http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000103.htm#comments

let him know what you think he "lost" his other blog some how it garnnerd over 200 post in 2 days

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at May 24, 2005 9:08 PM

Just Say NO! There will always be intolerance to a a cloaked cult that preaches death for anyone not like them.

They've really brought their current situation onto themselves, ain't that right, CAIR?

Posted by: Prickzilla at May 24, 2005 9:10 PM

Alot of these Muslims are in Conyers' neck of the woods up in Michigan.

Posted by: Prickzilla at May 24, 2005 9:10 PM

As "Infidel Dog #225,600,642" I left Yer (typical) Con (job) my thoughts opposing his dhimmi document.

There are the usual p.c. platitudinizers posting as well -who think everything is sweetness and light with all religions, Islam uncritically included (although they also conveniently forget to read the Koran before they make their 'tolerant' thoughts known), some anti-all-faiths types who thereby make every non-terrorizing religion morally equivalent with terrorizing Islam (killing at Beslan, Baghdad and beyond), -and, happily, some more informed voices as well.

Add to his blog and let Conyers know that the dhimmi sleep has ended in the heartland.

Posted by: BigSleep at May 24, 2005 9:34 PM

If you haven't already written to your Congressional Representative about this HORRID resolution, please do so today!

LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!!!

Website for U.S. House of Representatives:

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Posted by: Freedom1 at May 24, 2005 9:39 PM

"1) condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Islamic faith;"

Does this imply that we should be tolerant of the Manson clan or the Branch Davidians, both religious groups of a sort? And, I suppose, we should tolerate Islamic groups that attack our system, our constitution, fundamental precepts of our way of life, like the freedom to express our conscience. Perhaps we should tolerate the Wahabbis, the pro-Taleban in our midsts, the well financed MSAs across the country who hate America and what it stands for. Tolerance per se in not a virtue.

Posted by: JTF at May 24, 2005 11:09 PM

The Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch have weighed in on the fictitious Koran flush at Guantanamo. Both give us all reason to pause and reflect on the state of the Union.

For the Executive Branch we have this pronouncement from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

… disrespect for the Holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States.

Oh really? There are two problems with this statement and they are exceedingly, and profoundly, at odds with the Constitution for the United States that the Secretary has sworn an oath to defend:

1. The use of the adjective “Holy” by a member of the president’s cabinet in a statement issued in the course of executing their official duty is a direct affront to the phrase, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” that is enshrined in Amendment I to the Constitution. No government official has the authority to even suggest to the citizens of the United States what is “holy” or not “holy". Doing so is an assault on personal liberty itself. The individual, and only the individual, is endowed with the right to decide what is, and what is not “holy". Members of all branches of government need to reflect deeply on this point and to ensure that such language is never used in an official capacity. The citizens do not suggest it, they demand it, as it is their right to demand it.

2. “Disrespect” for the Koran has never been tolerated in the United States? Which United States are we talking about here, Madam Secretary? For it cannot be the United States of America with its 1st constitutional amendment stating, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …". I remind Madam Secretary that any citizen of the United States possesses the right to burn the Koran, defecate on the Koran, flush the Koran, roll up and smoke the Koran, or the Bible, or the Bagavad Gita, or the Zendavesta, or the Mahabharata, or the Torah, etc., as an expression of free speech.

Houston, we’ve got a problem. You see, in fact, “disrespect” for the Koran is now tolerated, has always been tolerated, and will always be tolerated in the United States, at least it will be for as long as there are patriots alive who are willing to defend the rights granted to them by the Founding Fathers. I suggest that the members of the president’s cabinet have a refresher course on the Constitution. Perhaps a one-day seminar would do the trick. I’m available and my hourly rates are reasonable. You know how to reach me.

And now above the glorious sound of incoherent cacophony that emanates from the Hill, we have this language being spewed from the office of House member John Conyers:

Today I introduced a straightforward Sense of the Congress Resolution that would simply condemn bigotry and intolerance against any religious group, and recognize that the Quran, as any other holy book of any religion should be treated with dignity and respect… I sent a dear colleague to every Member of the House asking for their support, and so far Reps. Jackson Lee, Eshoo, Filner, Kucinich, Meehan, Pascrell, and Serrano have signed on.

