, More or Less, Sudden Change, E.D.N.Y. 1968, 288 F.Supp. 29, reversed on other grounds 409 F.2d 734.
“In admiralty, suits to try title to property[property includes intangible property. The Second Amendment is an intangible property right of seamen] independent of questions concerning possession[FOOTNOTE] are referred to as ‘petitory suits,’ which suits must be based on a claim of legal title; the assertion of a mere equitable interest is not sufficient. Hunt v. A Cargo of Petroleum Procducts Laden on Steam Tanker Hilda, E.D.Pa. 1974, 378 F.Sup. 701, affirmed 515 F.2d 506, cert. denied 96 S.Ct. 132, 423 U.S. 869, 46 L.Ed.2d.
See Non-Physical Takings & the Fifth Amendment, Andrew S. Gold, Regulatory Takings and Original Intent: the Direct, Physical Takings Thesis “Goes Too Far,” 49 Am. U. L. Rev. 181, 241 (1999):
The text of the Takings Clause is ambiguous because the original understanding of the word “property” is uncertain. In all likelihood, there was no consensus by the Founders as to what “property” meant. If one accepts the meaning of “property” as understood by its author, James Madison, the Takings Clause would apply to regulatory takings in addition to physical takings. One must remember, however, that the Constitution was ratified by the states.
Unfortunately, the historical record for the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause is limited. There is enough material for a party on either side of the regulatory takings debate to muster an argument for his or her position. But there is nothing remotely sufficient to prove the Takings Clause originally was intended to cover only “direct, physical takings.”
The strongest evidence that the Takings Clause is limited to direct, physical takings is the fact that many colonies had a practice of uncompensated regulation that directly took private property rights. The import of this evidence is curtailed by the fact that the colonies did not have takings clauses that regulated the legislature and thus, no strictures on colonial regulation comparable to the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. Although it is reasonable to question whether such a significant change in just compensation protection—limiting the legislature and requiring compensation for regulatory takings—could have been ratified absent any debate, this is easily explained by the fact that the Takings Clause originally did not apply to the states. Moreover, many states were no longer as trusting of the legislature as they had been during colonial times.
The strongest evidence that the Takings Clause originally was intended to cover regulatory takings are the Framers’ strong leanings in favor of protection for property rights, James Madison’s post-ratification statements, and the just compensation philosophy contained in the writings of Blackstone, Locke, and Grotius. Although Madison’s statements do not carry the same weight as pre-ratification commentary, they should carry some weight because of Madison’s role in drafting the Takings Clause and the fact that he published the Property essay so shortly after ratification. Madison’s view supports the jurisprudential position taken by Grotius and Blackstone and clearly extends the Takings Clause to non-physical takings.
The Second Amendment as intangible propery is located within the Court’s jurisdiction. It is in the federal interest to establish federal preemption over State and local laws to protect the Second Amendment rights of U.S. merchant seamen under the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 (U.S. Code, Title 46, Chapter 27, Subchapter I – Declaration of Policy; codified as 46 U.S.C. Appendix § 1101) because they have an integral part in national defense, homeland security, and the development of its foreign and domestic commerce because “[i]t is the policy of the United States that merchant marine vessels of the United States should be operated by highly trained and efficient citizens of the United States and that the United States Navy and the merchant marine of the United States should work closely together to promote the maximum integration of the total seapower forces of the United States.” (Id. Subchapter XIII – Maritime Education and Training. Codified as 46 U.S.C. Appendix § 1295 Congressional Declaration of Policy); The authority to apply of the Second Amendment to the United States Merchant Marine as a federal interest is found in the U.S. Code, Title 10 – Armed Forces; Subtitle A—General Military Law; Part I—Organization and General Military Powers; Chapter 17—Arming of American Vessels: 10 U.S.C. § 351 During War or Threat to National Security.
PLAINTIFF’S NOTE: Second Amendment rights are non-physical property under United States law and intangible property under Admiralty and maritime law. Both are one in the same. William Blackstone’s COMMENTARIES on the LAWS of ENGLAND, [Chapter One]: Of the RIGHTS of PERSONS. Oxford, Clarendon Press, (1765) catagorizes personal security of life, limbs, body, health, reputation and good name [Blackstone, pp. 125-130]; personal liberty of individuals, right to travel, right to change one’s situation without imprisonment or restraint unless by due course of law. [Blackstone, pp. 130-134], “. . . liberties more generally talked of, than thoroughly understood; and yet highly necessary to be perfectly known and considered by every man of rank or property, lest his ignorance of the points whereon it is founded should hurry him into faction and licentiousness on the one hand, or a pusillanimous indifference and criminal submission on the other.” [Blackstone, p. 140]; right to property [i.e. firearms!] [Blackstone, p. 134-136], as absolute rights. And with absolute rights, i.e., Second Amendment right to openly keep and bear arms (National Open Carry Handgun) come absolute duties (constitutional norms).
Guidance from Corpus Juris Secundum:
71 C.J.S. Pleading § 101. Theory and Nature of Action
A declaration, complaint, or petition should proceed on definite [theories], set forth the basis on which relief is sought, and state the facts essential to support [those theories]. If a complaint sets up two [or more] theories of recovery and the major theory fails, plaintiff may avail himself … of the minor theory if this works no injustice to his … opponent[s], and, if plaintiff adopts a wrong theory and fails to prove the cause of action intended, where he … proves any other cause of action embraced by the allegations in his or her pleading, he … may recover on that.
