Friday, November 27, 2015



Did you know that Muslims branded white slaves with hot irons – then as well as now

“There is a long history of girls being kidnapped from Europe and ending up in Morocco [and from there to Turkey and Saudi Arabia].”
Portugese police on child abduction

A Medieval painting showing Muslims branding Caucasian girls captured in sex-slave raids into Christian Europe. Muslims who purchased such girls in Islamic slave markets had them branded with red-hot irons.
christian slavesThis old painting shows Muslims branding European slave girls with red-hot irons.
American and European historians have studied all aspects of the enslavement of Africans by whites, but have deliberately ignored the slavery of whites by North Africans, during approximately the same period as the transatlantic traffic, and which devastated hundreds of coastal communities. In the thought of today’s nations, slavery is only of blacks, while the Mediterranean slave history is, in fact, more horrible than American slavery. UNESCO behaves with hypocrisy obscuring trafficking in Arabia and Africa, while forgetting the history of abuse of Europeans.
Muslim invasions, theft, mass murders, rape waves, booty raids, slave raids, wars continuing from 620 AD until as late as 1920 AD without interruption, destroyed the entire European Classical and Medieval civilization leaving nothing but a shell.

Why is there so little interest in the slavery that took place in the Mediterranean while the education and reflection on the slavery of blacks never ends? As the slaves of white masters, white slaves do simply not fit “the master narrative of European imperialism”. Patterns of victimization so dear to intellectuals require white wickedness, not white suffering. For centuries, Europeans themselves lived in fear of the whip. With a little effort, it is possible to imagine the Europeans concerned about slavery as much as blacks. If the Europeans had grievances regarding the slaves of the galleys in the same way that blacks have grievances for workers in the fields, European policy would be certainly different. There would be no creeping excuses for the “Crusades”.
Muslims attacked our countries relentlessly on slave and booty raids. From 620 AD onwards reaching all the way into 1920 AD there was not a single year of peace from Muslim aggression. How come our children are not being taught the truth in school? Because oil trade and Arab financing demand that people should be lied about Islam. Therefore, all trade must cease once and for all, completely, with all Muslim nations.
Completely ignored from educational materials is the sixteenth centuries of white slave raids by Muslims that were more numerous than Africans deported to the Americas. Everyone speaks of the black slave but nobody talks about the enslavement of whites by Muslims. In short, the slavery of the European white population by Muslims should also be acknowledged and talk about. If the Europeans had grievances regarding the slaves of the galleys in the same way that blacks carry grievances for workers in the fields, European policy would certainly be different, there would be no excuses made for the Crusades painted them in a distorted light; minarets would not push across Europe, and the Turkey would not dream of joining the European Union.
The current Western mentality mode demonstrate severe amnesia about his unfortunate story of its own people forced into slavery of whites, submitted by hundreds and hundreds of thousands to the ferule (submission) of islam (more a million during the 16th and 17th centuries and subsequently). This Treaty of white surpasses in number the digits of the slave which is estimated at 800,000 people, so there was more annually razzies white slave than Africans deported to the Americas, this trade, they practiced for centuries and it remains today, one of their unfortunate specialties (Mauritania) and elsewhere in some Muslim countries.
Muslims negotiating the price of a European slave captured in slave raids across Europe. Over 6 million Europeans are estimated to have been taken as slaves, although the numbers are likely much higher considering these raids continued for more than 1,000 years. It is due to these raids that Europe has a history of repeated bans on slavery since the 1300’s, that constantly failed.
When the Arabs began to arrive in Vieste (South of the Italy) in 1554, they kidnapped 6,000 whites. The Algerians took 7,000 slaves in the same year in the Bay of Naples. Spain also suffered large-scale attacks. After a raid on Grenada in 1556, which reported 4,000 men, women and children captured into slavery, they were told that it was “raining Christians on Algiers”, and that these raids dropped the price of slaves so much that slave masters could “barter a Christian for an onion”. The appearance of a large fleet could scare an entire population inland, emptying the entire coastal regions. The Muslims did not object to desecrate churches and often ignored the bells, to reduce to silence the distinctive voice of Christianity.
Between 1530 and 1780, there were almost a million and a half of white European Christians enslaved by Muslims of the Barbary Coast. This surpasses the generally accepted figure of 800,000 Africans transported to the colonies in North America and later in the United States. There has been estimates of 3 – 6 million Europeans being taken into slavery. But considering that the slave raids and attacks were relentless for over 1,000 years and not the 250 years from 1530 to 1780, we can presume these numbers are highly understated.
Not only were the white slaves goods, but they were above all infidels, and deserved all the suffering of a master imposed them. Christian slaves were often so abundant and so cheap that he had no interest in their well-being or prolonged health, if at least from an economic perspective, and many owners worked them until premature death and quickly bought replacements.
The Christian West occupied only the third place on the podium of slavery. Twelve million people were deported to the Caribbean and the Americas. But others have done worse on the second step of the podium, there… blacks enslave themselves (Blacks against blacks), which produced at least 200 million captured people sold in Muslim slavery for 14 centuries.
Painting shows a young pre-teen white European male chained and lead with a black slave to the slave market by their Muslim slave captors.
“I would like to come back to my United States family. I really want to see my Dad who I was closest but I have two children by the Prince now, a boy and a girl. I never see him unless I am fertile. I feel close only to my children because I have no way out. I would like to live back in the United States with them but I don’t see that ever happening because the Prince is my master and I am his girl.”
— – A USA child reproductive slave in Saudi Arabia note smuggled out by an Asian area work slave assigned to her.
The Arabian Peninsula inhabitants have long been involved in purchasing slaves. Up until recently, most of these slaves were purchased in Africa. With the advent of oil wealth the Saudi princes have been able to extend their slave purchases throughout the world. This has enabled the Saudi princes to become more selective and specialized in their tastes for slaves.
The Saud family continue to be the prime purchasers on the international slave trade and are known as high end buyers. The Saudi Arabian Government continues to refuse to sign the United Nations treaties on slavery or other human rights issues because they do not want to be subject to their provisions.
They will not sign extradition treaties even with Washington.
They constantly declare they are free of slavery but will not allow international scrutiny. We will deal with the kidnaping of US male and female children by Saudi princes and their associates in this issue. We will substantiate the pattern of abuse using documented occurrence where the princes and their associates have been caught.
It has been an open secret in Washington that the State Department has been extremely sensitive to criticism of its actions regarding Saud Arabia and its princes. There has been an unusual amount of personnel turnover at the Saudi Arabian desk where officials showing the slightest tendency towards ethics and morality are either transferred or terminated to make an example to others.
Why the State Department sensitivity? There are things going on in Saudi Arabia which are so embarrassing to Washington that if the United States citizenry knew, their worst fears about Washington would be corroborated. We will deal with one of these sensitivities in this issue, child abduction by Saudi princes. This is one of several issues we have been reluctant to publish because of the emotional ramifications to families of children who have been abducted around the world in general and the United States in particular.
We had to balance what the Saud princes involved in these abductions would do upon publication. In considering publishing this article against the potential benefits of making known their actions, we chose the latter. The humanitarian action would be for the Saudi Arabian Government to return the sex slaves to their US families so they could receive hospitalization and rehabilitation. We believe this will be considered impractical because of the numbers as well as the legal and political ramifications.

