An Explanation of Islam and Why It Cannot Work In America

H/T to a Brother Marine for the heads-up

There are those who say that Islam is a “religion of peace.”  Of those, some are liars and the rest are delusional.  Islam is what it is, but the one thing it can never be is a respected participant in any civilized society.  Events of early September in which radical Islamists either attacked or laid siege to U.S. embassies across the Muslim world, should be proof enough of the violent nature of Islamists.  In Benghazi, Libya, the U.S. Ambassador and three others were brutally murdered in an al-Qaeda attack.  It is reported that Ambassador Stevens was brutally sodomized before he was murdered and his body put on display in the streets of Benghazi. 

The nature of Islam is such that, in the absence of a complete and total renunciation of the Quran and Sharia Law, it is impossible for any Muslim believer to participate in western society.  Under the Islamic concept called Taqiyya, a Muslim is permitted to deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts, so long as that dishonesty inures to the benefit of Islam. 

It is what allows devout Muslims to take the naturalization oath that all new U.S. citizens must take.  They swear as follows:  "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

 When devout Muslims take that oath are they being sincere?  No, they are willfully lying.  It is the concept of Taqiyya… the right to lie… that Muslim’s rely on when they take the oath to become citizens of the United States.

 In the mistaken belief that their 7^th century culture is superior in every way to western cultures of the 21^st century, Islam has not attempted to hide or sugar-coat their ultimate goal, which is to replace civil society in every western nation with an Islamic society based on Sharia Law and the Quran.  Accordingly, Islam offers those of us in western cultures a rather simple choice: either convert to Islam or die. 

 But what if we in the Christian world refuse to convert, and what if we prefer to live rather than die?  What is our alternative?  Given the choice between converting to Islam or going to our final reward, our only reasonable alternative is to begin now to quarantine Muslims to those regions  of the world where they can share their misery with none but other Muslims.  If co-existence between Islam and the other major religions is not an option, then Islam must yield.  Islam must go the way of communism and fascism, and that must be done in a timely manner before they are allowed to achieve majority status in any Western nation.  Time is short. 

The 1^st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  Conversely, the Quran teaches that Islam is the only true religion and that all other religions and all the peoples of the world must yield to it and submit to it.  To suggest that those of the Christian or Jewish faith can somehow reach an accommodation or a compromise with Islam, or to co-exist peaceably with it, is to state an absurdity.

The Declaration of Independence, perhaps the most beautiful collection of words ever penned by the hand of man, proclaims that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Muslims may interpret those words to mean that all men are created equal, but we Americans interpret them differently.  We understand those words of equality to include all human beings, regardless of gender.  In the Muslim world, the Quran teaches the inferiority of women and specifically approves and recommends the practice of wife-beating.  Girls and women are treated no better than farm animals and in some cases, when the male members of a family feel as if the family honor has been damaged by a female family member… even in cases where she may have been forcibly raped… that woman may be put to death in what Muslims call an “honor killing.”         

Islam is so repulsive to civilized societies and such a great danger to the lives and property of all non-Muslims, that an organization called Stop the Islamization of Nations (SION) has begun the process of developing a detailed plan to bring a halt to the Islamization of the Christian world. 

But who would know Islam better than those who’ve had the courage to leave the faith?  An organization called FaithFreedom.org is, in their own words, “a grassroots movement of ex-Muslims” whose goal it is to tell the truth about Islam and to promote the adoption of a   constitutional amendment outlawing Islam in the United States. 

The organization’s website states that, “Muhammad’s merry band of disciples raided villages, looted and raped the women, and enslaved all who were not killed outright… No other cause is responsible for more deaths than Islam… Islam can’t be reformed, but it can be eradicated.  It can’t be molded, but it can be smashed… ” 

 In a November 24, 2010 article published by FaithFreedom.org, Dr. Jai Maharaj outlines the scope of a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  As justification for the constitutional amendment, he writes:

“Islam is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.  It is necessary to outlaw the practice of Islam in the United States of America because the teachings of this religion are antithetical to many vital provisions of the U.S. Constitution and represent an existential threat to the security of American citizens.  Furthermore, Shariah law, which is intrinsic to all orthodox forms of Islam, which is based directly on the Qur'an, seeks, as a stated goal of the religion, to replace civil law with a system based on inhumane values on the presumption that these values are superior to anything in the Constitution or in the religions of the world, including the religious faiths of the vast majority of Americans.” 

Dr. Maharaj reminds us that “The United States was founded on ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one's religion of choice, or no religion, and that compulsion to practice any religion is not tolerable… Islam, in contrast, rejects each of these principles and is therefore incompatible, on a fundamental level, with American citizenship.”

He writes, “Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion and that Islam will dominate the world and impose its will on all other religions and upon democratic institutions.  This view is completely unacceptable to Americans and is anti-Constitutional.” 