71 C.J.S. Pleading § 102 Theory and Nature of Action—Ascertaining Nature of Action
Where a complaint presents two [or more] theories, the [theories] adopted should be the [ones] which [are] more clearly authorized or intended by the facts pleaded.
Intention of Pleader
The court will, when possible, sustain the theory [or theories] intended by the pleader, and follow such [theories] if [they are] supported by the allegations.
71 C.J.S. Pleading § 149 Two or More Causes of Action
Where it is sought to set out two or more causes of action in the same pleading, and joinder of such causes of action in one action is permissible, it is not only proper to set out the different causes of action in separate counts, so that each cause of action will constitute a separate count and each count will embrace only one cause of action, but it is also necessary, as a general rule, to do so, even though they grow out of the same transaction.
Theory No. 1 for which Relief is Sought: Oath of Office & Absolute Ministerial Duties
The U.S. Coast Guard’s Oath of Office has ministerial (non-Discretionary) duties where the Second Amendment rights of American merchant seamen are at issue. The U.S. Coast Guard has a ministerial duty NOT a discretionary duty (i.e., 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a)) under the oath of office to support and defend the Second Amendment rights of U.S. merchant seamen to interstate, nautical, and maritime travel whether or not seamen are employed as seamen. Capt. J. P. Brussea violated his ministerial duty under his Oath of Office when he denied my Second Amendment application for the contested National Open Carry Handgun endorsement on my Merchant Mariner’s Document (2002).
Theory No. 2 for Which Relief is Sought: The International Maritime Organization Versus the Second Amendment
The theory here is that United States merchant seamen have a Second Amendment right to have access to, possess, and to use firearms aboard U.S. flag vessels for deterrence and in defense against pirates on the high seas. Standing in conflict with the Second Amendment rights of American merchant seamen before the Somali pirate attack on the M/V MAERSK ALABAMA is the International Maritime Organization (IMO), Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships: Guidance to Shipowners and Ship Operators, Shipmasters and Crews on Preventing and Suppressing Acts of Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships. Maritime Safety Commission’s Circular 623/Rev.2, dated June 20, 2001:
45 The carrying and use of firearms for personal protection or protection of a ship is strongly discouraged.
46 Carriage of arms on board ship may encourage attackers to carry firearms thereby escalating an already dangerous situation, and any firearms on board may themselves become an attractive target for an attacker. The use of firearms requires special training and aptitudes and the risk of accidents with firearms carried on board ship is great. In some jurisdictions, killing a national may have unforeseen consequences even for a person who believes he has acted in self defence.
As a direct result of the escalating pirate attacks by Somali pirates the International Maritime Organization replaced their policies noted above with Piracy And Armed Robbery Against Ships: Recommendations to Governments for Preventing and Suppressing Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships, MSC.1/Circ.1333, 26 June 2009 and the one standing in dispute for the purpose of this Complaint as extremely denigratingly prejudicial and insulting to the human rights of seafarers of all maritime nations is the IMO’s Piracy And Armed Robbery Against Ships: Guidance to Shipowners and Ship Operators, Shipmasters and Crews on Preventing and Suppressing Acts of Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships, MSC.1/Circ.1334, 23 June 2009:
59 With respect to the carriage of firearms on board, masters, shipowners and companies should be aware that ships entering the territorial sea and/or ports of a State are subject to that State’s legislation. It should be borne in mind that importation of firearms is subject to port and coastal State regulations. It should also be borne in mind that carrying firearms may pose an even greater danger if the ship is carrying flammable cargo or similar types of dangerous goods.
Non-arming of Seafarers
60 The carrying and use of firearms by seafarers for personal protection or for the protection of a ship is strongly discouraged. Seafarers are civilians and the use of firearms requires special training and aptitudes and the risk of accidents with firearms carried on board ship is great. Carriage of arms on board ship may encourage attackers to carry firearms or even more dangerous weapons, thereby escalating an already dangerous situation. Any firearm on board may itself become an attractive target for an attacker.
61 It should also be borne in mind that shooting at suspected pirates may impose a legal risk for the master, shipowner or company, such as collateral damages. In some jurisdictions, killing a national may have unforeseen consequences even for a person who believes he or she has acted in self defence. Also the differing customs or security requirements for the carriage and importation of firearms should be considered, as taking a small handgun into the territory of some countries may be considered an offence.
A band of pirates in the Philippines prepares for a raid in the South China Sea. Heavy armaments,
MY COMMENT: The pirates can shoot and kill crewmembers but the crew is not supposed to shoot back?
Use of Unarmed Security Personnel
62 The use of unarmed security personnel is a matter for individual shipowners, companies, and ship operators to decide. The use of unarmed security personnel to provide security advice and an enhanced lookout capability could be considered.
Use of Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel
63 If armed security personnel are allowed on board, the master, shipowner, operator and company should take into account the possible escalation of violence and other risks. However, the use of privately contracted armed security personnel on board merchant ships and fishing vessels is a matter for flag State to determine in consultation with shipowners, operators and companies. Masters, shipowners, operators and companies should contact the flag State and seek clarity of the national policy with respect to the carriage of armed security personnel. All legal requirements of flag, port and coastal States should be met.
Military Teams or Law Enforcement Officers Duly Authorized by Government
64 The use of military teams or law enforcement officers duly authorized by the Government of the flag State to carry firearms for the security of merchant ships or fishing vessels is a matter for the flag State to authorize in consultation with shipowners, operators and companies. The carriage of such teams may be required or recommended when the ship is transiting or operating in areas if high risk. Due to rules of engagement defined by their Government, or in coalition with other Governments, boarding conditions should be defined by the States involved, including the flag State. The shipowner, operator and company should always consult the flag State prior to embarking such teams.
