Ann Barnhardt:
ISLAM IS SEDITIOUS AGAINST EVERY NATION AND GOVERNMENT ON EARTH.
ISLAM DEMANDS THAT ALL MUSLIMS WORK TO OVERTHROW ALL NATIONS, GOVERNMENTS, AND NON-SHARIA LAWS
For the record, I do not agree with Barnhardt that we need to "deport all Muslims". Instead, I think we need to deport only those Muslims who advocate Sharia law, defined thusly:
1) the murder of apostates and gays
2) making women the property of men
3) Jihad against Infidels
Simply put, I think we should deport every Muslim who ever gives voice to the above ideas, because those ideas are seditious, they are opposite to our Constitution.
24 comments:
I would have to agree with Ann Barnhardt. The enemy is an ideology, Islam. It is an ideology of hatred, violence and sedition. "Peaceful" Muslims can become violent at any time (sudden Jihad syndrome), or their offspring can, by becoming more devout and thus more obligated to carry out Muhammad's evil commandments.
I would not necessarily force deportation, but I would encourage voluntary emigration, perhaps with financial assistance to do so. Any further Muslim immigration (into the west) by Muslims should be stopped cold.
I would also revoke the tax exempt status of Islam.
"People need to understand that Islam is not a religion. Islam is a socioeconomic political system which enforcing arm is a religious one". - Charles Martel on a prior thread
As a country, as a civilized nation, we must come to grips with this reality. Islam must not be granted protections under the American Constitution so long as it maintains political/economic components which specifically undermine our own sovreign doctrine with it's Bill of Rights.
If the enemy is as she portrays it, why waste time. It can be over in 25 minutes?
The problem with her view is that too many of those who self identify as muslims actually are disgusted by the orthodox (and correct canonical) view of the Quran, Sharia, etc and ITS RESULTS IN BLOOD in the real world, courtesy of the MB and their Shia bros from Qum.
These are the people whose consciences tell them everyday that there's something seriously wrong, but they don't have the tools to reject the Islamic law. No one does.
It's a problem which, if THEY cannot solve it, will eventually come to a schwerpunct.
We cannot deport americans who happen to be muslims by birth or conversion, but we can isolate those advocating getting rid of the Constitution and the sovereignty of the people, and jail those who take action in that regard...IN GITMO.
If Islam is not protected under the Constitution, NO RELIGION CAN BE. By protecting Islam we protect ourselves. THERE IS NO EASY OUT.
What Stogie said.
u go girl, ill watch ure back.
Sorry EPA, but your "all or none" caveat doesn't wash. " If Islam is not protected under the Constitution, NO RELIGION CAN BE."
Islam IS NOT and NEVER WAS simply a religion.
Minimizing the characterization of Islam to 'religion' by either isolating, ignoring or avoiding Islam's invasive and destructive socioeconomic political components is no longer valid.
EPA's all or nothing caveat (all religions are equal) is the wedge which undermines our side.
Epa wrote: The problem with her view is that too many of those who self identify as muslims actually are disgusted by the orthodox (and correct canonical) view of the Quran, Sharia, etc and ITS RESULTS IN BLOOD in the real world, courtesy of the MB and their Shia bros from Qum.
These are the people whose consciences tell them everyday that there's something seriously wrong, but they don't have the tools to reject the Islamic law.
I respond: My idea has always been that we pick 1000 Jihadists and deport them for their crime of being Jihadists.
Then watch the Muslim population and I guarantee you another 1000 will pop up (at least 1000) who are angry and have been smoked out by their anger. DEPORT THEM TOO.
And keep doing it:
RINSE WASH REPEAT
THAT will separate the good people from the bad. That policy would cause the division within Islam which will be needed to create a good and decent Islam from the ashes of the Jihadist/Sharia Islam.
Anon, I am telling you how it is.. we have WE HAVE - religious protection. It is only by protecting the most OBNOXIOUS among us that we protect our own rights... that was told to me by THE LAWYER who represented the Nazis trying to march in Skokie back in 1968.
Islam FULFILLS the definition of a religion in every single manner WE HAVE. If you can peel that off, GO FOR IT, but I guarantee you I can make a case that each religion would fail the criteria you set in one major way or another, thus singling out Islam for will endanger the very basis of this nation.
THAT'S HOW IT IS, DUDE.
If you wish to go after the mosques of the morons who commit crimes here, and claim they INCITED the acts committed by their teaching... THAT IS FAIR GAME, just as it was against Aryan Nation. But you cannot go after ISLAM as a religion. A nice fat $10 million settlement executed against the private citizens on the board of directors of the mosque would QUELL teaching sedition PRETTY EFFING FAST.
Epa,
What do you think of the fact that Scientology is banned in Germany. Is that an abuse of human rights in your opinion? Would it be counter to the First Amendment in our country to do the same thing to Scientology?
I am not arguing with you. I am simply asking for your opinion.
It seems to me that we would run into a very dangerous problem if we began banning religions in America. And that would be lawyerly definitions of what constitutes a religion. Religions would have to declare their doctrine and it would have to be registered with the state, so that any abuses within their own denomination could then be declared to be official apostasy or, in other words, outside their dotrinal registration.
What a disaster.
On the other hand, if Islam can declare itself a religion, could not Nazism also declare itself to be a religion? Hell, for that matter could not Leftism also declare itself to be a religion? The whole fucking democratic party? The government itself?