Here’s that word “holy” again, this time echoing through the halls of Congress. Don’t you guys get it yet? The median voter doesn’t want you, nor anyone else, especially anyone in government, to even suggest what is, and what is not “holy". Refer to Bill Of Rights 1st Amendment quoted above and the two comments on Dr. Rice’s brain flatulence. As for “intolerance against any religious group", how about any non-religious group? This liberty concept that folks like Mr. Conyers apparently have so much difficulty grasping, is a fundamental verity of the American ideology. The Constitution does not allow that the sense of Congress on intolerance can be extended to religious groups only.

Government officials who cannot grasp even the most basic principles of individual liberty should not be in office. It is up to the voters to flush them into retirement. They are also to be reminded that true patriots have always been at the ready to shake the handle.

Posted by: DrMack at May 24, 2005 11:20 PM

I recommend that those who contact their congressman/congresswoman regarding this resolution do not try to persuade their elected representative to oppose this resolution based on anything anti-islam, whether based on the words of the koran itself, the lack of tolerance towards other in islamic countries, and the like. In a legal context, those arguments are unpersuasive since you are then arguing for an unequality of beliefs, and your representative will send you the stock answer that the U.S. respects all beliefs equally.

To avoid such a response, turn this argument around and let your representative know that you oppose this resolution solely because of its perceived unconstitutionality as being contrary to the establishment clause of the first amendment. By specifically mentioning Islam, and as an aside only mentioning other unnamed faiths, it creates the perception that a particular faith is to regarded in a superior position to all other faiths. Tell your representative that you would not have any objection to this resolution if it just generically mentioned all faiths and religions without specifically naming any one of them.

Posted by: Lisa at May 24, 2005 11:27 PM

The Germans somehow managed to outlaw the 'Church of Scientology'- much to the chagrin of some Hollywood moonbats who follow it. Seems they left too many brainwashed zombies behind who needed psychiatric help...

I don't see why that can not be applied in the case of the Mohammedan cult which is 1000 times worse and a threat to us all! If existing laws were properly applied and Islam/Koran Ideology taken to court there is more than a good chance that it would be outlawed! How come nobody goes for it? All it takes is enough funding by concerned people (and arn't we all concerned?) the 'right' team of lawyers and off to the supreme court, see what happens!

Once the truth gets out there and with proper judgement in hand the mosques can be shut down and the Mohammedans deported, or confined to reeducation camps for damage control. It's not an impossible task?!

Posted by: Terminator at May 24, 2005 11:30 PM

dhimmijohn, our eyes are on you.
We are ever viligant,
and unlike you, are brave.
We will never be a dhimmi
or mohammedan slave.

Posted by: the poetess at May 24, 2005 11:31 PM

I went to the blog of that numbnuts, Conyer. The proposed resolution in insane and frightening, but the comments are even worse. Some people are just so clueless - especially the women posting there. As a woman, I find Islam an abomination. A disgusting insult. Yet there are women who seem to think Christians are the greatest threat. They're so obsessed with their right to abortion, they can't see the forest for the trees. Some twit posting about if she were raped and impregnated, those nasty horrid Christians would force her to carry the baby to term. Like, what do you think Islam would do, dunce? Not only force you to carry the baby to term, but then denounce you as an adultress and a whore and stone you to death. But no, the Christians are her biggest threat. ?!?!?

If this resolution is passed, we all know it would be used, and abused, by one group only. Everybody else would be freely insulted, except Islam.

Posted by: feralee at May 24, 2005 11:35 PM

I recommend that those who contact their congressman/congresswoman regarding this resolution do not try to persuade their elected representative to oppose this resolution based on anything anti-islam, whether based on the words of the koran itself, the lack of tolerance towards other in islamic countries, and the like. In a legal context, those arguments are unpersuasive since you are then arguing for an unequality of beliefs, and your representative will send you the stock answer that the U.S. respects all beliefs equally.

Posted by: Lisa at May 24, 2005 11:27 PM

Good Point Lisa .Thankyou.

Posted by: AvrageJoe at May 25, 2005 12:19 AM

Lisa:

"I recommend that those who contact their congressman/congresswoman regarding this resolution do not try to persuade their elected representative to oppose this resolution based on anything anti-islam, whether based on the words of the koran itself...."

I think that you have made a good, solid legal argument. Thank you. :) That said, I'd like to make a different suggestion: This awful resolution 288 is an opportunity to EDUCATE your state's Congressman/Congresswoman about the TRUE NATURE of Islam. Most Congressional Representatives probably don't know much about Islam except for what organizations like CAIR have said about Islam. So, quote directly from the unholy Qur'an.