Theory No. 3 for Which Relief is Sought: U.S. Coast Guard’s Gross Negligence over the Second Amendment Rights of U.S. Seamen Equates to Fraud
The U.S. Coast Guard is Negligent through Deliberate Indifference to the Second Amendment Rights of American Merchant Seamen Employed Aboard U.S. Flag Merchant Vessels Without Defensive Firearms Making Those Vessels Unseaworthy Under Federal Laws and Regulations as they are Unable to Effectively Defend Against Pirate Attacks on the High Seas
U.S. Flag Merchant Vessels Without Defensive Firearms are Unseaworthy Under Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 103 Maritime Security — Area Maritime Security; Part 104 Maritime Security — Vessels; Part 105 Maritime Security — Facilities. Specifically, under Part 104, 33 C.F.R. § 104.220 Company or Vessel Personnel with Security Duties:
Company and vessel personnel responsible for security duties must maintain a TWIC, and must have knowledge, through training or equivalent job experience, in the following, as appropriate:
(a) Knowledge of current security threats and patterns;
(b) Recognition and detection of dangerous substances and devices;
(c) Recognition of characteristics and behavioral patterns of persons who are likely to threaten security;
(d) Techniques used to circumvent security measures;
(e) Crowd management and control techniques;
(f) Security related communications;
(g) Knowledge of emergency procedures and contingency plans;
(h) Operation of security equipment and systems;
(i) Testing and calibration of security equipment and systems, and their maintenance while at sea;
(j) Inspection, control, and monitoring techniques;
(k) Relevant provisions of the Vessel Security Plan (VSP);
(l) Methods of physical screening of persons, personal effects, baggage, cargo, and vessel stores; and
(m) The meaning and the consequential requirements of the different Maritime Security (MARSEC) Levels.
(n) Relevant aspects of the TWIC program and how to carry them out.
As applied to pirates on the high seas 33 C.F.R. § 104.220 Company or Vessel Personnel with Security Duties forces merchant seamen to play the role of unarmed security guards and places them in harms way as potential hostages for ransom with the grave risk of murderous execution as recently reported in the news.
Theory No. 4 for Which Relief is Sought: The United States Government is Harassing and Discriminating Against Law-Abiding Gun Owners and Against the Plaintiff for Second Amendment Federal Litigation
The United States is harassing and discriminating against law-abiding gun owners for the lawful exercise of Second Amendment rights in contrast to the United States protecting Amateur Radio Operators in their lawful exercise of First Amendment Rights with the Federal Communications Commission’s PRB-1 Federal Preemption of State and Local Regulations Pertaining to Amateur Radio Facilities; Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 85-506) (notwithstanding intentional violations of FCC rules).
I am an Amateur Radio Operator with an Extra Class Amateur Radio License with the callsign of KI5SS. Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 provide evidence on how the United States favors Amateur Radio Communications in contrast to this Complaint in defense of the Second Amendment, hence my Second Amendment right as a merchant seaman of the United States.
The BATF and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security have the authority to issue their own Federal Preemption protecting law-abiding gun owners in intrastate and interstate travel. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Coast Guard have the authority to issue their Federal Preemption to protect merchant seaman as law-abiding gun owners in intrastate, interstate, nautical, and maritime travel. This is nothing in the Constitution of the United States, nothing in the federal laws or regulations that prevents the issuance of federal preemptions protecting the Second Amendment from State or local infringements and interference in the lawful exercise of Second Amendment rights but political ideologicies and personal prejudices of government employees.
Theory No. 5 for which Relief is Sought: My Cause of Action has Achieved Ripeness
My Case has achieved ripeness. District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, 554 U.S. 290, 478 F. 3d 370 (2008) overruled Hamrick v. President George W. Bush, U.S. District Court for DC, No. 02‑1435, and Hamrick v. Adm. Thomas H. Collins, Commandant, US Coast Guard, U.S. District Court for DC, No. 02-1434.
Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle alleged in her Memorandum (No. 02-1435) dismissing my case with prejudice that under the collectivist right of the State to arm a militia interpretation of the Second Amendment that claims appeared “largely without merit.” Under the “individual right” interpretation of Heller simple logic states that my case now stands “largely with merit” for a civil jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.
Theory No. 6 for which Relief is Sought: National Open Carry Handgun is an Absolute Human Right and an Absolute Constitutional Right
National Open Carry Handgun is an Absolute Right. A suit against the United States and employees of the United States by a U.S. merchant seamen for his own Second Amendment rights to openly keep and bear arms in interstate, nautical, and maritime travel, whether or not employeed as a seaman, and for the same rights of others in possession a Transportation Worker’s Identification Card (TWIC) under the jus tertii doctrine may proceed in admiralty as a Petitory Action Quasi In Rem Suam Et Jus Tertii.