He reminds us that “Saudi Arabia, the spiritual home of Islam, does not permit the practice of any other religion on its soil, and this being the case, it would be unjustifiable to regard Islam as in any way compatible with the many religions which exist in the United States.  To suppose that the character of Islam is such that it can peacefully co-exist with followers of other faiths is, to be candid, an absurd proposition. 

“Islam includes as its basic tenet the spread of its faith by any and all means necessary, including violent conquest of non-believers, and demands of its followers that they implement violent jihad (holy war) against those un-willing to convert or submit to Islam, including by deception and subversion of existing institutions, none of which is remotely compatible with the (United States) Constitution.  Additionally, representatives of Islam around the world… have declared jihad on America and regularly declare that America should cease to exist, and this being the case, any other course than outlawing Islam within the (United States) would be folly.”

In making the case that 1^st Amendment protections of the U.S. Constitution would in no way be incompatible with an anti-Islam amendment, Dr. Maharaj argues that Islam is a sworn enemy to everything that America stands for.  He writes, “Because Islam is subversive by its very nature, and antagonistic to followers of all other religions, actively seeking to harm people of other faiths, and actively seeking to replace the U.S. Constitution with an alien legal system that is abhorrent to Americans, Muslims have no claim to First Amendment freedoms or protections.”

So how do we respond to those on the political left who are certain to wave the Constitution under our noses, defending the right of radical Islamists to subjugate all non-Muslims, including the people of the United States?

The 1^st Amendment contains no language prohibiting the people of the United States from taking whatever steps are necessary to defend themselves from invasion and subjugation by purveyors of an alien political, economic, and religious culture.  Nowhere does it compel the American people to drink the poison-laced Islamic Kool-Ade, and nothing in the Constitution compels us to commit national suicide.  It’s us or them.  Either Islam must be tamed or it must be outlawed, just as communism was in times past.  

For Dems, Home Is Where the Heartburn Is

Don't forget the wannabe socialists will also change the names from time to time. They are now calling it health insurance reform.

The same way they went from "global warming" to "climate change" when the data didn't fit the message.

I seem to remember reading about these methods of mis-direction somehwere in my distant past. I seem to recall that the Soviets were notorious for these tactics.

From Family Research Council

The same members who wrote the book on political antagonism under President Bush are lashing out at voters for being outspoken on health care. In a stunning column in USA Today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) seethed about the "ugly campaign" to derail the government takeover of health care. While everyday people are turning out by the thousands to voice concerns, the message from the top was simple: Anyone who disagrees with us is "simply un-American."

Obviously, these leaders have been so insulated from public opinion that any kind of focused resistance is uncomfortable. After getting their way for years, Congress seems shocked that voters are paying attention-so much so that any form of accountability or pointed questioning has them unnerved. Democrats who are used to seeing a few dozen constituents at their townhalls are facing boisterous, standing-room-only crowds--and their best retort is that dissent is "un-American"? Our nation was founded by dissenters! Deep down, these leaders know that this conflict is not a threat to society but only to their political fortunes.

In my home state of Louisiana, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) put it best this weekend. "Someone told me I should have security for this meeting today because of the angry crowds... I told them the best security is to vote right!" Pelosi and Hoyer would do well to heed that advice. Like us, they realize that this debate is about more than health care reform. It's about President Obama's ability to push a radical social agenda. With every packed townhall, every phone call to a member's office, and every email expressing concern, these leaders' dream of redefining America is slipping away. Whether people realize it or not, this is an historic moment in our nation's development. If we can drive back the government takeover of health care, we could turn the tide for our country's future.

Decades ago, a mathematician named Jacob Bronowski wrote, "Has there ever been a society which has died of dissent? Several have died of conformity in our lifetime." Don't conform! Join the movement to "question authority" in Washington. Check out our nationwide townhall schedule at www.frcaction.org. A few hours of your time could literally save the nation. If you don't see your district or state mentioned, I encourage you to call your members of congress and ask them to meet with those whom they represent. Let us know what you find out.

File This In the "DUH" Cabinet

Arlen Specter says he left the Republican Party because they were moving to far right and moderate (i.e. RINO) Republicans were being targeted for replacement.

Alright, who told? We were trying to keep this a secret.

Whoda thunk it? Grassroots conservative activists working to get rid of vermicelli-spined, go-along-to-get-along, no-values politicains and working to elect citizens who hold traditional conservative beliefs and will suport and promote the restoration of the Founder's vision and values.

Specter, mastermind of the "Single Bullet Theory" during the Warren Commission hearings, quit the Republican Party because he's a scum sucking low-life dhimmicrat and he sucks at keeping his word, which puts him squarely in the middle of the dhimmicrat party. He's a lawyer-politician and the conservative movement is better off without him.