We have seen time and time again US media reported scandals when slaves of Saudi princes and their associates brought into the United States try to escape. The State Department then intervenes on behalf of the Saudi princes with diplomatic or retroactive diplomatic immunity.

This is the same Saudi Arabia who Financed Hussein Obama's Education at Harvard.

Saudi Arabia's Funding of American Mosques

Today, it has been estimated that 80 percent of American mosques are under Wahhabi influence, described by both scholars and U.S. officials as a radical, violent philosophical platform used by terrorists and their supporters to justify violence against Christians, Jews and other "non-believers."

This is part of the Obama Agenda!!


Thursday, November 26, 2015

Can MARCO RUBIO serve as President or Vice President. REad and tell me what you think!

As much as one may like a Candidate... you must love the Constitution  MORE.

The question must be addressed. Can Marco Rubio legally serve as President or Vice President of America. Is it allowed by the Constitution as it is written.. TODAY!

Rubio is, quite simply, not a "natural-born citizen" by the accepted legal, English-language standard as it has been known throughout American history. He was born in Florida to two non-U.S. citizen parents. 

I know this question is not a popular notion among Republicans who support either Rubio or Ted Cruz.

Remember it wasn't popular among Democrats when we challenged Obama's eligibility.

Shouldn't the Constitution always trump political expediency ?

You cannot be a Consistent Conservative with principles to Restore America .... IF you apply on standard of Obama and another standard for Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

If we don't adhere to the Constitution on matters as significant as Presidential eligibility, then the Constitution ceases to be a meaningful document for guiding our nation. 

If not then, it becomes the kind of living document that many liberals have claimed it should be - ever changing to new circumstances. Who knows when someone can then challenge the 2nd amendment and change that too?

Here are the facts:

Mario and Oriales Rubio became naturalized U.S. citizens on Nov. 5, 1975, four years after Marco Rubio was born.

That's really all you have to know. That simple fact — one not in dispute — disqualifies him legally, barring an amendment to the Constitution or a complete and deliberate misinterpretation of the Constitution, from being president or vice president. 