Theory No. 7 for which Relief is Sought: National Open Carry Handgun Requires Federal Preemption
National Open Carry Handgun requires federal preemption to protect the Second Amendment rights of American merchant seamen. Because the U.S. Coast Guard, in 2002, admitted to the fact that there are no federal laws or regulations for or against an endorsement for National Open Carry Handgun on the Merchant Mariner’s Document (now made obsolete with the implementation of red-cover Soviet Union passport‑style Merchant Mariner’s Credential). The Coast Guard’s admission of this fact establishes the fact in law that there is a gap in federal common law for Second Amendment rights of U.S. merchant seamen to openly keep and bear arms in interstate, nautical, and maritime travel, whether or not employed as a seaman. A cascading fact in law is thereby established, by implication, that the federal courts, the U.S. Coast Guard, and Congress have long neglected the rights and duties of the United States to protect and defend the Second Amendment rights of seamen in interstate, nautical and maritime travel as a federal interest that is supposed to preempt the States and municipalities from enacting laws and ordinances respectively that discriminate against, interfere with, or prohibit Second Amendment of citizens of other States in interstate, nautical, or maritime travel. Even if the United States has not neglected the Second Amendment rights of U.S. merchant seamen the aggregate effect of federal gun control laws represent a xenophic schizonephia on the subject of the right to travel simultaneously with the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as provable upon a proper examination of federal laws, and especially so upon a proper examination of State gun control laws in their aggregate effect.
Theory No. 8 for which Relief is Sought: The Four Corners Doctrine Invalidates the State Action Doctrine for the Direct Horizontal Effective Doctrine
The Four Corners Doctrine of interpreting the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States invalidates the State Action Doctrine for the implementation of the Direct Horizontal Effect Doctrine for the protection of constitutional rights against violations by private actors as well as by State and Federal Agents
The Second Amendment to openly keep and bear arms in interstate and nautical travel within the United States for law-abiding citizens is an absolute right under the Common Defence Clause of the Preamble to the Constitution and under the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, Clause 2. The Second Amendment is incorporated with the Bill of Rights through the Supremacy Clause, and NOT through the Fourteenth Amendment. How else did American citizens travel the country with their firearms before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment? Citizens of one State traveled freely to other States wearing and carrying their firearms from the time of the ratification of the Constitution to the Civil War because National Open Carry Handgun was not only the constitutional norm it was also the social and legal norm. But over the last 100 years hoplophobia creeped into State legislators and into the U.S. Congress until National Open Carry Handgun was outlawed and has now become a xenophobia for the majority of society.
 See Sarah Thompson, M.D. Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines the Anti-Gun Mentality. (2000). Online at http://www.gunlaws.com/Hoplophobia%20Analysis.htm This is the original article that started the debate on gun rights as a medical issue. Col. Jeff Cooper coined the term “hoplophobia,” but it was Dr. Thompson who initially examined it from a medical point of view.
Theory No. 9 for Which Relief is Sought: The Four Corners Doctrine Raises National Open Carry Handgun to the Level of a Constitutional NormThe Four Corners Doctrine is the proper method of interpreting the Second Amendment.
Under this doctrine the Second Amendment’s right to openly keep and bear arms in intrastate, interstate, nautical, and maritime travel, i.e. National Open Carry Handgun, is the constitutional norm as implied by the More Perfect Union, the Common Defence, and the Domestic Tranquility Clauses of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, the Letters of Marque and Reprisal, the Militia, and the define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations Clauses of Article I, Section 8; the Militia Clause of Article II, Section 2, the Militia Clause of the Second Amendment, and the natural born Citizen Clause of Article II
Theory No. 10 for which Relief is Sought: The United Nations and the International Maritime Organization Threatens the Second Amendment rights of United States Citizens
The aggregate effect of local, State, and federal gun control laws and the United Nations agenda against small arms and light weapons ownership and possession by private individuals for personal safety and security violates the human right to armed self-defense and self-preservation under the natural law as did the Coast Guard’s Final Agency Action.The Second Amendment has a direct impact on foreign policies of the United States in regard to human rights, maritime travel, and aeronautical travel. The United States stands as the undeniable minority among the maritime and non-maritime nations of the world to have a right to bear arms for individual citizens in its Constitution. Even so, the United States has clearly ignored the Second Amendment rights of its citizens in national legislation and treaty matters concerning human rights, maritime and aeronautical travel. In fact, the United States, under Obama’s Administration, is threatening to nullify the Second Amendment by treaty on the misguided belief that treaties override constitutional protections with a renewed push to ratify the American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials (known by its Spanish acronym CIFTA).
Theory No. 11 for Which Relief is Sought: Heller Presents a Change of Circumstances and Establishes the Emergence of a new Peremptory Norm of General International Law (jus cogens) under the Vienna Convention for the Law of Treaties 1969 and the Vienna Convention for the Law of Treaties Between States and International Organizations or Between International Organizations 1986
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 290 (2008), that “[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” established is a Fundamental Change of Circumstances (Article 62) establishing the Emergence of a New Peremptory Norm of General International Law (jus cogens) (Article 64) under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986 and supports Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Peremptory Mandamus.
Theory No. 12 for Which Relief is Sought: Because Heller is only a Half-Truth it is a Great Lie Because it Did Not Address the Right to Intrastate, Interstate, Nautical, or Maritime Trave as this Admiralty Complaint Addresses<
Even though District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 290 (2008) set a new precedent for Second Amendment rights it is still a half-truth. “Half the truth is often a great lie.”—Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard’s Almanac, July 1758. Where Heller set the precedent for armed personal security and self‑defense in the home my Complaint presents the other half of the truth—armed personal security and self-defense in intrastate, interstate, nautical, and maritime travel (outside the home).
