Battle for Bundy Ridge - Oath Keepers need help!

Oath Keepers main site is down, has been for several hours. The data center that houses it (and thousands of others) went down this morning. In the meantime - it couldn't have been worse timing. It happened right after a new call for help at the ranch had been posted.

Stewart Rhodes "We are calling on all Oath Keepers who can possibly get here to come to the Bundy Ranch to serve as volunteers on an ongoing, rotating watch."

NOTE: First, at the moment things are quiet here. 99% of the rumors on the internet are either blatantly false or wildly inaccurate. No strong presence of federal agents has been seen. Remnants of BLM's recent sojourn here are still present, such as the lights they had put up at their "field-headquarters" and no doubt we are under surveillance of all kinds, but there is no overt, visible massing of federal law enforcement.

We are, however concerned that the domestic enemies of the Constitution that infest the federal government might try to take advantage of folks going home, and attempt to make a move on the Bundy family. We feel certain that they will want to try again at some point, perhaps in a different way, even perhaps by executing a dynamic entry raid to attempt to arrest the Bundys. And we have heard that this is being discussed, though I have not been able to directly confirm it. But it is a real risk.

Therefore, to prevent such a raid, or to at least throw a monkey wrench into any such plans and make it more difficult for them, we're doing the following:

1: We are calling on all Oath Keepers who can possibly get here to come to the Bundy Ranch to serve as volunteers on an ongoing, rotating watch.

That is not because there is any great emergency, but is a preventative measure - sort of like doing a rotation on the DMZ. Continue reading HERE at the new temporary site.

Realize - the video below was made and uploaded, then moments later they got the NEW temporary site information and note from Stewart Rhodes as per the above.


Tags: War For America, Bundy Ranch, Oath Keepers, treason, tyranny To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

A Response to Corey Saylor on Sharia

Gary Fouse

Corey Saylor-CAIR

Corey Saylor is one of CAIR's top officials in Washington. Recently, he spoke before a group in Maine on the topic of sharia law. He has written an almost exact version of that speech on CAIR's website, which is linked in the below text.

Louis Palme has written a critical response to Saylor's assertions that Sharia law is compatible with US democracy. I am posting it below with his permission. The only edits I have made were to put appropriate quotation marks and spacing. I also made two spelling corrections (where in place of were and correct spelling of Mr Saylor's first name.)

CAIR loves democracy – so long as it doesn’t contradict Sharia Law
By Louis Palme

On March 22, Corey Saylor, CAIR’s National Legislative Director, gave a forty-minute speech in Vacationland, Maine, on the topic: Is Sharia Compatible with Democracy?  His dancing between likening Sharia to political democracy and hiding behind “religion” to oppose anything that didn’t fit his premise was enough to make one’s head spin.  See the text at: http://www.cair.com/cair-blog/entry/is-sharia-compatible-with-democracy.html  But before we get into his devious arguments, let’s define the situation for those who haven’t been exposed to Sharia Law and CAIR.

Sharia -- The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, ‘Umdat al Salik, (better known in English as Reliance of the Traveler), which has been endorsed by the U.S. International Institute of Islamic Thought as well as the prestigious Al-Azhar University in Cairo, defines Sharia Law as:

The basic premise of this school of thought is that the good of the acts of those morally responsible is what the Lawgiver (syn. Allah or His messenger) has indicated as good by permitting it or asking it be done. And the bad is what the Lawgiver has indicated is bad by asking it not to be done. The good is not what reason considers good, nor the bad what reason considers bad. The measure of good and bad, according to this school of thought, is the Sacred Law, not reason. (para a1.4) (Note: Shafi’I  jurisprudence is identical with 75% of all four schools of Islamic law.)

Since Muhammad was the only witness to Allah and since Muhammad and Allah are partnered no fewer than sixty-four times in the Quran, the measure of good and bad in Sharia Law is ultimately what Muhammad did or said (plus the Quran, of course).  That is why Muslims keep copious accounts of Muhammad’s life and his pronouncements in the Sira and the Hadith. Only 14 percent of Sharia Law comes from the Quran. Less than one-third of the practices specified in Reliance of the Traveler address religious practices like prayer, charity, and fasting. The bulk of the provisions deal with commerce, inheritance, justice, and of course, jihad which is defined as “war against non-Muslims . . to establish the religion.” (o9.0)  Reliance of the Traveler was compiled in the late 14th Century, and it remains the primary source for Sharia Law for English-speaking Muslims.

