Pants On Fire

by: the Common Constitutionalist

I was watching Fox News over the weekend. The host was interviewing the governors of both Iowa and Florida. Rick Scott is the republican governor of Florida and Iowa’s Terry Branstad, also a republican.

Both are considered to be fairly conservative and pro-growth republicans.

They discussed the employment situation in their states as well as the other states that most recently elected republican governors. I believe 7 in all. 

They each gave fairly good, straight forward answers as to why, in all seven states that republicans were elected, the unemployment rate actually went down. The answers weren’t as direct as I’d like but they both did a fair job.

Then the topic turned to the Obamacare Medicaid expansion as it pertains to the states. States would have the opportunity to greatly expand their Medicaid roles, ostensibly paid for, in part or whole, by the feds.

More than a few states, run by republicans say they will refuse the expansion, knowing full-well that, after a few years and just like virtually every other federal program, the states would be left holding the bag, as it were.

In other words the feds would cease to fund the program and the states would therefore be financially responsible for the increased membership. Neat trick. The feds do it all the time. After all, they’re just looking for the sound bite.

Anywho, the host asked both of them, one at a time, if reports were true that they would refuse the expansion of the Medicaid program.

I watched anxiously, or should I say, with great anxiety, for what seemed like a painfully long time, just hoping for a straight answer. Neither provided one.

They both, Branstad more than Scott, pontificated and bloviated about jobs, Obamacare and who knows what else.

I found myself leaning ever forward, on the edge of my chair, straining to keep my composure. It was a losing battle.

I finally just began to yell at the TV. “Why can’t either of you just answer the question?! It’s a simple question, requiring a simple answer! All of these politicians are the same! They just won’t answer a question!”

We don’t curse in our house, but I’ll tell you, I sure wanted to.

Evidently I was so loud, I woke my sons up, whom I allowed to sleep in that morning. They were not appreciative.

This just demonstrated, once again, why politicians don’t appear to be trustworthy.

Is there some sort of class or school they attend to learn how to just talk out their collective butts until the clock runs out? That is how it always ends, does it not? The host will finally say, “ Ok, we’re out of time, thanks for coming on”.

Thanks for what? We didn’t learn a dang thing! I still have no idea whether either Florida or Iowa will or won’t sign on to the expansion. (Florida evidently will not participate. Why couldn’t he just say so?)

Through experience, I know this is not a good sign. More often than not, when a supposedly conservative politician won’t give a straight answer, it means they will be voting or siding against the folks that put them in office.

I’ve heard it many times when calling a politician to see how they will vote on an issue or bill. When it’s 12 hours before the vote and their aids say they haven’t decided yet, you can bet it ain’t gonna be good.

For this reason, despite their lack of conservative bona fides, people love “The Donald” (Trump) and also Chris Christie of New Jersey. They tell it as it is and pull no punches and are all the more popular for it. Why is it that other politicians can’t see this?

I can’t be the only one that feels this way!

Just stop lying, hedging, dodging and generally irritating your constituency and you’ll be loved for it.

I thought I might feel better after that, but I don’t.

Those Trees are for the King

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Practically everyone knows of the “Boston Tea Party”, that occurred in 1773. It is recognized as the action which began America’s revolution.

There was an event that predates it, although few have heard the tale.

When the first shipment of masts from Portsmouth, New Hampshire to England occurred, in 1634, England had already suffered deforestation. In order to dominate the high seas, new sources of abundant timber for shipbuilding were needed. No ships, after all, could set sail without as many as twenty-three masts, yards, and spars varying in length and diameter from the bulky mainmast to its subordinate parts.

Although New Hampshire’s white pine was not as hard as Europe’s, its height and diameter were superior. It also weighed less and retained resin longer, giving the ships a sea life as long as two decades.

When granting lands in America in 1690, King William prohibited the cutting of white pine over two feet in diameter. In 1722, under the reign of George I, parliament passed a law that reduced the diameter to one foot, required a license to cut white pine, and established fines for infractions.

This law was basically ignored until John Wentworth became governor in 1767. Appointed Surveyor of the King’s Woods, he recognized the revenue potential and appointed deputies to carry out the law. He conducted his own inspections of mill yards in the Piscataquog valley by having a servant drive him around in his coach.