Theory No. 13 for Which Relief is Sought: Obstructions of Justice by the Federal Bench and Bar Against an Unrepresented Civil Plaintiff with a Second Amendment Case
Obstructions of justice by suspressio very and the federal bench and bar cozening the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, and by subreption of material facts and evidence vital to my previous cases have occurred throughout the past seven years that I have sought redress and justice for violations of my right to due process and for violations of my constitutional rights and my human rights.
Theory No. 14 for Which Relief is Sought: Gun-Free Zones are Unconstitutional Because the are Repugnant to the Fundamental Right to Travel with Second Amendment rights
Under the National Open Carry Handgun Standard as a constitutional norm—to be effective against violations by private actors—the State Action Doctrine must be abolished and in its place established the full Direct Horizontal Effect Standard of constitutional law. This is the only way to abolish Gun‑Free Zones which are intrinsic threats to public safety and security as well as unconstitutional infringements on the Second Amendment by private actors.
Theory No. 15 for Which Relief is Sought: There are de facto Counter‑Revolutionaries in the United States Government Violating their Oath of Office to Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States with unconstitutional legislative, executive, and judicial acts against constitutional rights
The Constitution of the United States is the by-product of the American Revolution. Constant and perpetual attacks on the Second Amendment by the Executive and Legislative Branches of the United States and by the States—encouraged by the Judicial Branch of the United States by judicial activism and deference—implies a conspiracy among the three branches to reduce freedom to a nullity which further implies the existence of de facto counter-revolutionaries in all three branches of the United States Government. This is one explanation for the illogical and irrational dismissals of my Second Amendment cases for the past seven years.
Theory No. 16 for Which Relief is Sought: The Three Prong Test in Mathews v. Eldridge 424 U.S. 319 (1976) was Never Applied to Any of my Civil Complaints in the Past Seven Years
In all of my dismissed Complaints of the past seven years (2002–2009) not one judge applied the Mathews v. Eldridge 424 U.S. 319 (1976) three prong test for my procedural due process rights. I construe that as obstructions of justice and gross, willful and wanton negligence equating to fraud.
Theory No. 17 for Which Relief is Sought: Because President Barack Hussein Obama, II, a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, has not Complied with the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Article I, Section 2, I have a Right under Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to Challenge Obama’s Eligibillity to Hold the Office of the President.
That Right was Wrongfully Denied by the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii
Barrack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Barry Soetoro ascended to the Office of the President without proving himself to be eligibility as a natural born citizen of the United States as required by Article I, Section 2. The federal courts to date have refused to hear nearly two-dozen or more cases challenging Obama’s eligibility to be the President of the United States—actum est de republica; the Republic is lost. Federal courts have destroyed the Rule of Law as by Obama’s example Federal Government employees and agents are now construed to act above the law. The United States has therefore descended into lex Barbara—the law of barbarian nations. The citizens of the United States are thereby reducted to lex naturae—natural law where National Open Carry Handgun becomes jus necessitates—a legal right, power, or principle by necessity because necessitas non habet legem—necessity knows no law. This is the consequence of judicial activism and judicial deference and Chaos Theory as appliced to government activies. However, Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider, United States District of New Jersey, Camden Divison in Kerchner, et al v. Barack Hussein Obama II, President and Individually, a/k/a Barry Soetoro, et al, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Divison, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00253-JBS-JS. Note the ad from Washington Times, Monday, July 13, 2009 as evidence.
See Ad in Washington Times, Monday, July 13, 2009.
Theory No. 18 for Which Relief is Sought: I have a Right to Make Alternative Statements of Claims under Rule 8(d)(2) Otherwise Known as Issue Pleadings Whether or Not I Make Short and Plain Statements of Claims under Rule 8(a)(2)
Any part of this Complaint that does not comply with Rule 8(a)(2) short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; is construed to comply with Rule 8(d)(2) Alternative Statements of a Claim[s] as it is the duty of the Court construe this Complaint so as to do justice in accordance with Rule 8(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Theory No. 19 for Which Relief is Sought: The United States Government Perceives the Constitution of the United States as a Threat to Homeland Security
The Constitution of the United States and anyone who stand up in defense of constitutional rights are threats to the United States Government because the United States Government, its employees and its asgents, know they are operating outside the limits of the Constitution. This is partial reason why my Complaints have been dismissed with prejudice because federal judges are serving as the Judicial Praetorian Guard to protect the United States in its unconstitutional activites from challenges by the citizens of the United States. This is judicial activism at its worst.
Theory No. 20 for Which Relief is Sought: The United States Government Perceives the Constitution of the United States as a Threat to Homeland Security
Scintilla of Evidence Rule. A common-law doctrine holding that if even the slightest amount of relevant evidence exists on an issue, then a motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict cannot be granted and the issue must go to the jury. Federal courts do not follow this rule, but some states apply it. Citing 49 C.J.S. Judgments § 263, [a] nonmovant’s evidence, submitted in response to a motion for summary judgment, must be of probative force; and a mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient to create a material issue of fract which would preclude summary judgment.
 Black’s Law Dictionary: Tending to prove or disprove. Citing 31A C.J.S. Evidence § 3, “Probative Evidence is testimony carrying the qualifty of proof and having fitness to induce conviction of truth. It consists of fact and reason cooperating as co-ordinate factors.” But in the case of probative evidence submitted by an unrepresented civil plaintiff such evidence has wrongfully been treated as inadmissible. Such is my experience with seven years of federal litigation as an unrepresented civil plaintiff. The simple fact that I have been educating myself on the rules of court procedure has been used as just cause to dismiss my cases which places me in the proverbial and damnable Catch-22 situation. The federal courts have presented probative evidence that they themselves are contemptuous of my Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial. I doubt I will be treated any differently with this Admiralty/Maritime Complaint. Will my apprehension become a self-fulling prophecy? Only time will tell.