Quote what the Qur'an says about women.
Quote what the Qur'an says about Jews/Christians.
Quote what the Qur'an says about infidels in general.
Quote what the Qur'an says about Islamic paradise (that great brothel in the sky).
Quote what the Qur'an says about jihad/dhimmitude.

Include a website or two that the Congressperson can click on to verify your Qur'an quotes. Be brief, be concise, and of course be respectful.
Just a suggestion.

Posted by: Freedom1 at May 25, 2005 12:55 AM

This awful resolution 288 is an opportunity to EDUCATE your state's Congressman/Congresswoman about the TRUE NATURE of Islam.

Exactly.

There will be a hearing. Debates. Expert Witnesses. Robert, can you get called to testify and tell the nation what Islam is?

This is a great opportunity to discuss Islam in a high exposure public forum. This is exactly what we need to show Islam for what it is, and why we should ban it as a seditious political ideology, and that it is not a religion like other religions as envisioned in the constitution.

Posted by: skidd at May 25, 2005 1:10 AM

This awful resolution 288 is an opportunity to EDUCATE your state's Congressman/Congresswoman about the TRUE NATURE of Islam.

Exactly.

There will be a hearing. Debates. Expert Witnesses. Robert, can you get called to testify and tell the nation what Islam is?

This is a great opportunity to discuss Islam in a high exposure public forum. This is exactly what we need to show Islam for what it is, and why we should ban it as a seditious political ideology, and that it is not a religion like other religions as envisioned in the constitution.

Posted by: skidd at May 25, 2005 1:12 AM

I recommend going back to the story below on Rev. Creighton Lovelace so you can send a letter to the editor of the local paper to express your support for him. Politicians are scum. If you send a letter to a local paper to let people know you're supportive of one man in a small town, that could make some difference. If you happen to be in that small town and if you happen to have some leaflets to pass out to the congregation, well, that's the beginning of a revolution.

You can click on the red letters in the lead line to get the newspaper link, and from there you'll find a place to send a letter to the editor. I want to go there and put some money in the man's collection plate and shake his hand. The politician, he can !@#$ my $%^&.

Posted by: sonofwalker at May 25, 2005 1:23 AM

Establishment of Religion through the Endorsement of the Specific Content of Religious Beliefs

If is very important to understand the distinction between a) respecting someone's constitutional right to practice their religion WITHIN the bounds of U.S. law and b) respecting the CONTENTS of someone's religious beliefs.

Many people can't understand this distinction.
Example: I have no respect for the CONTENT of Wiccan belief, it is nonsense in my view. However, I recognize that there are American citizens who consider themselves to be Wiccan and I respect their constitutional right to practice Wicca AS LONG AS THOSE PRACTICES DO NOT VIOLATE AMERICAN LAW.

The Koran contains material which violates American law. It is illegal to beat your spouse, it is illegal to have more than one wife.

The proposed resolution makes an affirmative statement about Islam which is not consistent with my right to be free of an official Establishment of Religion. The Resolution improperly endorses the CONTENT of Islamic religious beliefs. I strongly disagree with the contents of the Koran and it is improper for my government to declare the Koran to be Holy. It is not a Holy book in my view and I am not required to consider it to be so.

We need to understand these distinctions and resist efforts to PRIVILEGE Islam by giving it protections against disrespect that no other religion or political ideology possess. If not, we have lost our freedom of thought.

Posted by: Athena at May 25, 2005 1:24 AM

Establishment of Religion through the Endorsement of the Specific Content of Religious Beliefs

If is very important to understand the distinction between a) respecting someone's constitutional right to practice their religion WITHIN the bounds of U.S. law and b) respecting the CONTENTS of someone's religious beliefs.

Many people can't understand this distinction.
Example: I have no respect for the CONTENT of Wiccan belief, it is nonsense in my view. However, I recognize that there are American citizens who consider themselves to be Wiccan and I respect their constitutional right to practice Wicca AS LONG AS THOSE PRACTICES DO NOT VIOLATE AMERICAN LAW.

The Koran contains material which violates American law. It is illegal to beat your spouse, it is illegal to have more than one wife.