Before settlers could clear the land or build cabins, barns, or meetinghouses, the king’s sanction, a broad arrow mark, was required on trees reserved for the Royal Navy. The deputies charged them a “good, round sum” to mark the trees and for the license required to cut the rest. Small wonder the law was unpopular. The consequences involved arrest and fines. Contraband white pine already sawed into logs could be seized and a large settlement required; if not paid, authorities sold them at public auction.

In the winter of 1771-72, a deputy Surveyor of the King’s Woods found and marked for seizure 270 mast-worthy logs at Clement’s mill in Oil Mill (now called Riverdale), in South Weare, New Hampshire. He fined the log-cutters from Weare and those from nearby towns where illegal logs were also found. Men from other towns paid the fines, but those from Weare refused. Consequently, the Weare men were labeled “notorious offenders.”

The county sheriff, Benjamin Whiting, Esq., of Hollis, N.H., and his deputy, John Quigley, Esq., of Francestown, N.H. were charged with delivering warrants and making arrests in the king’s name. On April 13, 1772, the sheriff and his deputy galloped into Weare and found “Major Offender” Ebenezer Mudgett, who promised to pay his fine the next day. The officials then retired to nearby Quimby’s Inn for an overnight stay.

News that they had come for Mudgett flew through town, and a plan was hatched. The following morning more than twenty men with blackened faces and switches in hand rushed into Whiting’s room led by Mudgett:

Whiting seized his pistols and would have shot some of them, but they caught him, took away his small guns, held him by his arms and legs up from the floor, his face down, two men on each side, and with their rods beat him to their hearts’ content. They crossed out the account against them of all logs cut, drawn and forfeited, on his bare back….They made him wish he had never heard of pine trees fit for masting the royal navy. Whiting said: “They almost killed me.”

As for Deputy Quigley, the Weare men wrested the floorboards from the room above his, and proceeded to beat him with long poles. With “jeers, jokes and shouts ringing in their ears” the sheriff and deputy rode toward Goffstown and Mast Road (about a mile from my office, I might add), named for the logs that were moved overland to the sea and off to England for the king’s ships.

The Weare men were ultimately arraigned and paid a light fine, but their rebellion against the crown, which preceded the Boston Tea Party (1773), helped set the stage for the Revolution.

And thus the event became known as the Pine Tree Riot, April 14, 1772.

Attribution:  Weare Historical Society, William Little’s History of Weare, New Hampshire 1735-1888 (Lowell, MA: published by the town, 1888), 185-191.
Information about the masting trade came from New Hampshire Crosscurrents in Its Development by Nancy Coffey Heffernan and Ann Page Stecker
(Hanover and London: University Press of New England, 1996), 32-36

See I Told Ya So

Last year I wrote an article regarding the defense of marriage. How marriage is between one man and one woman. You may call a homosexual relationship anything you like, except for a marriage. I, for one, will never accept turning thousands of years of tradition on its head just to placate a miniscule portion of our society.

I refuse to even play the rename game, calling a homosexual, gay. Not because I’m homophobic. I couldn’t care less what you do with your life, but don’t go changing the correct terminology, homosexual, to gay just because it sounds more palatable. It’s like calling a black an African American, when their family has been here for a hundred years. I won’t do that either. Okay, enough ranting.

In my defense of marriage, I stated that homosexual marrige is just the beginning. It would never stop there. I claimed that sooner or later someone would suggest marrying their child, or 5 people or their pet peguin. This is what always happens when the door is cracked open. Someone sticks their foot in, then their leg and finally the door becomes useless. This is why it is so important to stop these things before they even start.

Welcome to the open door!

Legalizing Polygamy Doesn’t Go Far Enough, ASU Professor claims

by:

Arizona State University philosopher Elizabeth Brake doesn’t scare easily. An advocate of same-sex unions, she doesn’t flinch when conservatives argue that if two men are granted the right to marry, why not three? Brake boldly declares that marriage should not be restricted to opposite-sex couples, or indeed to couples at all. Her book, Minimizing Marriage, hot off the prestigious Oxford University Press, pushes traditional logic by claiming that “liberal reasons for recognizing same-sex marriage also require recognition of groups, polyamorists, polygamists, friends, urban tribes, and adult care networks.”

“Urban tribes?”