Links to Stuff I Posted

No Taxes For Oil

Click this link and help us show these Warriors what a homecoming is supposed to feel like.

HR 6023 We need sponsors for this bill.

SEC. 3. INTERFERENCE WITH MILITARY RECRUITING.
(a) Offense- Chapter 67 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 1389. Interfering with military recruiting
`(a) Whoever--
`(1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been providing Federal or State military recruiting services;
`(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise their right to inquire about or volunteer for service in the active or reserve armed services of the United States or the National Guard of any State; or
`(3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility houses or hosts military recruiting services;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
`(b) The punishment for an offense under this section is--
`(1) in the case of a first offense, a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both; and
`(2) in the case of a second or subsequent offense after a prior conviction under this section, a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both.
`(c) In this section--
`(1) the term `facility' includes the building or structure in which recruiting is conducted;
`(2) the term `interfere with' means to restrict any person's ability or freedom to easily enter or leave a recruiting office;
`(3) the term `intimidate' means to place a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to that person or to another;
`(4) the term `physical obstruction' means rendering impassable entrance into or exiting from a facility that provides military recruiting services, or rendering passage to or from such a facility unreasonably difficult or hazardous;
`(5) the term `military recruiting services' means the provision by representatives of the Government or of the armed services, to individuals who might wish to serve in the armed services, of information about military service, assistance in selecting a branch of military service, enlistment information, or any other necessary assistance needed to join the armed services of the United States; and
`(6) the term `State' means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 67 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1389. Interfering with military recruiting.'.
(c) Direction to Sentencing Commission- The United States Sentencing Commission, in establishing or amending sentencing guidelines with respect to offenses under the section added to title 18 by this Act, shall consider the threat posed to national security and the national defense by these offenses an aggravating factor so that the base levels for punishment for these offenses is greater than those for otherwise similar offenses.

What WE Want

From Col Riley to John MCain:

We WANT an absolute, unequivocal, commitment that we WILL DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, AND PAY LESS! The stupidity of sitting on trillions of cubic feet of our own natural gas and billions of barrels of our own oil while begging Arabs for more is beyond insanity! We want refineries, clean safe nuclear power, and STOP BURNING OUR FOOD FOR FUEL!

We WANT an absolute, unequivocal, commitment that the borders WILL be closed and NO illegals will get ANY amnesty or special consideration ahead of those waiting to enter legally!

We WANT an absolute, unequivocal, commitment that employers of illegals will be prosecuted. The illegals will go home on their own… and real wages for real Americans will rise!

We WANT an absolute, unequivocal, commitment that federal funding will be withdrawn from "sanctuary cities"…. immediately! I obey the federal laws… so should city officials… or defund and prosecute them.

We WANT an absolute, unequivocal, commitment that ONLY strict constructionist federal and Supreme Court judges will be nominated, AND that they will be supported, in hearings! Abiding by our Constitution has worked to get us here... it will work for our future!

We WANT an absolute, unequivocal, commitment that NO new taxes bills will be signed!

We WANT an absolute, unequivocal, commitment that there will be NO carbon tax schemes and NO so called "global warming" or "climate change" agreements catering to the fear mongers claiming "man-made" climate change. The world climate has ALWAYS changed and puny mankind cannot control it! The facts, evidence, and tens of thousands of scientists, say it is a pure hoax, a lie, and a grab for money and power and it MUST be stopped before it destroys our economy!

We WANT an absolute, unequivocal, commitment that ALL earmarks will be vetoed!

We WANT an absolute, unequivocal, commitment that Social Security will be reformed and made solvent to end the illegal Ponzi scheme that will devastate the retirement of so many!

When John McCain, and the RNC, make these strong commitments, we will again support Republicans with OUR money and our vote!

But, NOT UNTIL THEN... IT IS TOO IMPORTANT!!!
DO YOU HEAR US…. OR ARE YOU NOW DEAF TO REAL AMERICAN VALUES?

Tell Congress to FUND THE TROOPS!!!!!

via Family Research Council

The home-grown commitment to our military that guaranteed success on D-Day has taken a backseat to partisan differences that threaten to endanger our troops oversees. The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are still awaiting help that has not yet come in the form of the War Supplemental bill.
Torn over a non-germane provision, the House is set to debate the Senate's version of the bill, which gives groups like Planned Parenthood a discount on contraceptives, the morning-after pill, and possibly RU-486 (the chemical abortion drug).
We need your help to convince House members that H.R. 2642 was meant to arm our soldiers--not Planned Parenthood. Please take a minute to contact your representatives and urge them to fund the war for freedom, not the war against the unborn.

