Muslims Mass-Murdering Non-Muslims is Not News

Sunday

Sri Lanka Easter Bombing, 2019
When non-Muslims kill Muslims for being Muslim, it is news around the world, and talked about for weeks. But Muslims slaughtering non-Muslims? That's just business as usual. It's like saying, "207 million pounds of air pollution went into the air today, as it does every day." It's not news. Not many people talk about it. Ho hum.

I know that it's also true that non-Muslims feel weird talking about Muslims murdering people for being non-Muslims. It feels discriminatory to talk about it. Racist, even. And some are, of course, concerned about what others will think of them.

And I know many people — politicians, journalists, etc. — are hesitant to speak openly or honestly about the incessant murder of non-Muslims because it's ugly, controversial, job-threatening, and unfashionable. But I think it's worth pointing out that it's also nothing out of the ordinary. Muslims murdering non-Muslims goes on all the time, and has been happening for fourteen centuries.

I am hoping that you still find opportunities where you can to educate your fellow non-Muslims about Islam. And I thought this idea might be something you can work into your conversations where appropriate: So much to-do is made when Muslims are murdered simply because they're Muslims because it is rare. And people hardly mention it when non-Muslims are murdered by Muslims for being non-Muslims, partly because it happens all the time.

Read more...

What's the Difference Between a Habit and a Headscarf?

Saturday

Why are some people vehemently against a Muslim headscarf but have no objection to a nun's habit? What's the difference?

The main difference is the ideology represented by the clothing. Islam's ideology is 51 percent political and only 49 percent religious. That is, 51 percent of the Koran is about what Muslims should do with non-Muslims.

A Muslim is obligated to strive to establish the law of Allah in all nations, imposing it against the will of non-Muslims if necessary. Islamic law is very detailed and specific, and includes the death penalty for apostates and gays, women are legally only worth a half a man, etc. The Muslim headscarf is one of the few visible signs of a commitment to the fundamental principles of Islam. That's why people are bothered by it.

But aren't Christians obliged to "establish the rule of Christ in all nations?" Isn't a nun's habit a visible sign of commitment to the fundamental principles of Christianity?

That's seems like a legitimate counter-argument, but are there "Christian countries?" That is, a country where the "laws of Christianity" are imposed on everyone in that country?

So far, there are 58 Muslim countries, and orthodox Muslims are dedicated to expanding that. These countries have joined together to form the largest global organization outside the UN, and they form the largest voting bloc in the UN. They have been pushing to legally impose Islamic blasphemy laws on the entire world, which means legally nobody would be able to have this conversation, even in "free nations." It would be illegal to criticize Islamic doctrine. It is already illegal in many countries.

Islam is having a huge and growing influence on world affairs. Everyone should learn more about this ideology. It isn't like other religions. The closest religion to it is Scientology, and it's not even close.

The assumptions people make about Islam are mostly wrong. But those assumptions are guiding our legal policies, and that is dangerous.

But wait a minute. Doesn't all this only apply to the most extreme and fundamentalist followers of Islam? Wouldn't the views of extreme and fundamentalist Christians be just as disturbing? It isn't fair to paint all Muslims with this same brush, is it? We could say all Scientologists are bad people, but that isn't the case either.

First of all, we're not talking about Muslims. We're talking about Islam, which is a set of written documents. It is a written ideology. When we say "orthodox Muslim," we mean someone who follows the principles written in Islamic doctrine. Yes, of course, there are many Muslims who do not follow the doctrine, just as there are Christians who don't follow the written doctrine in the Bible.

But what this argument obscures is that the orthodox Muslims are not misguided. They are doing what it says they must do in their written holy book. It says in the Koran 91 times that a Muslim should follow the example of Muhammad in every aspect. And Muhammad (according to biographies of Muhammad written by Muslims for Muslims) raided caravans, led battles, tortured people, ordered assassinations, and personally oversaw the beheading of 800 Jews. He captured and held slaves. He raped women. He started having sex with his favorite wife when she was nine years old. This is not slanderous rumor aimed to discredit Muhammad. This is taught with a straight face in Islamic universities, without any hint of embarrassment. This was the messenger of Allah and he could do no wrong.

