Green Energy
The laws are already in place to deal with Islam.
1) The stoning to death of apostates is against the First Amendment protection for Freedom of Speech/Conscience - preaching for the stoning to death of Apostates is preaching against the First Amendment. The First Amendment is the foundational Right upon which all our other rights are based, and therefore, preaching against the First Amendment is Sedition.
2) preaching the stoning of gays is a hate crime
3) preaching the subjugation of women, wherein women are deemed to be the property of men, is advocating Slavery
4) preaching Jihad against the Infidel is Sedition
5) preaching the use of Zakat as a part of the fundamental economic system of the United States is a violation of the First Amendment, separation of Church and State - so, once again, preaching in support of Zakat is Sedition.
6) Preaching a Dhimmi Tax is advocating racketeering.
If we were to, as a nation, acknowledge all these violations of law and enforce the laws together, we could close any Mosque in the United States which preached any of these fundamental tenets of Islam.
Acknowledging the reality of how these tenets function together would mean we could shut every mosque in the United States which is financially or ideologically related to any other mosque which also preaches these tenets. RICO allows for us to do that.
If we took our laws seriously, we would not have to add a Constitutional Amendment to do away with Islam.
Islam has not invented new evil. It has, however, institutionalized evil and given evil the "legitimacy" afforded to a major religion.
Islam advocates murder, it advocates slavery, and it advocates sedition.
Imagine if another powerful institution in the United States did these things.
Imagine for instance, that Fox News decided to start advocating the stoning to death of Muslims.
Imagine that Fox News systematically endorsed the enforced second-class citizenship of Muslims (in the manner of what Muslims do to women).
Imagine if Fox News said that non-Muslims owned Muslims, and Muslims could only marry, go to school, leave the house, drive, if permitted to do so by a non-Muslim.
Imagine if Fox News Chief Rupert Murdoch advocated that Muslims should not be allowed to show their faces in public, and directed all his news outlets to teach that a Muslim's voice was only worth half that of a non-Muslim in any legal manner.
Imagine if Fox News systematically, as a matter of Corporate Policy, advocated the Jihad-type murder of Muslims who refused to convert to Christianity or be subjugated as Dhimmis.
Would the United States Government not rightly intervene if a powerful institution were to advocate such ideas as a matter of top-down policy? Would not such an Institution, be it Academic, Media Outlet, Religion, or Governmental Entity, be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?
So it ought to be with Islam. Advocating murder, slavery, and war against ones fellow countrymen as a matter of policy ought to be quite enough to prove that Islam is in violation of the laws of the United States. We do not need to come up with new laws to cover old crimes. And, we should never succumb to the lie that a religion ought to be afforded any leniency in advocating crime, simply because it is a religion.
- Just For The Record, I Believe Gates Of Vienna, Fjordman, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, And Even That Fruitcake Charles Johnson Are Blameless In The Charge That Their "anti-islam" Writings Were The Cause Of Breivik's Choice To Murder People
So, fuck anyone who would make such a dumb, fucking assertion. The same people will not blame Islam for coming right out and calling for the stoning to death of Apostates, Gays, and Adulterers. The same people would not blame Islam for the enslavement...
- Has The Time Come To Ban Islam In America?
2012 US presidential candidate Herman Cain made quite a splash over this past weekend, when he asserted that a community in Tennessee, and by extension, any community in the US, has the right to ban mosques. From "Herman Cain Says U.S. Communities...
- Ammendment 28
(I decided to repost this article because I think this is a start, a beginning of something that the West might need to adopt to fight the enemy that is Islam, not radical Muslims, ISLAM! This ammendment that follows was not written by either me or the...
- After One Attack Too Many - Proposed Constitutional Admendment
I like this idea. If you like it, put it on your blog and pass it around. This is the future, if you ask me. From Redneck Texan: Proposed Constitutional Amendment Background and justification Whereas Religion is defined as an institution dedicated to...
- Islam Is A Political Organization - It Needs To Be Classified As Such
Frank Hilliard is the man! He is the blogger at Mesopotamia West. I had never heard of his blog until today, when he came and commented here. His comment is highly worthwhile: One way to deal with Islam that hasn't been fully discussed is to reclassify...