The dhimmi leaders in Congress insist we've lost in Iraq and ignore Afghanistan. Their inaction on the War Supplemental Bill guarantees they will be proven right and the extreme left wing whackos pulling their strings will have won another battle for the forces of evil. Loading a defense bill with unneccessary funding that has nothing at all to do with fighting terrorism and the evil behind it insures a Presidential veto and allows them to appear to be the good guys.
Do not let them pull this crap on our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines fighting the War on Terror.
Iraq is won. WE WON!!!!!!!!!

The Clinton-Obama Debate

from a very smart man, Paul Hollrah:

Before the Clinton-Obama California debate went on the air last week I jotted down five names and phrases on a ruled pad. I wrote: Usama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic jihad, and Muslim extremists... intending to count how many times those names and phrases were used during the two hour debate. The Democrat candidates and their CNN questioners did not disappoint me. Not a single one of those names and phrases were used, either by questioners or by candidates, in the entire two hours. Is it possible that, during World War II, Clement Atlee or FDR could have gotten away with failing to mention Adolph Hitler or Emperor Hirohito during the course of a two hour debate?

Not likely.

I suppose this is just one more indicator of how far the Democratic Party has fallen.

Wearing Blinders

by Paul R. Hollrah

The Clinton-Obama debate from California promised to produce a lot of interesting “fireworks,” but it didn’t. With Wolf Blitzer moderating, it turned out to be just another CNN “softball game,” proving nothing more than that CNN actually does stand for “Clinton News Network.”

As usual, what the CNN questioners didn’t ask, and what Clinton and Obama didn’t say, was far more important than what they said. For those who are new to the political trenches and who are just beginning to understand liberals and Democrats, this is the most important thing to know about them. Liberals and Democrats will jump through hoops, turn themselves inside out, trying NOT to address the really important issues or actually tell the truth about anything if the truth will not help their cause.

For example, just minutes before the California debate, I jotted down five names and phrases with the intention of counting the number of times those names and phrases were used during the two hour debate. I wrote down: 1) Usama bin Laden, 2) al-Qaeda, 3) Islamic fundamentalism, 4) Islamic jihad, and 5) Muslim extremists.

Inasmuch as Islamic fundamentalists are sworn to either convert or slaughter every non-Muslim man, woman, and child on Earth, and since it is left to the United States to play the major role in preventing the total destruction of western civilization, one would think that Islamic jihad and the War on Terror would merit at least a mention in a debate between the leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination… but it didn’t. There was not a single mention of any of those five topics.

Instead of addressing the most deadly enemy ever faced by the civilized world, Clinton and Obama chose to ignore the threat and, instead, tossed bone after bone to the surrender monkeys of the radical left who now own their party. Ironically, less than twelve hours after Clinton and Obama walked off the stage at the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles, two mentally retarded Muslim women walked into the Ghazil animal bazaar and the New Baghdad bird market in eastern Baghdad. And when they had reached the most crowded section of the markets their radical Islamic handlers pressed the buttons on their remote devices and exploded the bombs strapped to the women’s bodies.

Ninety-nine innocent people… men, women, and children… were killed, and more than 115 were injured. A great many of those killed at the bird market were children who like to gather around the pigeon stalls to watch the birds.

These are the brothers of the suicide bombers who hijacked airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, killing 3,000 innocent people. These are the people that Democrats try very hard to ignore because they simply do not have the will or the courage to confront them. It is as if they were wearing blinders, their eyes focused on everything but the ugly realities of our day and time.

Instead, they compete to see who can be first to surrender to the Islamic fascists… to see who can be the fastest in getting American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan where they are working very hard at ridding the world of religious fanatics… the kind of religious fanatics who would strap bombs to the bellies of mentally retarded women and send them to blow up crowds of children whose greatest crime is that they appreciate the beauty of birds.

These are the people that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and their friends in the radical anti-war movement prefer to coddle. These are the people that Barack Obama thinks he can “sweet talk” into behaving themselves. As the New York Post said in a January 31 editorial endorsing Obama over Clinton, “For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning. And on national security, his worldview is beyond naïve – blithely unaware that America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation.

“Meanwhile, Obama’s all-things-to-all-people approach to complex domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. ‘Change!’ for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make.”

(Remember, these are the things the Post said about the man they endorsed. We don’t have the space here to repeat what they said about Hillary Clinton, the candidate they oppose.)

Yes, it is the radical leftists of the Daily Kos, Moveon.org, and Code Pink, who tell Democrats what to think and say, who will decide who gets to represent their party and who does not. But they represent only a small percentage of the voting population. And when the American people finally focus their attention on either Clinton or Obama in the fall election, and they are finally confronted with the stark reality that one of these two people could actually be charged with the responsibility for protecting all of us, they will finally take off their blinders and make the right decision.