Those are the only two offices in the U.S. that have such a requirement.

The definition of natural-born citizen approved by the first U.S. Congress can be seen in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which regarded it as a child born of two American parents. The law, specifying that a natural-born citizen need not be born on U.S. soil, stated: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

While the act was repealed five years later, it, nevertheless, represented the will of the Congress that someone with dual loyalties not lead the U.S.

Rep.John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the 14th Amendment, affirmed in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866, that a natural-born citizen is "born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty." 

"The Law of Nations," a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American founders and informed their understanding of law later established in the Constitution.

Vattel specified that a natural-born citizen is born of two citizens and made it clear that the father's citizenship was a loyalty issue: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. ... In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

Significantly, when the U.S. Senate resolved in 2008 that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the Republican presidential nominee, was a natural-born citizen, it specified that his parents were American citizens.

The non-binding resolution, co-sponsored by then-Sen. Obama, stated that McCain — born to two American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, "is a 'natural-born citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States." Slick don't you think? It made sure that McCain would not challenge Obama's Status! Two peas in an illegal pod scheme!

Of course, this raises a question: What about Obama? It's a good question — and goes right to heart of all the controversy about Obama's eligibility for the last four years. He is not eligible. He never was. It doesn't matter where he was born. It never did. What mattered — and still matters — is who his parents were. According to Obama and the limited and questionable documentation he has provided to date, his father was a Kenyan student who never became a U.S. citizen. 

Therefore, he NEVER met the test of eligibility. The fact that he has reluctantly provided highly questionable documentation to establish his birth in Hawaii is irrelevant, except that it suggests he is trying to obscure the real facts and the real substance of his eligibility. I guess if his father was Frank Marshall Davis we might have another discussion. A DNA test could help to set the record straight once and for all!!

But now... back to the issue of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. It would by hypocritical and wrong and set a dangerous precedent for all section in our Constitution if we accept the Leftis notion that the Constitution is not ABSOLUTE!!

America permited an ineligible Obama to serve as president by a de facto changing of the constitutional standard through neglect and ignorance for the future. Now if we look the other way for our Candidates we have lost our moral high ground with regards to the Constitution and we open the door for interpretation of every ammendment!

Sure if America wants to have a national debate about the meaning of this requirement, let's have it in ways allowed by the Constitution. If not dissolve the Constitution and start anew ( that would be Revolution). But let's not allow conventional expedient wisdom on this matter to become so corrupted that we accept this on our side blithely as though it does NOT MATTER because it affects our Candidate's eligibility. If we do we have become political bastards just like them. We have no standing in the future!

And let's not stumble into nominating a president or vice president who tests the boundaries of eligibility in such a monumentally important election in 2016.


Can TED CRUZ legally serve as President or Vice President? Read and tell me what your think.

I like Ted Cruz.. I really Do!

....but in this extremely volatile dangerous world can we afford any controversy when it comes to choosing our NEXT President?  We cannot afford the controversy of the Obama Citizenship issue in our ranks. We need a total true focus on winning without any distractions

Here is the Cruz Citizenship Timeline (documented)
This is an authenticated timeline of known facts concerning the citizenship of Senator Ted Cruz.

I like Ted Cruz, 

I have been doing some detailed research and some gut wrenching soul searching and I have come to the conclusion that Ted Cruz is ineligible to be President or Vice President.

Sure there are many scholars who have argued that Cruz like Obama are both "Natural Born Citizens" but read the post and tell me why I am wrong? 

I really like Cruz and wanted him to be Donald Trump's VP and then go on to be the President 8 years from 2016 but I cannot in good conscience endorse him after the research I have done. Ted Cruz is a great American who would be a great VP to Trump and President in the future, but if I am to be consistent I cannot support Cruz in those two positions. I do this with a heavy heart, but the Constitution trumps my emotions.


(Everything presented in this timeline is a matter of public record. All of it is based upon publicly reported events, public statements made by Rafael Cruz, Ted Cruz, officials with the Elect Ted movement or US and Canadian officials."

1957  - After working as a teen to help Fidel Castro gain power in Cuba, and being imprisoned for his actions by the Batista regime, Cuban Rafael Cruz applies for admittance to the University of Texas as a foreign student and enters the US on a four year student visa to attend four years of college. He is a Cuban citizen attending a US college on a student visa obtained through the US Consulate in Havana.

19611962 After graduating college at the University of Texas, and upon the expiration of his student visa, Cruz Sr. applied for and received “political asylum” and was issued a “green card”.  A green card is a permit to reside and work in the United States, without becoming a “citizen” of the United States, in this case, under political asylum from Castro’s Cuba. His citizenship status was that of a Cuban national living and working in the United States, under a green card work permit. According to US laws, the “green card” holder must maintain permanent resident status, and can be removed from the United States if certain conditions of this status are not met.

