Iran: Zionists spread homosexuality to control world

And don't forget the "Mullah in Chief" himself!!!
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/01/prophetess-of-islam.html

"Seems we need to do some serious updating to the meaning of and requirements for being "natural-born" before it's too late for our children and our children's children."

No need to do that. All we need to do is recognize that a) Islam is a deadly seditious organization which has plotted (sometimes with devastating success) and continues to plot horrific mass-murder and destruction in our society; and b) all Muslims enable this deadly sedition.

After this recognition, we have one of two choices:

1) embark upon a gargantuan project of winnowing out the deadly Muslims (which includes a Muslim who enables in any way any Islamic sedition against us) from the harmless ones (all those Muslims for whom we have (yet) no evidence of any connection to enablement of said sedition), and deporting only the former;

or

2) embark upon a gargantuan project of deporting all Muslims, making it their problem that we cannot tell the difference, with certainty sufficient to our need to protect our society, between their deadly members and their harmless members.

When it comes to preventing an indeterminate number of WMD attacks of various flavors (chemical, biological, radiological, or some other creative way of wreaking mayhem and mass-murder we haven't thought of yet because we aren't spending all our time in between our daily prayers trying to concoct ingenious ways to kill as many of our enemy as we possibly can), the rational person opts for the policy that will tend to save more of our lives, rather than worry about the inconvenience of the population out of whose numbers pullulate those who mean us lethal harm.

Sure, all of the above is unthinkable to our sociopolitical mainstream now. But Muslims will continue to press the issue over the coming years, decades, and will successfully mass murder thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands (perhaps a few million) of us as we continue to dither.

At that point in the not-too-distant future, it will no longer be a matter of if, but only of how; and with a population by then too large and deadly to house in our society, the only reasonable option will be a mass population transfer. It can be done. Neither our laws nor our technology makes it impossible. Only our thoughts and feelings, insofar as they are structured by the PC MC paradigm, continue to inhibit us.

I.e., while your suggestion is good in the short view, it only assumes an inevitable growing presence of Muslims in our midst -- where we should be focusing all our intellectual, emotional and activist energies on the only ultimately reasonable option: total deportation.

in the region? you mean the entire planet. right?
M

For me there is no such thing as a "harmless muslim" just as there is no such thing as a harmless nazi.

No, the Constitution needs to be explicitly clear that NO muslim, "harmless" or otherwise, is eligible to hold any office, even if they are "natural-born."

Muslims. There is even a London-based Shi'ite cleric who said that the Sunni Caliph Umar got an anal disease that made him incline toward homosexuality.

Man, you took my idea an hour before I had it!

When I helped a Chinese woman with her Early Childhood Development course, I was stunned to see the reading matter she was given. An awful lot of attention was paid to bringing the topic of homosexuality into the kindergarten, and the idea of "fluid sexuality" that children should "explore" was promulgated seriously.
Being an immigrant (sigh) she was basically after "marks" and happy to go along with all the crap the university dished out.
(As I do with other immigrants when I help them with their essays, I implore them to say what they REALLY think in their esssays, but they won't.)
So the idea of spreading homosexuality is not far-fetched. Children are being encouraged to think they should act on any sexual feeling and "explore". The damage to vulnerable kids who make mistakes is ignored as PC decrees there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. But I have heard one young man cry when he told me he tried it out and then hated himself. What should I have said to him?
Yes, homosexuality can be spread, even if only temporarily, with the young and impressionable. Not "fluid" in your sexuality? How uncool!

I didn't say we shouldn't prevent Muslims from taking office; but that surely shouldn't be our ultimate goal: our ultimate goal would be not to have any Muslims allowed to inhabit our land in the first place, so we wouldn't have to worry about delegitimizing their ability to run for office or not.

It would be like fixating on preventing rapist/torturers from getting jobs as teachers; instead of concentrating on the ultimate goal of slicing off their genitals, electrocuting them for a few weeks, and throwing them into solitary confinement (if not into death row).

I find it amazing how absolutely in-sync we are on some things. Good to know others of like-mind.