A fundamentalist is one who follows the teachings closely. So the actual teachings make a big difference. And all we're saying is that the teachings of Islam are dangerous to non-Muslims. In Islamic doctrine, Muslims are the best of people and non-Muslims are the worst of creatures. This is not a conspiracy theory. This stuff is very easy to find out. You don't have to trust anyone's opinion. Just read the Koran. The Muslims who are true believers (orthodox) are counting on people not wanting to know.

In a conversation about this the other day, someone brought up a good example: the Amish. They have special dress and customs but they don't seek to impose it on anyone else. That's the difference. And it's a big difference.

Look up the Holy Land Foundation trial. The FBI raided the house of a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in America and found a document laying out their plan for our country. So far they have 73 legal organizations in America bent on replacing our laws with Islamic law. One organization has been altering the way Islam is portrayed in school textbooks. One organization puts pressure on Hollywood to make sure Islam is portrayed positively in movies. One organization sues people who try to educate others about what Islam is, or gets them fired from their jobs.

Scientologists aren't bad people, by the way. Most people who read the statements above would think I was slandering Scientologists. But I was talking about Scientology, the ideology. Specifically, I was referring to the "fair game" policy of Scientology. Again, it is a written document, and followed by the true believers. It says that if someone leaves Scientology (becomes an apostate), they are fair game. They can be tricked, lied to, sued, harassed.

But that's not as bad as Islamic doctrine. Islam says the penalty for apostasy is death.

Think about something for a minute. If someone says they're a member of a group that has a written ideology, would you assume they believe in at least some of the tenets of that ideology? Of course. Otherwise, why claim your membership? It's not always the case, of course. Oskar Schindler was a member of the Nazi party, after all.

But if you could choose who would be your next door neighbor or who would date your daughter, would you voluntarily choose someone who claims membership in a dangerous ideology? They might not be "true believers." But on the other hand, many Muslims who were perfectly nice people and not true believers were reached by the more orthodox who educated them on their obligations as a Muslim. They said, "You say you're a Muslim, but have you read the Koran? Do you know what you should be doing?" And they are "radicalized" which is a politically correct way of saying they began following the written doctrine and the example of the founder of Islam.

By the way, I'm not a Christian. I'm not any religion. And I'm not out to slander any particular religion. All I did was read Islamic doctrine and biographies of Muhammad. I wasn't trying to find out that Islam is evil. I just wanted to know what was really true because we've got some people saying it's a religion of peace and some people saying it's a religion of violence. I wanted to know for myself rather than listen to the opinions of others.

I went on a decade-long program of reading, including lots of pro-Islam books and the Koran, which I read twice from beginning to end. It's a fascinating subject to study. Especially the life story of Muhammad. It is completely mind blowing that someone like that founded a religion. And that the religion (the doctrine, not the people) reflects his personality. I would never have believed it, and over time, it has become obvious to me that many people don't believe it and don't want to believe it. But if they want to be well-rounded, if they want to be an educated member of the modern world, it seems to me that one of the things they should really know about is Islam as it is, and not how they wish it was or how others want them to think about it. They should find out for themselves.

Back to the headscarf. The reason people don't like it is that the headscarf says, "I believe in the tenets of Islam" and any non-Muslim who knows what those tenets are will not like them. Also, researchers have discovered that when the women in an area with a high Muslim population begin wearing headscarves, it is a signal that the Muslims in the area are becoming more devout (more "extreme," more fundamentalist). It is a visible sign of increasing devotion to the fundamental principles of Islamic doctrine, which includes an intolerance for non-Muslims and non-Islamic laws, and usually foreshadows violence to non-Muslims and those Muslims who are "insufficiently Islamic." That's why people make such a big deal about Islamic head and face coverings. That's why France and other countries have banned them and many are considering it. 

I personally think it's foolish. If you have a visible sign of growing fundamentalism, why would you ban it? To blind yourself? On the other hand, maybe it would help weaken the fundamentalism. And it would certainly help women be free of the obligation to do it in those countries.

What about the nun's habit? The answer is that being a nun is voluntary. But if a woman is born a Muslim, she is considered a Muslim and the penalty for her leaving Islam is death.

Catholic men are not likely to beat nuns if they don't wear their habits, but orthodox Muslims have been known to beat Muslim and non-Muslim women who don't cover up, and I have yet to read a report of a Catholic man throwing acid into the face of a woman because she was not wearing her habit. Orthodox Muslim men have been doing that to Muslim women in many places in the world.