Democracy – By its very definition, democracy is a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”  Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the individual laws take force unless approved by the people or their elected representatives.  The U.S. Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times to reflect agreed-to changes in the relationship between our government and its citizens over the past 225 years.

Corey Saylor  --  Corey Saylor converted to Islam in 1992, apparently in his first year at George Mason  University.  He earned his stripes suing deep-pocket companies like Burger King and Bell Helicopter-Boeing “when their actions or advertisements negatively impacted the American Muslim community.”  He actively opposed the renewal of the Patriot Act. Currently he is the National Legislative Director for CAIR – the Council on American-Islamic Relations.  Readers can draw their own conclusions about Corey Saylor as they read this report.  Suffice it to say that when he called on non-Muslims in his speech to be partners to “work together to establish our shared ideals of justice,” he was blowing smoke.  Note that throughout his speech Mr. Saylor cited provisions of the U.S. Constitution numerous times, but he didn’t mention a single specific provision of Sharia Law.  CAIR is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood’s HAMAS and the Islamic Association of Palestine.  The U.S. has declared HAMAS and Hezbollah to be terrorist organizations.  When Fox News reporter David Lee Miller asked Mr. Saylor to condemn HAMAS and Hezbollah by name in 2011, he refused.  His response was, “Well I recognize that you don’t like my answer to the question, but that’s the answer to the question.”

Sharia is a lot of things – In his Vacationland speech, Mr. Saylor complained that sharia “had been hijacked and turned into something scary.”  From his perspective, sharia was like recipe that has different results depending on who is cooking.  He even went so far as to admit that the actions and decrees of Muhammad have actually been, and continue to be, interpreted by human beings.  The flaw in this reasoning is that the sacred source documents of Sharia Law have not changed (and cannot change) since they were first compiled.

Sayyid Qutb, the ideological father of the Muslim Brotherhood, warned Muslims against losing sight of the final commands of the Quran:

"Some defeatist elements are overwhelmed by the pressures resulting from the desperate situation of present-day Muslims, who have nothing of Islam other than its name, and from the wicked attack by the Orientalists on the concept of jihad. Hence they try to find excuses by relying on provisional rulings and ignoring the true basis of the Islamic approach that moves forward to liberate mankind from the servitude to other human beings, so that they can worship Allah alone. . . This smacks of disrespect for Islam and Allah Almighty, resulting from a feeling of utter defeat. . . If the Muslims today, in their present situation, cannot implement these final rulings [in Surah 9], then they are not, now and for the time being, required to do so.  For Allah does not charge anyone with more than he or she can do. . . Let them fear Allah and not attempt to weaken Allah’s faith under the pretext of showing it to be a religion of peace.  It is certainly the religion of peace, but this must be based on saving all mankind from submission to anyone other than Allah." (Under the Shade of the Quran, Vol. VIII, pg. 25-28)

Muslims respect the law of the land – Mr. Saylor’s next defense of Sharia in America was that Sharia Law mandates that Muslims practice their faith while respecting the law of the land.  This is where Mr. Saylor throws political Islam and religious Islam into the blender.  He observed that sixty-two percent of Americans agreed that it was more important for the government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if it intrudes on personal privacy.  He also cited a Cornell University survey where nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim-Americans.  But then he reminded his audience that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution prohibits any religious test for public office.  What Mr. Saylor glossed over in this defense of Sharia is that most Americans have no issue with the religious practices of Muslims, but rather their concern is over the political excesses of denying basic human rights to Muslims and others and waging eternal warfare on non-Muslims.  The supremacist political ideology of Islam commands in its final major decrees of Quran: “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you.  Deal firmly with them.” (Surah 9:123) and “Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and Allah’s religion shall reign supreme.” (Surah 8:40)

There is nothing “unconstitutional” about requiring loyalty oaths for American citizens.  They were required after the Civil War and after World War II when Communists threatened to infiltrate our government. While loyalty oaths have been challenged in the courts numerous times, the last major loyalty oath case heard by the Supreme Court, Cole v. Richardson - 405 U.S. 676, was decided in 1972, and it upheld a requirement that the State of Massachusetts employees swear to uphold and defend the Constitution and to "oppose the overthrow of the [government] by force, violence, or by any illegal or unconstitutional method". That is why so many Americans took offense when Denver Nuggets player Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf refused to stand during the National Anthem in 1996.