Same here, CGW. One knows fairly well when someone else is "on the same page", and I've come to know you as one of those, and it's good to know one's not virtually alone out there (or even here in this cozy walls of JW, where occasionally denizens pop out with unsettlingly soft pronouncements about Muslims).

It does seem to be less of a certain science to know when someone is not on the same page, however; particularly with a topic as complicated as the problem of Islam. I do try to articulate and make as clearly explicit as possible my sense of the standard by which I can adjudge whether someone is not on the same page. Then I sometimes add to that an argument defending why my "page" is "right" and the other's page is not. (Very) rarely, that other person du jour actually proffers a counter-argument to mine (i.e., first re-states my argument, then offers logic + evidence to counter each of the points of my argument); most often he just settles for a brutish "you're full of sh**" then accuses me of arrogance; etc.).

Speaking of the wrong page, one example I have seen from the same JWer more than once, and just yesterday yet again, on another thread:

"That the majority(?) of the world's Muslims are--thankfully--not fully compliant with the teachings of their "complete way of life" does not negate what it says."

That should be "ostensibly" not fully compliant. And even that formulation fails to account for the innumerable ways in which Muslims who are not currently stabbing or exploding or found plotting to do same or holding up signs calling for Infidels to be beheaded, may well be enabling the more noticeable jihad of their more obvious brothers and sisters. And most of all, what galls is that this is a sweeping claim not only about which no evidence is offerred -- but about which it would be well nigh impossible to verify, given how many hundreds of millions of souls (if you can call them that) spread out in over 70 countries are being so sweepingly described.

"That most Muslims in the U.S. either don't want to follow Big Al's literal word (or are prevented by our secular laws from amputating a thief's hand(s), does not in any way mean that the amputations conducted by their Somali and Malian Muslim brethren represent a "hijacked" Islam."

Another sweeping claim, with no evidence offered, and of a nature such that no evidence would be possible to offer.

"Those Muslims who constantly tell us that Islam IS peace are either ignorant of Islam or liars."

Is there any doubt anymore which of these two choices applies? Given the track record of this particular JWer, no doubt "ignorance of Islam" counts as a significant explanatory factor by which to assuage his semi-conscious dread that the problem may be much, much broader and deeper than he tries to imagine in the light of his conscious thought.

Anyway, my point is, the world out there, outside of Jihad Watch and a precious few other blogs devoted to the counter-jihad, a place unfriendly and unpalatable (when not hostile and infuriating) to those of us who have come to our grimly lucid awareness of the problem of Islam. And it becomes acutely annoying (if not aggrieving) to find such softness on the issue as exemplified above in these hallowed walls.

I.e., if you wanna be soft (I says to the PRCSs of JW), there's a whole wide world out there -- and a whole Wide World of the Web too -- that will cater to your softness all day long. At least here, for God's sake, can't we be a little better, a little stiffer, a little less unforgiving, have some tighter standards of analysis?

Why should we be doing mental gymnastics trying to figure out ways by which innumerable Muslims are okay, are moderate, are "ignorant of their own Islam" -- are, in effect, not a threat to us and possibly show hope of reform and therefore of a way out of this horror of a growing global train wreck that is the modern Rebirth of Islam worldwide?

The problem is not ours -- it should be theirs. Muslims should be doing all the heavy lifting required to protect our societies. And if they can't do it actively and constructively, then they will have to do it passively, by being put on planes, trains and automobiles and shipped the Hell out.

For as long as Muslims are not solving that problem, but in fact show, in a thousands ways weekly around the world, that they are making matters worse -- whether by refusing to own up to the rampant disease of violence their beliefs foster around the world, whether by tap-dancing around our questions with evasions, whether bristling at our honest and necessary questions, whether being so Goddamned prickly and "sensitive" to our concerns about the atrocities committed in the name of the prophet they admire so much -- then we are not responsible for what we have to do to protect our societies from deadly Muslims whom we have no reliable way to distinguish from all those millions of Muslims PRCS declares, apodictically, and blithely without proof, are harmless.