And not only does Brake support “loving” same-sex couples or groups, but she claims “loving” relationships — which she calls “amatonormative” relationships (from amor, the Latin word for “love”), should not be the standard by which we judge a “marriage.” She fearlessly claims, “amatonormative judgments are false, and … discrimination on their basis is morally wrong.”

In short, you don’t even have to like someone to have sex with him. Or her. Or them. Or be “married.”

Before terminating his campaign, Rick Santorum was criticized for attempting to frighten us with the prospect of “man on child” and “man on dog” unions should the State recognize same-sex unions. And here is where Brake’s bravery breaks down. Brake assures us that her theory “complies with criminal law.”

Ah, yes; that enduring paragon of morality, “the State” and its “criminal law.”

Of course Brake knows that in generations past, “the criminal law” punished straightforward adultery, to say of nothing deviant perversion or an anonymous hip-hop club orgy. Brake knows that today’s fears are tomorrow’s “progressive public policy,” thanks to daring lawyers and squishy Republican judges. For now, she assures us that “children and nonhuman animals … are not legally competent to consent.”

“Nonhuman animals.” I’m glad she cleared that up. I was thinking about the other kind of animals.

“Legally competent to consent.” For now. Until the law is changed and children are granted the “right” to “consent” to whatever deviants can dish out.

In 1913, the Texas Supreme Court reflected the views of a Christian worldview when it declared:

Marriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve, she was a wife to Adam; they then and there occupied the status of husband to wife and wife to husband. . . . When Noah was selected for salvation from the flood, he and his wife and his three sons and their wives were placed in the Ark; and, when the flood waters had subsided and the families came forth, it was Noah and his wife and each son and his wife . . . . The truth is that civil government has grown out of marriage . . . which created homes, and population, and society, from which government became necessary [sic] . . . . [Marriages] will produce a home and family that will contribute to good society, to free and just government, and to the support of Christianity. . . . It would be sacrilegious to apply the designation “a civil contract” to such a marriage. It is that and more; a status ordained by God.
Grigsby v Reib, 153 S.W. 1124, 1129-30 (TxSupCt 1913)

Brake knows that Courts don’t speak in these terms anymore. And parents who sit their children at the feet of professors like Brake in secular universities like ASU are planting the seeds of an impersonal world which substitutes anonymous “urban tribes” for a man and a woman who “love and cherish” “till death do us part.”

Unlimited Power to Tax

A Short History of Congress’s Power to Tax

The Supreme Court has long distinguished the regulatory from the taxing power.

By PAUL MORENO

In 1935, Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins was fretting about finding a constitutional basis for the Social Security Act. Supreme Court Justice Harlan Fiske Stone advised her, “The taxing power, my dear, the taxing power. You can do anything under the taxing power.”

In his ObamaCare opinion, NFIB v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John Roberts gave Congress the same advice—just enact regulatory legislation and tack on a financial penalty, as in failure to comply with the individual insurance mandate. So how did the power to tax under the Constitution become unbounded?

The first enumerated power that the Constitution grants to Congress is the “power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” The text indicates that the taxing power is not plenary (full & complete in every respect), but can be used only for defined ends and objects—since a comma, not a semicolon, separated the clauses on means (taxes) and ends (debts, defense, welfare)

Editorial board member Joe Rago on how Chief Justice John Roberts’s rewrite of ObamaCare weakens the Constitution’s federalist structure.

This punctuation was no small matter. In 1798, Pennsylvania Rep. Albert Gallatin said that fellow Pennsylvania Rep. Gouverneur Morris, chairman of the Committee on Style at the Constitutional Convention, had smuggled in the semicolon in order to make Congress’s taxing power limitless, but that the alert Roger Sherman had the comma restored. The altered punctuation, Gallatin said, would have turned “words [that] had originally been inserted in the Constitution as a limitation to the power of levying taxes” into “a distinct power.” Thirty years later, Virginia Rep. Mark Alexander accused Secretary of State John Quincy Adams of doing the same thing after Congress instructed the administration to print copies of the Constitution.

The punctuation debate simply reinforced James Madison’s point in Federalist No. 41 that Congress could tax and spend only for those objects enumerated, primarily in Article I, Section 8.

Congress enacted very few taxes up to the end of the Civil War, and none that was a pretext for regulating things that the Constitution gave it no power to regulate. True, the purpose of tariffs was to protect domestic industry from foreign competition, not raise revenue. But the Constitution grants Congress a plenary power to regulate commerce with other nations.