Mr. Saylor might have trouble explaining what it says in Reliance of the Traveler about respecting the laws of the land:
. . . areas where Muslims reside and there is a remnant of Islam’s rules – even if this is limited to marriages and what pertains to them, for example – are considered Muslim lands.  . . . in the light of which, it is clear that there is virtually no country on the face of the earth where a Muslim has an excuse to behave differently than he would in an Islamic country, whether in his commercial or other dealings.  (R of T, w43.5)
Finally, Mr. Saylor might be a bit uneasy about what Reliance of the Traveler says about America’s Christians and Jews:

"Previously revealed religions were valid in their own eras, as is attested to by many verses of the Holy Koran, but were abrogated by the universal message of Islam. . . It is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as “Christianity” or “Judasim,” are acceptable to Allah Most High after He has sent the final Messenger to the entire world." (R of T, w4.0)

Sharia is for the good of all humanity -- Mr. Saylor stretched credibility when he asserted that the goal of Sharia Law is to bring good to all humanity. This sounds like equal rights for all, n’est-ce pas?  Unfortunately, the actual provisions of Sharia Law make Mr. Saylor a liar.

· An Arab woman may not marry a non-Arab because Arabs are superior (m4.2(1))
· A virgin can be married off by her guardian without her consent (m3:13(2))
· The value of a woman is one-half that of a man (o4.9)
· The value of a Christian or a Jew is one-third that of a Muslim (o4.9)
· The value of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth that of a Muslim (o4.9)
· A woman’s testimony is worth one-half that of a man (Quran Surah 2:282)
· A woman’s inheritance is one-half that of a man (Quran Surah 4:11)

(By the way, Mr. Saylor stated in his speech that men inherit more because they have to pay the funeral expenses.  This is not true.  The deceased’s funeral expenses and debts are settled before the inheritance is divided up. (L4.2))

· A slave is worth ten meals (Quran Surah 5:89)

Look – Muslim scholars wrote a declaration saying there is no conflict between Sharia and the Constitution – Mr. Saylor thinks if he can produce a piece of paper that says there is no conflict between Sharia Law and the Constitution, then the issue will go away.  So he reminded his audience that in 2011 the Fiqh Council of North America issued a resolution saying “We do not see any conflict with the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. . . so long as there is no conflict with Muslims’ obligation for obedience to God [i.e., Allah].”  This falsehood has been discussed in detail elsewhere: http://www.archive2012.faithfreedom.org/op-ed/sharia-law-and-the-us-constitution/ Suffice it to say here that the two systems have very little in common.
Blaming all the evils of Islam on Al Qaeda -- Al Qaeda has become the favorite whipping boy not only of the U.S. government but also of apologists for Islam.  Mr. Saylor tried to stake out common ground with Americans by virtue of our common enemy. He declared: “The world view of violent extremists is a complete distortion of Islam. Islamic teachings clearly state that the killing of one innocent is the moral equivalent to killing all humanity.”  One would think that by now CAIR, of all organizations, would abandon that meme about “killing one innocent” because what is clearly stated in the Quran is that the edict applied only to the Jews, not the Muslims.  See Surah 5:32.  The Muslim punishment for those who oppose Islam is clearly stated in the subsequent verse: “[they] shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country.”

It would be hard to heap on to Al Qaeda all of the blame for such world-wide Sharia Law outrages as Female Genital Mutilation, forced child marriage, wife beating, honor murders, eye-for-eye retaliation, stoning of adulterers, and chopping off hands of petty thieves.  Nice try, Mr. Saylor.

CAIR cranks up the grievance machine --  It wouldn’t be a CAIR speech without ending it with a laundry list of what CAIR perceives as Constitutional violations that have victimized Muslims.  Never mind that everything Mr. Saylor citied is now discredited and forgotten history:

· Oklahoma’s SQ 755 anti-Sharia law, declared unconstitutional in January, 2012.
· Defeated Presidential candidate Herman Cain’s 2011 call for a loyalty oath for Muslim staff.
· Defeated Presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s 2007 call for Americans to “educate, engage, evangelize, and eradicate” to win against the Islamist enemy.
· Defeated Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s 2011 speech in which he feared that future generations would see our country potentially dominated by radical Islamists.

Getting back to the issue of the compatibility of Sharia Law with democracy, Mr. Saylor couldn’t ignore the fact that American Laws for American Courts legislation has proceeded successfully all across the nation.  By his own tally, there have been 37 bills in 16 states and laws have been passed in seven states.  He calls them “Anti-Islam” bills, but the American Laws for American Courts legislation have carefully avoided mention of any religion, and consequently, they have not been successfully challenged as being unconstitutional.  The Constitution actually states, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” (Article VI, Clause 2) There is nothing “Anti-Islam” about the Constitution or about American Laws for American Courts. Instead, Islam and Sharia Law are blatantly and defiantly “anti-Constitutional”-- against the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and our nation’s democratic principles.