People who are relatively ignorant of Islam are puzzled by the push toward banning headscarves, and would like to write it off as just ignorant bigotry. But if they looked a little deeper, they might find sensible reasons for it.

Read more...

Think Small Bits and Long Campaigns

Monday

The most important thing a citizen warrior like you can do to help defeat orthodox Islam is to educate and persuade everyone in your circle of influence. Educating and persuading is sometimes delicate business, and the people you talk to may have pre-existing reasons to reject your point of view before you even finish your first sentence. Because of this, it helps if you think in terms of small tidbits of information. A little at a time. And over a long time.

Opinions are usually changed slowly. Over many months, a person can completely change their opinion about something. But an opinion is almost never changed in an argument. In fact, one of the best ways to make someone a passionate believer in what they already believe is to make a really good argument against their opinion, mercilessly attacking it with facts.

But a few interesting facts here and there, casually delivered, interestingly presented, can alter a person's opinion over time without them ever thinking they've been influenced. As far as they are concerned, they changed their own opinion, and that's the best result you can have.

This makes your task much easier than trying to argue with people, or getting into heated debates. All you have to concern yourself with is what interesting fact you can share today.

You get into brief conversations with people all the time. Often they ask you, "What's new?" These are perfect opportunities to mention an interesting tidbit. "I was just reading a book last night by this lady who disguised herself as a Muslim and filmed secret terrorist meetings right here in America. You know what she found?"

Something like that makes a person curious. She or he will want to know more. Or, if not, no big deal. You've planted a little seed.

I've often started great conversations with people by saying something like, "I was reading a book on Muhammad yesterday and I'm totally surprised about something. Muhammad is not like any religious founder I've ever heard of. Did you know he once ordered a Jewish rabbi to be tortured for information about where the rabbi hid some jewels? Or that he personally ordered the beheading of 600 captives? It's amazing! Can you imagine Buddha or Jesus doing something like that?"

It's a tidbit. It often gets a good conversation going. And even if not, you've added a small bit of information that can change an opinion over time, or make someone more open to information in the future — information s/he might have deliberately refused to accept before.

Think in terms of what is interesting. What is surprising? Find good stories that will be interesting for people to hear.

While you're reading or listening to audiobooks or watching DVDs, look for juicy tidbits you can share. Even write them down. Think small. Find something you can say in a couple sentences. Ideally your conversations would be driven by the other person's curiosity. Say something very short and interesting, and let them ask you more about it.

If you have conversations like this with people, over time, some of them will come to think differently about Jihad and about concessions to Islam. You've just added a new voter who is no longer fooled by religious deception (taqiyya).

As you do this, when you find a good, juicy tidbit people really respond to, come back here and add it to the comments on this page. Let's get a good collection we can all use. What tidbits work the best for you?

Read more...

Once Non-Muslims Have Awakened, Then What?

Thursday

AWHILE BACK, in an article entitled, What Would Happen?, I challenged you to think past our biggest barrier to a time when the majority of people in free nations understood the disturbing nature of Islamic doctrine. Once that happens, then what? What would we do? What laws would be passed? How would our national policies change?

The idea was to clarify where we're going, because this could lay the groundwork for how we are proceeding at the moment. What are we aiming at? What needs to be changed once the political will exists to do it?

One of the best answers was the very first one, by Damien. He wrote:

For one thing, it would be much harder for the stealth jihad to operate. In fact it would be almost impossible, and that's why Jihadists don't want non-Muslims to know about these things, (at least the smarter ones anyway).

Also, it would make it almost impossible for Islam to gain new converts, because people in general wouldn't want to be part of a religion that encourages hatred for anyone who doesn't blindly accept it, including their friends and family. It would also make it harder for them believe Muhammad was a good person, or that books like the Koran are the inspired word of God. That alone would make the religion much less appealing to people who were not born into it.

As far as foreign policy, almost no non-Muslim would support endorsing constitutions that recognize sharia law, unless they somehow thought that they could take advantage of an Islamic dictatorship somehow, despite what they knew. But the idea that sharia or Islam is compatible with democratic government would be unthinkable.