Congress also enacted a tax to destroy state bank notes in 1866, but this could be seen as a “necessary and proper” means to stop the states from usurping Congress’s monetary or currency power. It was upheld in Veazie Bank v. Fenno (1869).

The first unabashed use of the taxing power for regulatory purposes came when Congress enacted a tax on “oleomargarine” in 1886. Dairy farmers tried to drive this cheaper butter substitute from the market but could only get Congress to adopt a mild tax, based on the claim that margarine was often artificially colored and fraudulently sold as butter. President Grover Cleveland reluctantly signed the bill, saying that if he were convinced the revenue aspect was simply a pretext “to destroy . . . one industry of our people for the protection and benefit of another,” he would have vetoed it.

Congress imposed another tax on margarine in 1902, which the Supreme Court upheld (U.S. v. McCray, 1904). Three justices dissented, but without writing an opinion.

Then, in 1914, Congress imposed taxes on druggists’ sales of opiates as a way to regulate their use. Five years later, in U.S. v. Doremus , the Supreme Court upheld the levy under Congress’s express power to impose excise taxes.

Then, in 1922, the court rejected Congress’s attempt to prohibit child labor by imposing a tax on companies that employed children. An earlier attempt to accomplish this, by prohibiting the interstate shipment of goods made by child labor, was struck down as unconstitutional—since it was understood since the earliest days of the republic that Congress had the power to regulate commerce but not manufacturing. “A Court must be blind not to see that the so-called tax is imposed to stop the employment of children within the age limits prescribed,” Chief Justice William Howard Taft wrote in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. “Its prohibitory and regulatory effect and purpose are palpable.” Even liberal justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis D. Brandeis concurred in Taft’s opinion.

Things came to a head in the New Deal, when Congress imposed a tax on food and fiber processors and used those tax dollars to provide benefits to farmers. Though in U.S. v. Butler (1936) the court adopted a more expansive view of the taxing power—allowing Congress to tax and spend for the “general welfare” beyond the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution—it still held the ends had to be “general” and not transfer payments from one group to another. After President Franklin D. Roosevelt threatened to “pack” the Supreme Court in 1937, it accepted such transfer payments in Mulford v. Smith (1939), so long as the taxes were paid into the general treasury and not earmarked for farmers.

And now, in 2012, Justice Roberts has confirmed that there are no limits to regulatory taxation as long as the revenue is deposited in the U.S. Treasury.

Are there any other limits? Article I, Section 2 says that “direct taxes shall be apportioned among the states” according to population. This is repeated in Article I, Section 9, which says that “no capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid,” unless apportioned.

The Supreme Court struck down income taxes in 1895 (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.), on the ground that they were “direct” taxes but not apportioned by population. Apportioning an income tax would defeat the purpose of the relatively poorer Southern and Western states, who wanted the relatively richer states of the Northeast to pay the bulk of the tax. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the power to tax incomes without apportionment.

Other direct taxes should presumably have to be apportioned according to the Constitution. Justice Roberts quickly dismissed the notion that the individual mandate penalty-tax is not a direct tax “under this Court’s precedents.” To any sentient adult, it looks like a “capitation” or head tax, imposed upon individuals directly. Unfortunately, having plenty of other reasons to object to ObamaCare, the four dissenting justices in NFIB v. Sebelius did not explore this point.

Some conservatives have cheered that part of Justice Roberts’s decision that limits Congress’s Commerce Clause power. But an unlimited taxing power is equally dangerous to constitutional government.

Mr. Moreno is a professor of history at Hillsdale College and the author of “The American State from the Civil War to the New Deal,” forthcoming from Cambridge University Press.

No Wonder Martians want to come Here.

We might not be able to get there yet, but as NASA says, ‘this is the next best thing’.

From fresh rover tracks to an impact crater blasted billions of years ago, a newly completed view from the panoramic camera on NASA’s Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity shows the ruddy terrain where the voyaging robot spent the Martian winter.

Scenes recorded from the mast-mounted color camera include the rover’s own solar arrays and deck in the foreground, provides a sense of sitting on top of the rover and taking in the view.

This full-circle scene combines 817 images taken by the panoramic camera (Pancam) on NASA’s Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity. It shows the terrain that surrounded the rover while it was stationary for four months of work during its most recent Martian winter.