Mr. Saylor called on Americans to “debate differences while partnering on ideals.”  He claims that the differences between the ideals of Sharia Law and democracy are relatively minor.  Then why, Mr. Saylor, are states rushing to pass American Laws for American Courts legislation, and why is this effort so “Anti-Islam”?

If anyone is tempted to follow Mr. Saylor’s advice to “work together to establish our shared ideals of justice,” I would recommend that they first take a look at the actual provisions of Sharia Law as contained in Reliance of the Traveler (http://www.shafiifiqh.com/maktabah/relianceoftraveller.pdf) and see how many of those provisions, particularly those in Section o on Justice, would help form a peaceful, equal, and humanitarian society.
To that I would like to add a couple of points. There is a section of sharia law called hudud sharia, which deals with so-called crimes against God. Among the offenses are adultery, blasphemy, apostasy and homosexuality. For all of these, the penalty is death. This is affirmed by leading Islamic schools of thought such as Bukhari. If you ask the leading Islamic clerics and leaders in the US ( I have asked a few), you get a lot of confusing answers. However, setting aside the obvious discriminatory language vis-a-vis women and non-Muslims, those four provisions right there would seem to contradict any claim that sharia is compatible with US law.

In addition, as Palme points out, the 2011 statement by the Fiqh Council of North America as to the compatibility of Islam and the American Constitution and Bill of Rights leaves a bit of wiggle room.

"....so long as there is no conflict with Muslims’ obligation for obedience to God" [i.e., Allah].

It is correct that Muslims are enjoined to follow the law of the country they live in if they are a minority. I assume that includes the above phrase. But I wonder what Mr Saylor would say if asked hypothetically what would or should happen to US law if Muslims became a majority in said country or countries. What about those hudud sharia provisions I listed above?

As always, I invite my Muslim readers to weigh in.

photos - wallpaper for laptop


Tags: Eagles, Mongolia To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

The KC Murders and the Campaign Against Israel: Seems There is a Connection

Gary Fouse

Hat tip PJ Media

"Jew journalist Max Blumenthal exposes and explains this attempt by a foreign government Israel, to buy the presidential election for the neo-con, war-mongering republican establishment.
Like I’ve been saying, the kikes simply do not trust a lame-duck black president with the name Hussein. Jews fear his re-election, thus this jewish Super PAC to defeat him.
1) Will Ron Paul and his close supporters fight back against this alien super-PAC by telling the truth about jew power in the U.S. ?? It’s insightful and somewhat assuring that the above video news report was posted on www.runronpaul.com.
2) How will Hussein and his 45 million black supporters and the tens of millions of other liberals and anti-war Americans react to this jewish attack on their president and commander in chief ??
3) How will the democrat establishment react, and the so-called liberal media ??
4) Does this signal a huge split among jews, and if so how big is the split ??
Like Dr Pierce once said, “the jews have a tiger by the tail, and they dare not turn loose.”
It sure looks to me like their grip is slipping.
Sieg Heil !!!"

More details are coming about about the shooter in yesterday's attack against two Jewish facilities in the Kansas City suburb of Overland Park, Kansas. It appears that Frazier Glenn Miller was not only motivated by KKK-Nazi sympathies but an animus toward Israel as well. According to the below report by Ron Radosh in PJ Media, Miller posted a reference to writings by anti-Israel activist and writer Max Blumenthal.


Max Blumenthal. Last December, I stood out in the rain in Irvine and protested an event he was speaking at on behalf of some despicable organizations called American Muslims for Palestine, CAIR, Jewish Voice for Peace, the Muslim American Society, and the Muslim Student Association.


If I wanted to play guilt by association, I could say that Blumenthal has blood on his hands as well as all the others who are stirring up hatred against Israel. I recall how the Norwegian mass murderer, Anders Breivik, was found to have read the writings of Robert Spencer, Fjordman, and other critics of extremist Islam. That was used against Spencer et. al. though there was no contact between them and Breivik, and they were all horrified by the killings in Norway. I am sure Blumenthal is similarly horrified by what happened in Kansas and has no connection to Mr Miller.