1964-1966  Cruz Sr. takes a few odd  jobs, marries and moves to Canada to work in the oil fields. The Cruz family resides in Canada for the next eight years. “I worked in Canada for eight years,”  Rafael Cruz says. “And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen.” – (From an interview with  NPR )

 1970  - Ted Cruz is born in Canada, to two parents who had lived in Canada for at least four years at that time, and had applied for and received Canadian citizenship under Canadian Immigration and  Naturalization Laws, as stated by Rafael Cruz. As a result, US statutes would have voided the prior “green card” status which requires among other things, permanent residency within the United States and obviously, not becoming a citizen of another country during the time frame of the US green card.

1974   The Cruz family moves to the United States when Ted is approximately four years old. Rafael Cruz has publicly stated that he remained a citizen of Canada until he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he applied for and became a US Naturalized citizen in 2005. As a result, his wife and son were also Canadian citizens, his son being born a citizen of Canada in 1970.

2005 - Rafael Cruz applies for legal US citizenship and renounces his Canadian citizenship. No record of Ted renouncing his Canadian citizenship or applying for US citizenship exists as of 2005

2013   Freshman Senator Ted Cruz is a rising star in the Tea Party movement, and calls for him to run for the White House begin. in July, Ted Cruz is questioned by the press about his interest in running for President, and the issue of his Canadian born citizenship is brought up

August 2013  As Ted’s political stock rises , so do press questions about his eligibility for office. Ted decides to quiet the questions by releasing his birth certificate, which now becomes absolute proof of  Ted’s Canadian citizenship at birth, 1970, Calgary. The release of  the Canadian birth records only serve to further fuel the controversy

Ted seeks legal counsel, as the media is now pressing members of Canadian Immigration and  Naturalization to clear the matter up, when instead, Canadian officials confirm the Ted Cruz was in fact  born a legal citizen of Canada, the son of two parents who had also applied for and received Canadian citizenship prior to Ted’s birth.

Generally speaking, under the Citizenship  Act of 1947, those born in Canada were automatically citizens at Birth unless their Parent was a  foreign diplomat.

So Ted’s
Legal counsel advises Ted to “renounce his Canadian citizenship” in order to make himself eligible to run for the Presidency. Of course, renouncing one’s original citizenship only further proves one’s original citizenship.

May  2014  Ted Cruz legal counsel files to renounce Ted’s Canadian citizenship in an effort to make him eligible to run for high office under the natural born Citizen clause Article 11 in the US Constitution.


Austin, TX   Ted Cruz has given up his citizenship from his birth country of Canada.

 News that he had renounced his citizenship was first reported by the Dallas Morning News. The newspaper also broke that Cruz had dual Canadian- US Citizenship when he released his birth certificate in August.

However  the Constitution does not require that one be only an American citizen, but rather a natural born Citizen.



This problem exists for Marco Rubio as well.

A “natural born Citizen” of the United States is a child born in the USA of two (2) U.S. Citizens. The parents can be Citizens by Birth or they can be Citizens by Naturalization after immigrating to the USA. But to create a “natural born Citizen” of the United States both parents must be Citizens at the time the child is born in the USA. See this legal reference book used by the founders and framers of our Constitution: Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Vol.1 Chapter 19 Section 212, Emer de Vattel, 1758-1797.  The overwhelming majority (probably 85%+) of citizens in the United States are natural born Citizens.

This clause was added for future presidents as a national security clause. It is from the group of natural born Citizens that our founders prescribed in the presidential eligibility clause in Clause 5, Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution that we shall choose a President and Commander in Chief of our military as a strong check against foreign influence via birth allegiances on the person in that singular and most powerful office. One needs all three citizenship legs to be a natural born Citizen and have sole allegiance and claim on you at birth to one and only one country — the United States: 1. Born in the USA. 2. Father must be a U.S. Citizen (born or naturalized). 3. Mother must be U.S. Citizen (born or naturalized). Like a three legged stool if you take away any of these three citizenship legs of the Article II constitutional intent and requirement to being a natural born Citizen, i.e., being born with unity of citizenship in and sole allegiance to the USA, the child is born with more than one country’s citizenship and claim of allegiance/citizenship on them at their birth and thus they are NOT a natural born Citizen of the United States.  And as in the analogy of a stool designed to stand on three legs and it is missing a leg, it falls down, likewise the person’s claim to natural born Citizenship fails if the person does not have all three citizenship legs required to be a natural born Citizen at the time of their birth.