Opportunity’s Pancam took the component images between the 2,811th Martian day, or sol, of the rover’s Mars surface mission (Dec. 21, 2011) and Sol 2,947 (May 8, 2012).

Opportunity spent those months on a northward sloped outcrop, ‘Greeley Haven,’ which angled the rover’s solar panels toward the sun low in the northern sky during southern hemisphere winter.

The outcrop’s informal name is a tribute to Ronald Greeley (1939-2011), who was a member of the mission team and who taught generations of planetary scientists at Arizona State University, Tempe. The site is near the northern tip of the ‘Cape York’ segment of the western rim of Endeavour Crater.

Bright wind-blown deposits on the left are banked up against the Greeley Haven outcrop. Opportunity’s tracks can be seen extending from the south, with a turn-in-place and other maneuvers evident from activities to position the rover at Greeley Haven. The tracks in some locations have exposed darker underlying soils by disturbing a thin, bright dust cover.

Other bright, dusty deposits can be seen to the north, northeast, and east of Greeley Haven. The deposit at the center of the image, due north from the rover’s winter location, is a dusty patch called ‘North Pole’. Opportunity drove to it and investigated it in May 2012 as an example of wind-blown Martian dust.

The Endeavour Crater  spans 14 miles (22 kilometers) in diameter.

Opportunity’s solar panels and other structures show dust that has accumulated over the lifetime of the mission. Opportunity has been working on Mars since January 2004.

During the recent four months that Opportunity worked at Greeley Haven, activities included radio-science observations to better understand Martian spin axis dynamics and thus interior structure, investigations of the composition and textures of an outcrop exposing an impact-jumbled rock formation on the crater rim, monitoring the atmosphere and surface for changes, and acquisition of this full-color mosaic of the surroundings.

The panorama combines exposures taken through Pancam filters centered on wavelengths of 753 nanometers (near infrared), 535 nanometers (green) and 432 nanometers (violet). The view is presented in false color to make some differences between materials easier to see.

Its release coincided with two milestones: Opportunity completing its 3,000th Martian day on July 2, and NASA continuing past 15 years of robotic presence at Mars on July 4.

The new panorama is presented in false color to emphasise differences between materials in the scene.

It was assembled from 817 component images taken between Dec. 21, 2011, and May 8, 2012, while Opportunity was stationed on an outcrop informally named ‘Greeley Haven’. on a segment of the rim of ancient Endeavour Crater.

Pancam lead scientist Jim Bell said: ‘The view provides rich geologic context for the detailed chemical and mineral work that the team did at Greeley Haven over the rover’s fifth Martian winter, as well as a spectacularly detailed view of the largest impact crater that we’ve driven to yet with either rover over the course of the mission.’

Opportunity and its twin, Spirit, landed on Mars in January 2004 for missions originally planned to last for three months. NASA’s next-generation Mars rover, Curiosity, is on course for landing on Mars next month.

Opportunity’s science team chose to call the winter campaign site Greeley Haven in tribute to Ronald Greeley (1939-2011), a team member who taught generations of planetary science students at Arizona State University.

NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, manages the Mars Exploration Rover Project for the NASA Science Mission Directorate, Washington.

Later this year, the car-sized Curiosity Rover will land on Mars.

Unlike earlier rovers, Curiosity carries equipment to gather samples of rocks and soil, process them and distribute them to onboard test chambers inside analytical instruments.

It has a robotic arm which deploys two instruments, scoops soil, prepares and delivers samples for analytic instruments and brushes surfaces.

Its assignment is to investigate whether conditions have been favorable for microbial life and for preserving clues in the rocks about possible past life.

The goal of the mission is to assess whether the landing area has ever had or still has environmental conditions favorable to microbial life.

Curiosity will land near the foot of a layered mountain inside Gale crater, layers of this mountain contain minerals that form in water.

The portion of the crater floor where Curiosity will land has an alluvial fan likely formed by water-carried sediments.

Curiosity will also carry the most advanced load of scientific gear ever used on Mars’ surface, a more than 10 times as massive as those of earlier Mars rovers.

Curiosity is about twice as long and five times as heavy as NASA’s twin Mars Exploration Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, launched in 2003.

Attribution: Mail Online

Islam…Religion of Peace…Yeah, Sure

by: Michael Carl (WND)

A Muslim group has released its plan to “wipe Christianity from the face of the earth,” Islamize the West and establish an Islamic system of world government – placing those who resist “under a police state.”