Having said that, is it not now a time for reflection on the part of those who are carrying out this campaign to destroy Israel? Do they not realize how much this is contributing to the resurgence of Jew hatred worldwide? It matters  little that Blumenthal and many others are Jewish themselves. They are contributing nonetheless to something ugly that goes beyond Israel.

Chances are Miller's anti-Jewish demons are not solely because of what he has been led to think about Israel. Nevertheless, this revelation would indicate that it was a factor, how much I don't know. Chances are Miller could care less about the Palestinians. But this should serve as a cautionary lesson to those who are so determined to destroy Israel.  It should also serve as a cautionary lesson to those of us who  write about extremist Islam. Nobody wants what they write to inspire someone else to violence or to think that all members of a group are bad.

Being a part-time teacher at UC Irvine, I can only hope and pray that we never see a tragedy like this on a college campus. If it happens, however, I will not be shocked.

here is the question you must answer

“At what point, then, should one resist? When one's belt is taken away? When one is ordered to face into a corner? When one crosses the threshold of one's home? An arrest consists of a series of incidental irrelevancies, of a multitude of things that do not matter, and there seems no point in arguing about one of them individually...and yet all these incidental irrelevancies taken together implacably constitute the arrest. ” - Alexandr Solzhenitsyn

Tags: The Gulag Archipelago To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

A Monstrous Cover Up


Tags: Jimmy Saville, child abuse, Cyril Smith To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

The Battle For Bundy Ridge - the who and the why

As said before - peel enough layers from the onion and you get to the core, the nucleus.

From Renew America - Who owns the West?

It's a fair question. The federal government claims ownership of most of the western states. Why?

In eleven western states, the federal government claims ownership of more than 50% of the land. Utah intends to get its land back. Utah's HR148, recently signed into law by the Governor, tells the federal government that federal land in Utah, other than specified national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas, will be taken by eminent domain by the state of Utah if it has not been transferred to the state by the end of 2014.

Democrats and environmental organizations say this Law is an exercise in futility, a waste of time. Republicans and producers believe that Utah was granted statehood on an "equal footing" with the original states. "Equal footing" means that the federal government should own no land in the state of Utah, since none of the original states contained land owned by the federal government. Republicans and business leaders contend that this is exactly what the term means. Democrats and environmentalists disagree.

In 1894, two years before Utah became a state, Congress enacted an "Enabling Act." This act says that:

"...the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; ...." (Section 3)

In the very next section, the act says that:

"...the proposed State of Utah shall be deemed admitted by Congress into the Union, under and by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the original States...." (Section 4)

It cannot be both ways. Chances are very good that the Supreme Court will have to resolve this conflict sooner or later. Utah is definitely moving forward with every intention of declaring eminent domain over those lands that the federal government now claims. Continue here.

From Pro Libertate - The Cliven Bundy Standoff: Wounded Knee Revisited?

Both articles H/T
Battlefield USA


Tags: War For America, Cliven Bundy, Wounded Knee, Treason, Tyranny To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

A cure for Islamophobia-Pat Condell

The latest from pat Condell.

Islam is the biggest lie of not just the last century but the last 1400 plus years.

The lie of the century.

Who is to blame for "Islamophobia" in the UK?

The truth about the "wave of attacks on Muslims" after Woolwich murder

"Tell Mama" exaggerated anti-Muslim attacks

Fewer anti-Muslim hate crimes after Woolwich murder than feared

Muslim hate monitor to lose backing

The real agenda behind the push for "Islamophobia"

Pew Forum survey: "The world's Muslims: Religion, politics and society"

Fall in "Islamophobic" crime, while MCB spins the opposite

Hate crime stats deflate "Islamophobia" myth

The invention of Islamophobia

The Islamisation of Britain in 2013

Islamisation: The cultural suicide of the West

Tags: Islam, United Kingdom, England, Jihad, Stealth jihad, Sharia, Cultural enrichment syndrome, Global Islamic caliphate To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Hitler Hates Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Gary Fouse

Hat tip Answering Muslims

Answering Muslims has adopted the famed Hitler parodies in describing CAIR's reaction to the Brandeis-Ayaan Hirsi Ali saga. This is great stuff. Here, Hitler has his lunch interrupted by the news that Brandeis University has decided to bestow an honorary degree on Ali.


This was, of course, before Brandeis cowardly decided not to bestow the honor on Ali.

"Good news, mein Fuehrer. Brandeis isn't going to give Ali that degree after all."

British Metal

Tags: Saxon, Slow Lane Blues To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!