Theory No. 21 for Which Relief is Sought: The Federal Courts Must Consider the Use of the Scintilla of Evidence Rule to Level the Judicial Playing Field for Unrepresented Civil Plaintiffs to Counter the Biased Use of Difference to U.S. Government Defendants under Twombley’s Plausible Standard of Pleading
Seamen’s Suit Law, 28 U.S.C. § 1916, has an implied private right of action against federal judges up to and including the common law right of citizen’s arrest, i.e. D.C. Code § 23-582(b)(1)(A) and D.C. Code § 23-582(c) Arrests Without Warrant by Other Persons, for a felony. This U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division both accepted my civil complaints without the prepayment of filing fees. The Charlotte District Court even issued a Court Order for the 4th Circuit to recognize my statutory right of exemption from filing fee of the 4th Circuit. However, the DC Circuit, the 8th Circuit, the U.S. District Court in Little Rock, Arkansas, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to acknowledge my statutory right to the exemption under the Seamen’s Suit Law. The issue hear seems to be that these hostile courts do not consider the U.S. seamen’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as falling under the safety provision of the Seamen’s Suit Law. I have been coerced into paying a total amout of about $2,258.00 amongst these federal courts. I have also been coerced into paying a total amount of around $338.00 to PACER Service Center for docket access via the Internet. My contention here is that PACER Serve Center fees are supposed to be included in the fees and costs provision of the Seamen’s Suit law. I construe these coerced payments as Felony Extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 872 and Felony Extortion as a predicate act of racketeering activity under the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)(2) which is suitable for intervention by the United States Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 1964 and § 1968. All attempts with a judicial remedy have been denied. The legislative remedy via a private bill was turned away by the staff of U.S. Representiva from Arkansas Marion Berry and the staff of U.S. Senator from Arkansas Mark Pryor. Left with the last remaining remedy, the common law right of citizen’s arrest of federal judges and court clerks was prevented by threats of my own arrest by the U.S. Marshals Service. The proverbial Mexican stand‑off which is to describe this particular Obstruction of Justice.
Theory No. 22 for Which Relief is Sought: Gun control laws violate the First Amendment right to religious freedom, and, whether incidental or intentional, gun control laws aid and abet the establishment of theocratic Radical Islam and Sharia Law, the Islamic Law of the Muslim World. Radical Islam advocates the overthrow of the United States (18 U.S.C. § 2385). The U.S. Coast Guard Final Agency Action denying my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an act advocating the overthrow of the United States because of its parallel appeasement to Radical Islam and Sharia Law which reduces my status as a second class citizen in dhimmitude, as an incident of slavery and involuntary servitude in violation of the Second Amendment.
In my previous cases the federal courts rejected or ignored my claims that the Second Amendment has religious connections to the First Amendment right to religious freedom by reciting passages from the King James Bible. In this Complaint I try again to prove this fact not only by reiterating the same biblical passages (later in this section) but also by presenting evidence of a new threat to the guarantee of a Republican form of Government in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, and a new threat to the public safety and security that is appearing above the horizon in the United States. That new threat is the Islamic theocratic Sharia Law.
Judge Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for DC in Hamrick v. United States, No. 08-cv-1698, described my claims for National Open Carry Handgun and that the Second Amendment has religious connections to the First Amendment right to religious freedom as “fantastic or delusional scenarios found to justify immediate dismissal of a complaint as frivolous.” Clearly Judge Sullivan revealed his deliberate and bigotted ignorance of American history from the time of the ratification of the Constitution of the United States to the beginning of the Civil War where American citizens traveled the the country, from State to State, with their firearms and even attending Sunday church services where their sidearms.
Jeremiah 5:20-31 — Defending Against Government Abuses
“Declare this in the house of Jacob, and publish it in Judah, saying Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not, which have ears, and hear not: Fear ye not me? saith the LORD: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it? But this people hath a revolting and a rebellious heart; they are revolted and gone. Neither say they in their heart, Let us now fear the LORD or God, that giveth rain, both the former and the latter, in his season: he reserveth unto us appointed weeks of the harvest. Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good things from you. For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men. As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit: therefore they are become great, and waxen rich. They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, yet they prosper; and the right of the needy do they not judge. Shall I not visit for these things? Saith the LORD: shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this? A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?”
Psalms 59:1-5 — Malicious Prosecution
“Deliver me from mine enemies, O my God: defend me from them that rise up against me. Deliver me from the workers of iniquity, and save me from bloody men. For, lo, they lie in wait for my soul: they mighty are gathered against me; not for my transgression, nor for my sin, O LORD. They run and prepare themselves without my fault: awake to help me, and behold. Thou therefore, O LORD God of hosts, the god of Israel, awake to visit all the heathen: be not merciful to any wicked transgressors. Selah.”
Ecclesiastes 4:12-13 — Militias
“And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken. Better is a poor and a wise child than an old and foolish king, who will no more be admonished.”
Nehemiah 4:17 — Weapons in the Workplace
“They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon.”
Deuteronomy 32:25 — Lawlessness Without The Sword.
“The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also, with the man of grey hairs.”
Zechariah 9:8 — Standing Watch
“And I will encamp about mine house because of the army, because of him that passeth by, and because of him that returneth: and no oppressor shall pass through them any more: for now have I seen with mine eyes.”