The 23-page booklet, “The Global Islamic Civilization: The Power of a Nation Revived,” is the brainchild of the United Muslim Nations International, a group led by Sheik Farook al-Mohammedi. The document outlines a plan for Muslim world domination and the re-establishment of the Caliphate.

Al-Mohammedi leaves no doubt about his view of Christianity.

“Christianity should be destroyed and wiped from the face of the earth,” al-Mohammedi said. “It is an evil demonic and Anti-Christ system, all Christians are in complete Ignorance.”

The sheik includes a veiled threat in his remarks.

“Islamic Power has returned upon the face of the earth and the Revived Global Caliphate has set eyes on the West to once and for all rid the world of Christianity and there is nothing you can do about it,” al-Mohammedi said.

He makes his objective clear.

“I have pledged and made a firm promise to the Caliphate of the United Muslim Nations International organization that I will do my utmost to Islamize all of the West within a short period of time,” al-Mohammedi said.

Al-Mohammedi’s views are reflected in the book, which calls on all Muslims to, “listen attentively (to the teaching in the booklet) so they may be able to feel the spirituality of an Islamic revival within themselves and they will be able to achieve the much needed upliftment and also a means in gaining the closeness of Allah Subahanhu wa-ta’ ala.”

The document is a clear statement on the organization’s objective. Page 2 explains that the emergence of an Islamic Caliphate is the ultimate goal of all Muslims.

“Firstly we will deal with the matter of the Global Islamic Civilization, its honored status, the unrivaled Universal Brotherhood and Sisterhood of the Muslim Ummah,” the document states.

“Islam the only true religion enjoins upon mankind Total Submission to the will of Allah, which means that you are to live a life that is Totally Devoted to the Almighty Allah by serving Him in the manner which He has prescribed for us through the example of the Holy Prophet Mohammed Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Wasallam,” the booklet said.

Al-Mohammedi declares that Western resistance to the worldwide Islamic movement is futile.

“Today as I breathe the air of our newly found Islamic State of America before my trip this week to Eurabia I leave behind me an Internationalist Islamic Ideology which will be the future of America and Europe Inshallah,” he said.

“None will resist, you will submit! Islam will conquer the hearts of all christiandom, this is a definite reality. Every government has surrendered to the Revived Global Caliphate and those nations who resist will be placed under a police state within their realm.”

Al-Mohammedi added that non-Muslims have no place in his vision for the world.

“The Dhimmis have no empire and no right to rule anywhere in the world. Earth belongs to us, all of it,” he said.

Al-Mohammedi didn’t respond to WND’s subsequent requests for an interview.

WND previously reported that al-Mohammedi complained about WND’s reporting and threatened to shut down WND.

“‘If you do not comply then WND and it’s (sic) employees will become targets for our UIA agents who will eliminate you within America,’ said an email today from Faarooq al Mohammedi, who has said he is working on behalf of a Muslim organization called United Muslim Nations International organization,” the WND story said.

Islam analyst, WND columnist and Atlas Shrugs publisher Pamela Geller said the document has one aim: global Islamic supremecy.

“This document is dedicated to a ‘revival of Islamic culture,’ by which is meant a restoration of ‘the Global Islamic Civilization, its honored status, the unrivaled Universal Brotherhood and Sisterhood of the Muslim Ummah,’” Geller said.

She also noted that the booklet is completely in line with the stated goals of the Muslim Brotherhood.

“This refers, of course, to the restoration of the caliphate, the pan-national unity of the Muslims (which is also the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood),” she said.

Geller added that even though there are references to personal faithfulness in the document, it’s really a battle cry.

“So while the document speaks largely of matters of individual piety, marriage law, etc., it actually amounts to a call to warfare against and subjugation of non-Muslims under the Sharia,” Geller said.

She added, “In Islamic law only the caliph is authorized to declare and wage offensive jihad against infidel states. If the caliphate is restored, the present jihads worldwide will look like a time of peace compared to the wars that will be unleashed.”

American Enterprise Institute Middle East analyst Michael Rubin agreed, confirming, “the document is very much in line with jihadi philosophy.”

Islam analyst and Jihad Watch publisher Robert Spencer noted, “The document is pretty standard. However, it’s somewhat incoherently presented.”