The only downside might be that some heterodox Muslims as you call them, (liberal secularized Muslims as I've called them) might be more likely to be wrongfully attacked. Of course, in such a world it might be much harder for them to stay Muslims, if everyone else around them knew the truth about what their religious texts actually teach.

As for exactly what new policies would be enacted, I'm not sure, but the answer would largely depend on how long most of the non-Muslims knew this. If they had known this for well over a hundred years or more, much of what's going on right now wouldn't even be happening, so some of the policies you might think of wouldn't be necessary at all.

If, on the other hand, all other non-Muslims just found out today, it would be a different story.

Another frequent commenter, Ben, wrote: At best, we can hope for immigration bans, stepped up surveillance and constitutional action to prevent imposition of Shari'ah.

Kingsley Beattie emailed this comment: It could result in termination of all unnecessary contacts with Muslims, and Islamic nations and societies. Islamic schools and mosques could be made illegal and closed. Diplomatic and commercial exchanges could be restricted to neutral territory. Muslims living in Dar al Harb could be "encouraged" to migrate to Dar al Islam. In other words the kaffir would strive to establish reciprocity with the Islamic heartland, Saudi Arabia.

Someone emailed this comment: What would happen? Islam would lose its status as a religion. I have always felt that if a movie showing the true life of Muhammad were to be made and shown around the world, that would mean the end of Islam as a religion.

Someone emailed this: What if everyone knew that political action to establish Sharia law is a religious duty for all able-bodied Muslims? Then there would be a national Sharia ban in place. Unlike Jewish or Ecclesiastical law, Sharia seeks to undermine and overthrow secular state law.

As such, all its supporters should be treated as enemies, stripped of citizenship, and deported to Saudi Arabia.

The same person also said: What do I think would happen? We would have a strong sense of community identification as non-Muslims.

Then I asked the same question in a different way: Right now it seems clear that very little can be done politically without more people knowing more about Islam, or at least making fewer mistaken assumptions about Islam. It will probably never happen that "everybody" knows about Islam, and it isn't even necessary.

But the question is, "Then what?"

Then what will we do? What do you envision as our next steps? If someone became president who had a great deal of popular support and who knew all about Islam's prime directive, what do you think she or he would do?

Damien stepped in again with this: If someone who knew all about Islam's prime directive become president, what would he or she do? I can't tell you exactly what he or she would do because I'm not that person, but if I were, I can tell you what I would do.

I would try to enact laws that would at the very least put severe restrictions on immigration from Islamic countries to America, at least until those societies voluntarily abandon Jihad and Sharia, and I would encourage other western leaders to do the same. Plus I would argue that Turkey should not be allowed into the EU.

In addition to that I would try to convince congress to actually enforce our current immigration laws and tighten border security so it would be harder for terrorists to sneak in. I would get either the National Security Agency or some other secret government organization to monitor mosques in this country.

Technically Islam is a religion, so I don't see how we could realistically say it was not, but we don't have to deny that Islam is a religion to do what needs to be done. Unlike what a lot of people think, religions are not inherently benign. Many of the religions in South America prior to Columbus practiced ritualized murder to appease their gods, for example.

Remember that the constitution is not a suicide pact. Besides, your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins. I don't think the Founding Fathers intended freedom of religion to include violating other people's rights based on your religion. They also would have found the idea that people have a right to try to use their religion to commit treason against a legitimate, democratically elected government to be absurd.

In addition, I would encourage schools to adopt non-politically-correct text books that devote at least one chapter to the early and later history of Islam. Ones that were not filled with pro-Islam propaganda and don't leave important things out just because Muslims complain.

I would demand that any group that receives money from Saudi Arabia or any other Islamic state register under the foreign agents act. (At least I think that's what its called.)

Speaking of the Constitution, I would try to get an amendment passed that would forbid judges from considering foreign law, including Sharia, when it came to deciding constitutional matters. I know that we already have the First Amendment that forbids the state from officially recognizing a religion, or enacting purely religious laws, but it would make it harder for U.S judges to justify even considering Sharia, for politically correct reasons. I would also argue that we should pass the anti-foreign law, anti-sharia amendment to reinforce what's already in the First Amendment.

I would do everything in my power, including war if necessary, to eliminate the Jihadist threat, with the ultimate goal of sending them the message that their attempts to destroy us and/or subjugate us are futile.