Arma tuentur pacem. (Arms maintain peace). Ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentiaI. (The usefulness of something is not invalidated by the consequences of its abuse). Ab actu ad posse valet illation. (It is possible to infer the future from the past). Communis error facit jus. (Sometimes common error makes law).
And as for federal judges prejudiced against the Second Amendment as an individual right:
Forstellarius est pauperum depressor, et totius communitatus et patriae publicus inimicus. (A forestaller is an enemy of the poor, and a public enemy of the country). Ignorantia judicis est calamitas innocentis. (The ignorance of a judge is the misfortune of the innocent).
The simple truth is that Federal judges must get off their fat asses and put aside their bigoted views on the Second Amendment and their social reengineering agenda because Radical Islam is doing that job for them at an accelerated speed of efficiency through terrorism. Federal judges must begin allowing Second Amendment cases, such as my forthcoming Admiralty/Maritime lawsuit for Second Amendment rights of American merchant seamen to deter and defend against pirates on the high seas as well as the right to openly keep and bear arms in intrastate and interstate travel, to go to civil jury trials in the name of actual freedom, human rights, constitutional rights, and religious freedom. Otherwise we could see the overthrow of the United States by Radical Islam and Sharia Law.
RECOMMENDED READING & VIEWING:
David Forte, Radical Islam vs. Islam, Editorial, September 2001. http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/forte/01/islam.html. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University, Ashland, Ohio. David F. Forte is a Professor of Law at Cleveland–Marshall College of Law in Cleveland, Ohio and the author of Islamic Studies: Classical and Contemporary Applications. He is an Adjunct Fellow of the John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University, Ashland, Ohio.
See also the documentary Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West, information online at http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/. RadicalIslam.org, Clarion’s flagship education tool, was developed to spread awareness about the threat of Islamic fundamentalism in the United States and to provide practical response tools. The user-friendly website features the latest updates and developments from major news sources as well as streaming content, including informative webinars and guest speakers. The portal also acts as a social networking tool, uniting individuals across America to take a stand against radical Islam. Users are encouraged to express themselves through website forums and blogs, and can utilize the embedded instant messaging function to engage in private conversations. Obsession is a film about the threat of Radical Islam to Western civilization. Using unique footage from Arab television, it reveals an ‘insiders view’ of the hatred the Radicals are teaching, their incitement of global jihad, and their goal of world domination. Viewable online in 10 parts at YouTube.com
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMLJJEDDDGc 6m:26s
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bev054pNzI&NR=1 6m:22s
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bJE6bIiXps&NR=1 6m:06s
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J61r-NRHPtQ&NR=1 5m:52s
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwL_GefwUE&NR=1 5m:27s
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l17LmCEp1QI&NR=1 7m:01s
Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYR5F3mbQ-4&NR=1 6m:24s
Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLXZpOG4VCI&NR=1 6m:32s
Part 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDPzPgkr4vk&NR=1 6m:15s
Part 10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lioOCOalPao&NR=1 2m:02s
Total Viewing Time: 58m:27s
Geert Wilders – Islam, and the freedom of Speech
Geert Wilders’ June 14, 2009 speech at Trykkefrihedsselskabet (the Free Press Society) in Copenhagenon, Denmark on the growing threat of Radical Islam and Sharia Law in Europe, in the United Kingdon, and even in the United States. Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and head of the Freedom Party. In 2008 he released “Fitna,” a controversial film about the Koran and jihadist violence. Wilders was condemned as an anti-Muslim agitator but also hailed as a defender of Western values and free speech. In January, a Dutch court ordered Wilders prosecuted for allegedly inciting hatred against Islam. Last month he was invited to screen “Fitna” at Westminster, but the British government barred him from entering the country.
Geert is the leader of the dutch national conservative party; Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) “The party for freedom”. Recently the dutch voters made PVV the 2.nd largest party in the Netherlands.
Among the attendees and great speech holders where the apostate syrian author Wafa Sultan and the vice president of the international free press society, Diane West.
“We will never give in”
“We will never give up”
“We will never surrender”
“We have to win, and yes – we will win”
– Geert Wilders
Wafa Sultan, What is Sharia Law? Why it threatens America. November 16, 2008, The United American Committee (www.UnitedAmericanCommittee.org) “If you live in the United States and believe in the American Constitution you will realize that our Constitution is not compatible with Sharia. … In general, human rights and women’s rights as we know them don’t exist. For women and non-muslims Sharia is, in fact a form of slavery. Sharia has no place in the West. It is our responsibility to defend our freedom. Stand up for human rights and take a firm stand against Sharia and the slavery that it brings.” Wafa Sultan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox7OdSQxDO0.
Wafa Sultan, Who Should We Believe? Hudson New York (blog), June 12, 2009. http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/06/who-should-we-believe.php.
Steve Doocy, Fox & Friends interviews Frank Gaffney, former assistant Secretary of Defense and President of the Center for Security Policy Jihad Academy in Fairfax County, Virginia, on Fox And Friends (aired July 14, 2009), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ3X-Ce5moQ. (The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Meeting of July 13, 2009), http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/cable/channel16/asx/bos_07_13_09.asx; discussing the expansion of the Islamic Saudi Academy in Fairfax, Virginia.