The proposed resolution makes an affirmative statement about Islam which is not consistent with my right to be free of an official Establishment of Religion. The Resolution improperly endorses the CONTENT of Islamic religious beliefs. I strongly disagree with the contents of the Koran and it is improper for my government to declare the Koran to be Holy. It is not a Holy book in my view and I am not required to consider it to be so.

We need to understand these distinctions and resist efforts to PRIVILEGE Islam by giving it protections against disrespect that no other religion or political ideology possess. If not, we have lost our freedom of thought.

Posted by: Athena at May 25, 2005 1:24 AM

Sorry about the unintentional double post.

Posted by: Athena at May 25, 2005 1:27 AM

Correct me if I am wrong but if I purchase any religious text at the local book store, and I choose to throw it away or burn it etc, isn't it unconstitional for the government to punish me for it? Don't I have the right to do whatever I want with my books?

What about people with non-religious beleif systems like atheism and darwinism. This bill is indicating that it isn't ok to burn a book about the Islamic beleif system but it is ok to burn a book about another non-religios beleif system. It is indicating that if you are an atheist/darwinist your beleifs and the books from which they derive are less valued and afforded less respect by the state.

This sets a precedent where one beleif system is seen as less eqaul than another by the state. This is Orwellian and very dangerous.

What are our values today? What is more important? People's freedom and equality before the state/law (regardless of their beleifs) or books?

Posted by: obl r us at May 25, 2005 4:25 AM

Yes, it's disgusting how he panders to the Muslims. Each of the 4 resolutions specifically mention Islam. Everyone else is just lumped in together, but Islam is given special status. The Muslims in his voting area must be pumped. This is exactly what they want, and this stupid dhimmi is actually doing it for them, and way before they reach critical mass. I guess all those years, post-9/11, of trying to twist and distort things around so that it's actually the Muslim who looks like the poor victim, has worked.

This Conyer is an idiot.

Posted by: feralee at May 25, 2005 5:17 AM

Applause be to you my American friends for you have achieved what no Indian can achieve in his own homeland. Perhaps its easier when they are immigrants than your own converted folk over a millennium. Ah well...ill continue to despair

Posted by: Tushar Saxena at May 25, 2005 5:31 AM

Yes, indeedy! Muslims have convinced Conyer that they are "special" people, more "special" than the rest of us, just a they have the U.S. State Department. Notice that Muslims are the only group in the U.S. that get several pages dedicated just to them.

These people are all idiots!

Posted by: epg at May 25, 2005 5:40 AM

As freedom of speech disapears, so to will the West as we know it.

Where are all the rabid lefty's when it comes to separation of Church and State? Obviously Mosque isn't Church, so its OK to mix the two.

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at May 25, 2005 6:04 AM

Perhaps this US politican should educate himself by looking at this Friday semon on Palastinian TV.

http://www.memritv.org/Favorites.asp#

Without a doubt that is the sort of thing being preached across many Mosques in the world, but not just against the Jews, but against Hindu's Christians, atheists and others, where ever they are trying to dominate.

What this idiot politician does not realise, is that once freedom of speech is no longer possible to counter this sort of hate, then violence is the result, because there is no other way.

Posted by: Whatthehell at May 25, 2005 7:14 AM

Everyone in the Congress and Senate should read this:

http://voi.org/books/tcqp/

Chapter 7 will tell you where America is heading.

Omar Ahmad
Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

President and CEO of Silicon Expert Technologies. A Palestinian who grew up in a refugee camp in Jordan.

"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." - Omar Ahmad

Ibrahim Hooper
CAIR Spokesperson
"CAIR does not support these groups publicly."
(Hooper comments on CAIR's record of supporting Hamas,
Hezbullah and other official terrorist groups)

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education." - Ibrahim Hooper

Posted by: hutchrun at May 25, 2005 7:23 AM

(1) condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and ''''intolerance against any religious group'''' including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Islamic faith;

From the Koran:

005.051 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

009.030 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; in this they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

That puts ALL Christians and Jews who believe in the Old and New Testaments - in Grave danger.

How does John Conyer plan to put even his first plan into action with such commands coming from the Koran?

As far as violence goes?...

What would John Conyer have to say about this one?...

047.004 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks. [Behead them!]

When are the people going to wake up and understand that Islam is more diverse from ALL other religions? Islam is guilty of not tolerating any other religion.

the allah of Islam - says so.

Posted by: Beth at May 27, 2005 12:06 AM