Green Energy
We Do Not Need To Ban The Religion of Islam - We Merely Need to Enforce Our Existing Laws
The laws are already in place to deal with Islam.
1) The stoning to death of apostates is against the First Amendment protection for Freedom of Speech/Conscience - preaching for the stoning to death of Apostates is preaching against the First Amendment. The First Amendment is the foundational Right upon which all our other rights are based, and therefore, preaching against the First Amendment is Sedition.
2) preaching the stoning of gays is a hate crime
3) preaching the subjugation of women, wherein women are deemed to be the property of men, is advocating Slavery
4) preaching Jihad against the Infidel is Sedition
5) preaching the use of Zakat as a part of the fundamental economic system of the United States is a violation of the First Amendment, separation of Church and State - so, once again, preaching in support of Zakat is Sedition.
6) Preaching a Dhimmi Tax is advocating racketeering.
If we were to, as a nation, acknowledge all these violations of law and enforce the laws together, we could close any Mosque in the United States which preached any of these fundamental tenets of Islam.
Acknowledging the reality of how these tenets function together would mean we could shut every mosque in the United States which is financially or ideologically related to any other mosque which also preaches these tenets. RICO allows for us to do that.
If we took our laws seriously, we would not have to add a Constitutional Amendment to do away with Islam.
Islam has not invented new evil. It has, however, institutionalized evil and given evil the "legitimacy" afforded to a major religion.
Islam advocates murder, it advocates slavery, and it advocates sedition.
Imagine if another powerful institution in the United States did these things.
Imagine for instance, that Fox News decided to start advocating the stoning to death of Muslims.
Imagine that Fox News systematically endorsed the enforced second-class citizenship of Muslims (in the manner of what Muslims do to women).
Imagine if Fox News said that non-Muslims owned Muslims, and Muslims could only marry, go to school, leave the house, drive, if permitted to do so by a non-Muslim.
Imagine if Fox News Chief Rupert Murdoch advocated that Muslims should not be allowed to show their faces in public, and directed all his news outlets to teach that a Muslim's voice was only worth half that of a non-Muslim in any legal manner.
Imagine if Fox News systematically, as a matter of Corporate Policy, advocated the Jihad-type murder of Muslims who refused to convert to Christianity or be subjugated as Dhimmis.
Would the United States Government not rightly intervene if a powerful institution were to advocate such ideas as a matter of top-down policy? Would not such an Institution, be it Academic, Media Outlet, Religion, or Governmental Entity, be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?
So it ought to be with Islam. Advocating murder, slavery, and war against ones fellow countrymen as a matter of policy ought to be quite enough to prove that Islam is in violation of the laws of the United States. We do not need to come up with new laws to cover old crimes. And, we should never succumb to the lie that a religion ought to be afforded any leniency in advocating crime, simply because it is a religion.
- Just For The Record, I Believe Gates Of Vienna, Fjordman, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, And Even That Fruitcake Charles Johnson Are Blameless In The Charge That Their "anti-islam" Writings Were The Cause Of Breivik's Choice To Murder People
So, fuck anyone who would make such a dumb, fucking assertion. The same people will not blame Islam for coming right out and calling for the stoning to death of Apostates, Gays, and Adulterers. The same people would not blame Islam for the enslavement...
- Has The Time Come To Ban Islam In America?
2012 US presidential candidate Herman Cain made quite a splash over this past weekend, when he asserted that a community in Tennessee, and by extension, any community in the US, has the right to ban mosques. From "Herman Cain Says U.S. Communities...
- Ammendment 28
(I decided to repost this article because I think this is a start, a beginning of something that the West might need to adopt to fight the enemy that is Islam, not radical Muslims, ISLAM! This ammendment that follows was not written by either me or the...
- After One Attack Too Many - Proposed Constitutional Admendment
I like this idea. If you like it, put it on your blog and pass it around. This is the future, if you ask me. From Redneck Texan: Proposed Constitutional Amendment Background and justification Whereas Religion is defined as an institution dedicated to...
- Islam Is A Political Organization - It Needs To Be Classified As Such
Frank Hilliard is the man! He is the blogger at Mesopotamia West. I had never heard of his blog until today, when he came and commented here. His comment is highly worthwhile: One way to deal with Islam that hasn't been fully discussed is to reclassify...