Why not?
The whole thing can be resolved by having muslims living in the west answer a few pointed questions. This can be accomplished by having them complete a simple combination eye test and loyalty exam.
--EYE TEST PORTION--
QUESTION 1. The koran says "x", over and over again. Do you see that the koran says "x" over and over again?
--LOYALTY PORTION--
QUESTION 2. Are you aware that "x" stands contrary to the values and principles of Western Civilization?
QUESTION 3. Do you therefore claim to believe in or subscribe to totalitarian system "x" and yet simultaneously wish to have us believe that you reject various portions of totalitarian system "x"?
(If yes, have them explain exactly which portions they reject.)
(If no, have them deported)
I like your idea, Anonymous. However, you must be aware that they could simply choose to lie.
And then, of course, leftists would say, Hey, they already passed the test. What more do you want them to do?
I like my idea better.
Why?
Because
1) it ought to be no problem to find 1000 hardcore Islamists in the US who will say, "Yes, I believe in stoning apostates/gays to death, yes, I believe in the property-hood of women, and yes, I believe in waging Jihad against the Infidel
2) deport them
3) other hardcored Islamists will pop up out of the woodwork livid with anger over the deportations of their Muslim brothers
4) deport them
5) watch for more hardcore Islamists to pop up out of the woodwork
6) deport them
7) eventually you will be left with only those who are either a) truly moderate/marginal Muslims or b) not brave enough to stand up for what they truly believe.
We can live with those two types.
Rinse Wash Repeat
What stogie, anon and jepo said.
Love for Ann!
"Is that an abuse of human rights in your opinion? Would it be counter to the First Amendment in our country to do the same thing to Scientology?"
It is contrary to everything american, and PS, it's GERMANY.
GERMANY
Anon, you are going thru a tortuous path.... try this...
Do you acknowledge the sovereignty of the people of the USA to make laws as they please within the confines of the Constitution?
No religion need be singled out for that. But you could not require it of EXISTING CITIZENS. You could require it of anyone not entering for vacation, or for stays exceeding a set duration and certainly on naturalization or green card applications, etc.
If you agree and then enter SPEAK DIFFERENTLY..bye bye
The prime directive for classifying religion is that it changes people for the better.
Islam makes true believers into worse people. It is not so much a religion as it is a political system for the conquest of the civilized world.
Extreme example but, do we let the Aztec religion start back up? Would we outlaw it if adherents tried? Then there is the peyote issue w/the Indians.
We can/do outlaw religion to some degree.
Islam looks like a prime candidate.
Stogie,
You wrote,
I would have to agree with Ann Barnhardt. The enemy is an ideology, Islam. It is an ideology of hatred, violence and sedition. "Peaceful" Muslims can become violent at any time (sudden Jihad syndrome), or their offspring can, by becoming more devout and thus more obligated to carry out Muhammad's evil commandments.
I would not necessarily force deportation, but I would encourage voluntary emigration, perhaps with financial assistance to do so. Any further Muslim immigration (into the west) by Muslims should be stopped cold.
I would also revoke the tax exempt status of Islam.
Its not that simple Stogie. For one thing, it would be hard to Justify revoking the tax exempt status of Islamic institutions just because they are Islamic. Some Muslims are not only peaceful, but some are even fighting attempts to institutionalize sharia law, and you should be glad that that is the case.
American Islamic Group Supports Ban On "Foreign Law" Which Includes Sharia
That said, we should not tolerate any attempts by Islamic organizations to overthrow our constitution and replace it with sharia. In fact I agree with Pastorius, Muslims who call for sharia to be recognized as the law of the land are committing sedition.
SamenoKami,
Any belief system that at its heart requires a belief in a god to make sense, is by definition a religion, regardless of how benign or malevolent it is. Even if Islam is most evil ideology that has ever existed, it is still a religion.
We can however, do anything that is absolutely necessary to stop Muslim Jihadists from destroying the free world. Just because Islam is a religion, doesn't mean we can not, or should not condemn evil and tyranny done in its name. We can even condemn the religion itself.
The founding fathers were wise men who would not have written the First Amendment as they did in our current situation with Mohammedanism. They would have recognized the problem and worded things differently. They would have avoided affording allowing any shield for the type of Satan worshiping scam that Mohammedanism is to any sane honest person.
The Constitution is not and was never meant to be a suicide pact.
Wow, CJK, do you have a direct line?
One of the founders remarked on how democratic govt is 'two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch'
I am telling you what I know of them tells ME that they would be certain - YOU and YOUR KIND would be next, and it won't matter who or what YOUR KIND is, and the reasons for it would be sounding very reasonable
Messing with the 1st amendment is as smart as putting the word 'marriage' in the document
Foxmuldar,
Did you check out the link in the first comment I made on this subject?
I AGREE WITH HER.
American Islamic Group Supports Ban On "Foreign Law" Which Includes Sharia
BULLS!
We'll do nothing now which 'violates' the 1st amend. because we're afraid 'we'll be next.'
Islam will slowly take over the US via growth rate/immigration.
They'll do the same thing as if we had 'violated' the 1st amend.
Difference?
Nothing.
It'll take longer for us to die.
SamenoKami,
You're not much of an optimist are you?
How can you tell? I mean, is it that obvious? :)
EPA: They weren't dummies, and to believe that something like Mohgammedanism should be protected is ludicrous.
Post a Comment