I can think of more, much more. Citizen Warrior, what would you do if you were president of the United States knowing what you know?

I wrote: I really like your answer, Damien. And my answer would be very similar. If I were president, curbing Muslim immigration would be my first move, too. And making the borders secure.

And I would begin a program that would ongoingly monitor mosques in America. Those found to promote jihad would be shut down. Those imams promoting jihad would be arrested for sedition or deported. I would do the same with Islamic schools in the U.S.

I would instigate a national law similar to what Louisiana and Oklahoma have done that explicitly outlaws Sharia.

I would order the investigation of history textbooks and remove those that have falsely whitewashed Islam's image. And I would call for textbooks that taught an accurate and detailed history of Islam and the Crusades.

I would immediately encourage, in every way possible, to end oil's status as a strategic commodity, and encourage all other countries to do the same.

I would stop all foreign investments in this country for mosques or madrassas. I would allow U.S. security agents to call our enemies by their accurate names. I would stop Muslims from being able to come to America to be educated. I would stop allowing visas for imams to come here from Muslim countries. I would prevent foreign Muslims from donating to colleges here in the U.S.

All Muslim chaplins in prisons and the military would be monitored and any hint of jihad or Sharia would disqualify them. And then I would get a good night's sleep because that first day in office was a long one!

I also asked the question on a Citizen Warrior Facebook post, and got quite a few more responses. One woman wrote: Let women know especially how all the freedoms we take for granted would be ripped away under sharia law. Females become non-persons and property. Any decision that has to be made about a woman will be made by a man. The koran urges every man to take 4 wives. Polygamy is outlawed in the US but our government is turning a blind eye to everything muslim to the point of allowing muslims to break our laws. When in Rome, so muslims who come to the US (and immigration to the US from muslim countries should be outlawed as they do not assimilate into our society and have no intention of living by our rules and laws) have to abide by our way of life. We will NOT accommodate them and their culture.

For the most part, I wasn't getting the kind of answers I was looking for — people seemed focused on the impossiblity of getting people to understand the danger of Islam. So I clarified the question: Let's imagine that somehow it happened. I'm sure at some point it would have seemed impossible for people to stop smoking, and yet our whole culture's orientation to tobacco has changed in my lifetime, from something totally acceptable and commonplace to something that is banned in more and more places and done by fewer and fewer people.

So imagine that a huge change like that happened to a majority of people in the free world. Somehow a majority of people really understood what Islamic doctrine is all about. What kinds of policies would we vote in? What kinds of new laws would we make? What do you think we would do once we all knew about it?

Someone wrote: In my opinion I see Islamic doctrine in the same way I view slavery. The laws wouldn't be able to paint the doctrine with a broad brush, but by taking parts of it and dealing with them individually. What CAIR is trying to do is make this a religious issue and that we also have to accept it because of free speech. Therefore sharia should be allowed because it is a religious belief. That is how we have to attack it. We don't allow sharia because it is against the laws and Constitution of this country, regardless of their religious beliefs.

Someone else wrote: The biggest problem we face is that there are too many of them in this country. Who would pay to deport them all? We would first have to say we do not recognize Islam as a religion. We would take away their tax exempt status. We would use undercover people to monitor what is going on inside mosques and what is being taught there. Any mention of terrorism would be closely watched. Sharia law in ANY form would NOT be tolerated. We would not allow ANY type of worship by them in our schools. No Muslim would be permitted to be employed or do volunteer work in any state, Federal or local governments.

Someone else wrote: I think if everyone knew the truth about Islam they would not bow down to it and would not appease those extremists who throw temper tantrums to get their way. They would not let Islam creep into their judicial systems and social systems the way it is, just like a cancer, starting slowly but over time taking over and destroying. They would put a stop to it eradicate it!

Someone else wrote: It would have a profound affect on the behavior of Muslims. If the West would stand up to Islam and lose the politically correct facade, I think that many would leave Islam. They are held hostage, so to speak, by their fear of being persecuted or harmed for apostasy. If we can convince them that we are not a bunch of pussies and offer protection, they would leave in droves.