Frank Gaffney, former assistant Secretary of Defense and President of the Center for Security Policy interviews Peter Leitner on Somali Pirates, Shariah & the DHS Report (April 22, 2009). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fxu4MgVZvg. Dr. Peter Leitner in discussion with Frank Gaffney. Dr. Leitner covers the Somali Pirates and their associates within the United States, law enforcement approach to terrorism, and the recent DHS reports threat to veterans. Dr. Peter Leitner is the President of the Higgins Counterterrorism Research Center where he has helped to train over 7,000 law enforcement, first responders, military, FBI, and CIA personnel in the following areas: Intelligence Analysis & Source Development, Islamic Terrorism, Muslim Brotherhood, Clandestine Cell Operations, Dark Sun Exercise/Simulation, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Arab and Islamic culture. He is also the President of the Washington Center for Peace & Justice a non-profit organization providing assistance to victims of terrorism and their families. In addition, Dr. Leitner is a Professor with the National Center for Biodefense at George Mason University as well as a Senior Fellow and Professor with the Center for Advanced Defense Studies responsible for Terrorism, Intelligence, and Cyber War issues.
CBN/700 Club (6-minute news video, August 16, 2008), The Dhimmitude and Islamification of Britain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-0zeYF5eao. Britain’s top judge says the nation should allow Islamic Sharia law. [The head of the Church of England said the same thing. … The Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said sharia ideas could be used to mediate marital or financial disputes. His comments were leapt upon by Tories who said his words were “irresponsible, unhelpful and dangerous”. Philip Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley, said: “There is no place in Britain for any law other than British law. Such comments do little to help community cohesion. It is irresponsible to suggest otherwise.” … His comments come just months after the Archbishop of Canterbury caused widespread controversy by saying that British Muslims could live under sharia law.] Clodagh Hartley, Judge Backs Sharia Law in UK, Home Affairs Correspondent, The Sun (London, UK newspaper), July 4, 2008.
Somalia Adopts Sharia Law
Al Jazeera’s Jamal Elshayyal, Somali President Approves Sharia Law, May 13, 2009. “Sharif Ahmed, Somalia’s president, has approved a bill legislating the implementation of Islamic law in the country, a key demand from armed fighters for their co-operation with his government. Despite the move, Somalias opposition Islamic Party insists that Sharia can only be implemented if and when all foreign forces leave the country.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhhwHwM3LsY.
The Islamoblog of Acts 17 Apologetics Ministries
Answering Muslims: The Islamoblog of Acts 17 Apologetics Ministries, Special Report: Sharia Comes to Dearborn, Michigan, Wednesday, (with emedded 10-minute video of the Arab Festival 2009 in Dearborn, Michigan), July 1, 2009. http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/07/special-report-sharia-comes-to-dearborn.html.
Brigitte Gabriel, They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It, September 23, 2008, Brigitte Gabriel’s lecture is about the Radical Islamists (described as Islamo-Fascism and Islam-Nazism) rise across the world. Brigitte Gabriel details the hard truths about radical Islam, detailing not only the mortal extremes to which Islamofascists are willing to go in their quest for cultural domination, but also the fundamental steps to meet and defeat their challenge. Continuing to raise awareness of activist, fanatical movements, she examines the routes of the terrorist threat and posits the critical need to move beyond political correctness to see the true dangers posed by the spread of this radicalism. Gabriel has devoted her life to addressing this threat and draws on her life-long, firsthand knowledge of the mindset of those who seek not only to subdue our nation but also Western Civilization. Her lecture at the Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/press/events/ev092308b.cfm. 53-minute video Radical Islam and How to Defeat It. viewable online at http://multimedia.heritage.org/content/wm/Lehrman-092308b.wvx.
Part 1 of 8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KQOluwIV6E.
Part 2 of 8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqaQeJ9s2LU&feature=related.
Part 3 of 8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAqRGcxml8M.
Part 4 of 8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ8Hk9Y0Hzw.
Part 5 of 8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfwfBUhtpow.
Part 6 of 8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v63PcBLdeE.
Part 7 of 8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D1tydrVpb0.
Part 8 of 8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BewEaG4dXs4
Jewish Task Force
Jewish Task Force (www.jtf.org) Video: The Real Islam Revealed; http://www.flix.co.il/tapuz/showVideo.asp?m=2065891. Online video from Isreali website. האיסלם האמיתי נחשף. Jewish Task Force Chairman Chaim Ben Pesach transcribed: “Listen very carefully to this video because this video may be the most important video you ever see in your life. This may be a video that will determine your future. There is a Muslim invasion that is taking place right now in Europe and eventually that is going to spread to the United States.” Video introduction transcribed: “[Video Graphic]: People say Islam is a religion of peace. [Video lecture] “Remove this idea that Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is not a religion of peace. There is evidence in the Book of Islam, called the Koran, sanctioning violence.” [Cut away to an Islamic speaker] “We drink the blood of the enemy! We can face them anywhere. That is Islam. That is Jihad. [Islamic name?] … is that I laugh and I kill. And he said to his own people, … is that I come to [inaudible] all of you!”
Jewish Task Force (www.jtf.org) 10-minute Video: Muslims Are Endangering America’s Very Survival, מוסלמים משתלטים על ארה”ב. http://www.flix.co.il/tapuz/showVideo.asp?m=1962656.
Jewish Task Force (www.jtf.org) 6-minute Video: The Islamic Takeover of the United Kingdom & Europe: Sharia Law & Dhimmitude, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61exAZg2H6w. Jewish Task Force Chairman Chaim Ben Pesach discusses the Islamic takeover of the United Kingdom & the dire implications for the Western world.