Someone else wrote: Immigration reform regarding Islamic countries should be the 1st thing after outlawing political correctness. We should find some way to make allowances for true asylum seekers. They do exist. They need to end the student/clerical visa "exchanges", especially since they do not vet them well & there is no "exchange" of other religious clerics to them, just reception of them to us.

Get the Supreme Court to rule definitively that Sharia Law is totally impermissible in American courts, period. Also, that there are no laws to give Islam protected status either. It should not be exempt from critical examination any more than any belief system should be. There should be no thought-police-type crime laws for Islam either. (I am not a believer in "hate crimes" laws, I believe ALL crimes deserve the same treatment, regardless of who/what the victim is or the motivation of the perpetrator, murder is murder — whether the perp hates me or not, I'm still dead!)

Also, do not allow fawning presentations in history classes for Islam without even mentioning the dark side. I know all about how many of the educators feel about the dark periods of Christianity but, according to some of them, they did NOTHING right & Islamic countries were the perfect, just, tolerant societies. Balance & truth, no need to sugarcoat.

Someone else wrote: We are going to have to outlaw islam as a religion first. This way, they don't get to run and seek protection under our own religious persecution laws. Is anyone aware that this is what they are doing? Using our own laws against us. Islam=nazi's. Same thing.

Someone else wrote: We would demand a loyalty oath as a condition to stay in this country. If they cannot swear allegiance to our Constitution, before anything else, they will be deported. Immigration is going to be what bites us on the ass. The second generation will be the problem.

Someone else wrote: A Palestinian immigrant I know told me she lied when taking the oath to become an American citizen.

If people knew the truth about Islam, they (some wouldn't care one way or the other because they're too apathetic/distracted) would want laws stopping all Muslims from immigrating to the US and demand all construction of mosques be halted.

Also, if the truth were accepted, then Islam might possibly be considered seditious, but since communist doctrine seems to be tolerated under freedom of speech, I won't hold my breath.

Also, every time there's an article in my local rag or on the news regarding terrorism, it tilts in the direction of the 'hijacking' of a peaceful religion and they always have 'professors from coast to coast telling the interviewer jihad really means "inner struggle" and the same tired mantra, "islam is peaceful."

Even if the majority of muslims in the West want to live sharia-free, the dedicated agitators promoting Islam's political advancement are organized and focused. I liken it to the mafia where you have a small number of people willing to be violent to intimidate the majority to maintain control and power.

Martel Sobieskey (an occasional contributor to Citizen Warrior) sent me a section of an interchange he had with someone else, and it was along the lines of our conversation here, I'm including. The other person sent Sobieskey an article. And Sobieskey responded:

This is a very excellent and insightful article exposing the Islamic invasion. My highest respect, appreciation and admiration for your wisdom in this regard. Like a wise physician you have accurately diagnosed the "patients illness" Now we need the cures, the remedies.

What remedies do you prescribe to cure the patient?

The other person responded:

Martel, Thanks for the complement, As for the remedies:

1. First, we must awaken more Americans to the nature of the illness. ACT! for America and its chapters are pushing this forward. I think the Report of Team "B"II - Shariah, the Threat to America may be an effective tool. Hope you've read it. I understand it is going to be distributed to members of Congress, and major movers and players in our government, education, and the judiciary. Tragically, it seems that it has taken major terrorist acts inside the U.S., like the Ft. Hood massacre, to wake Americans up. Maybe we are simply going to need to have more 9/11s as horrible as that may seem.

2. Once we gotten enough voters awakened, then there are many things that can and must be done, such as:

Ending the State Department's Refugee Resettlement Program's ability to bring Muslims here as
refugees from Muslim terror.

No more religious visas for Imams to come and fundamentalize our secular Muslims.

Curtail Muslim immigration.

Seal our borders

Stop educating Muslim students from abroad — especially in sensitive technologies.

End welfare benefits to non-citizens and illegals — particularly Muslims.

No aid-to-dependent Muslim moms. Make them prove they are/were legally married
in registered monogamous marriages.

Excise the political ideologies out of Islam here in the U.S.

Forbid Shariah as Oklahoma recently did.

Stop caving in to Muslim demands for "accommodations" of any type.

Stop allowing U.S. universities/colleges from accept grants or endowments from Muslim countries.

Monitor activities in all U.S. mosques.

End the construction of new mosques in the U.S.

Stop providing Muslim chaplains in our prisons and armed forces.

Stop allowing and funding Muslim Student Associations/groups on our campuses.

Locate and deport Muslims who are not here illegally.

Amend our Constitution, if necessary, to declare Islam a seditious alien ideology, outlawed in
the U.S. and ineligible for First Amendment protection.

End tax-exempt status for Muslim organizations.

Forbid Muslims from holding elective office.

Well, there's a few for starters.

Then Martel Sobieskey wrote this response:

1. I have very little confidence that the majority of Americans will ever awaken as you state in your item #1. My reasoning is based upon the fact that since 9/11 Islam has made enormous progress and America has only done a little ineffective chat. Basically Americans remain paralyzed because it has wrongfully called Islam a religion and this is suicidal.

2. I believe the attack against Sharia is flawed because it implies that there is an Islam independent of Sharia and therefore leaves us stuck in the same split between moderate and militant. Now you will have Islamic deception that good Muslims do not want Sharia but the bad Muslims want Sharia.

3. My opinion is that our efforts should be against Islam in general by telling the truth that Islam in a counterfeit religion as stated in my article Islam's Invasion Ideology and that failing to do so means our gradual demise.

4. What's wrong with telling the truth about Islam that it is a fake and a fraud and not a genuine religion? I guess we could say that a cat is religious because it is so quiet and contemplative as it stalks a mouse.

5. When Islam prays five times a day, it is to kill and destroy all religions and nations worldwide. One should not be fooled by their pious demeanor. There have been several serial killers who had pious and holy demeanors. This is the case with Islam — it puts on the pious facade in order to deceive and kill its prey.

6. Our discussion here is more than theoretical because it can be verified by facts on the ground and the blood in the streets as time goes on. The most obvious strategic fact is the enormous progress Islam has made since 9/11.

7. Here we are talking about Sharia which is an obvious and egregious hate crime against all humanity. The very fact that we are discussing with such trepidation and timidity this far after 9/11 foretells our failure. We have become lost in a malaise of disconnected idealism avoiding the strategic realities.

8. Why don't these anti-Sharia efforts attack Islam head on? It shows that they do not have a strategic understanding of the situation, but remain locked in a discussion of hair-splitting idealism of a college classroom. Islam is defeating us strategically while we have our college classroom discussions about Sharia and court battles about Sharia. All the while Muslim immigrants build their enclaves and practice Sharia on the sly while their invasion ramps up and continues unabated.

........................................

Is there anything you'd like to add? Click here to leave a comment.

Read more...

The Gathering Storm

Monday

We just watched the 2002 movie, The Gathering Storm, starring Albert Finney. It is worth watching. Here was a man (Winston Churchill) who could see what was coming and was trying to warn people, but very few people wanted to hear it. Everybody had been so traumatized by the scale of the horror of the first World War, they didn't want to contemplate anything that made them feel another war was possible. He was harshly criticized, ignored, and accused of being a warmonger.

We felt strangely comforted by the movie. Of course, in the case of World War Two, we already know Churchill was right. Hitler was, in fact, rejecting the Treaty of Versailles and building an army. He did, in fact, have military ambitions for his country. And it was, in fact, foolish for the rest of the global powers to be busy dismantling their military. But during Churchill's "wilderness years" he was almost alone in his alarm about what was happening.

The term "wilderness years" refers to the span between 1929 and 1939 when Churchill was warning people about the danger of Nazism, and the rest of the world was trying to find a way not to believe it. In other words, it was similar to what's happening now: We're trying to get through to others about Islam and our listeners are trying to find any way they can to not believe it.

Check out the movie. And you can read more about this trying time in Winston Churchill's life here: The Wilderness Years.

Read more...

Copyright

All writing on CitizenWarrior.com is copyright © CitizenWarrior.com 2001-2099, all rights reserved.

Article Spotlight

One of the most unusual articles on CitizenWarrior.com is Pleasantville and Islamic Supremacism.

It illustrates the Islamic Supremacist vision by showing the similarity between what happened in the movie, Pleasantville, and what devout fundamentalist Muslims are trying to create in Islamic states like Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (and ultimately everywhere in the world).

Click here to read the article.


Citizen Warrior Heroes

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Citizen Warrior Heroes.

No More Concessions to Islam

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Concessions to Islam.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP