Choosing denial and willful ignorance instead of knowledge of the motivating ideology of the jihadis who have vowed to destroy us. That’s just asking to be defeated.
“If you have an amendment that says we’re going to study one religion and only one, we’re going to look at their leaders and put them on a list — only them — and you are going to talk about what’s orthodox practice and what’s unorthodox, then you are putting extra scrutiny on that religion,” said Muslim Brotherhood-linked Rep. Keith Ellison.
Yes, you are. And there is a reason for that: 30,000 jihad attacks committed in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings since September 11, 2001. No one religion has anything approaching that kind of record of death and destruction. So why shouldn’t we put extra scrutiny on that religion?
Ellison added: “You are abridging the free exercise of that religion.”
No. The free exercise of any religion is not a license to break existing laws. The free exercise of religion is not a free pass to commit treason or subversion or sedition.
The amendment would have required the Defense Department to conduct “strategic assessments of the use of violent or unorthodox Islamic religious doctrine to support extremist or terrorist messaging and justification.”
There is nothing “unorthodox” about jihad violence in Islamic law and doctrine. But even this tepid recommendation was too much for the short-sighted 217 cowards of the House, who have passed up an opportunity to strengthen our defense against the global jihad.
“House rejects controversial study of Islam,” by Rachael Bade and John Bresnahan, Politico, July 13, 2017:
The House on Friday rejected a controversial GOP proposal identifying “Islamic religious doctrines, concepts or schools of thought” that could be used by terrorist groups — something opponents say is unconstitutional and will lead to the targeting of Muslims.
More than 20 centrist Republicans joined with Democrats to defeated [sic] the amendment, 208 to 217. Drafted by conservative Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the proposal called for the Pentagon to identify Islamic leaders who preach peaceful beliefs versus those who espouse extremist views.
The proposal has drawn heavy criticism from Muslim lawmakers serving in Congress, Muslim interest groups and the American Civil Liberties Union, who say the proposal would unfairly target Muslims. They don’t trust the Trump administration to conduct the analysis.
“If you have an amendment that says we’re going to study one religion and only one, we’re going to look at their leaders and put them on a list — only them — and you are going to talk about what’s orthodox practice and what’s unorthodox, then you are putting extra scrutiny on that religion,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who is Muslim.
Ellison, who met with Franks to try to persuade him to withdraw the proposal, added: “You are abridging the free exercise of that religion. This is the wrong way to do what he’s trying to do.”…
“Right now, there is a certain spectrum within the Islamist world that is at the root of the ideological impulse for terrorism,” Franks said. “Ironically, Muslims are the prime targets of these groups. To suggest that this is anti-Muslim is a fallacy, and I think that anyone who really understands it knows that.”
Franks also took issue with Ellison’s suggestion that the amendment infringes on the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom, pointing out that he is the chairman of the International Religious Freedom Caucus.
“We’ve worked very hard to protect the religious freedom for everybody,” he said. “But it is important that we empower America to identify those heroic Muslims within the world that will help us begin to delegitimize this ideology of global jihad.”
The amendment would require the Defense Department to conduct “strategic assessments of the use of violent or unorthodox Islamic religious doctrine to support extremist or terrorist messaging and justification.”
The proposal requires the assessment to identify religious doctrines and concepts that extremists use to recruit potential terrorists, radicalize them and ultimately justify their heinous acts.
It also asks Pentagon officials for “recommendations for identifying key thought leaders or proponents.”
The proposal also requires the Pentagon to identify Islamic schools of though that could be used to counter jihadist views, as well as leaders who are preaching these sorts of doctrines….
gravenimage says
House rejects proposal identifying “Islamic religious doctrines” that could be used by terrorist groups
………………………..
Yeah–because anxiety about being accused of “Islamophobia” is more important than keeping the American people safe…
Andy says
Here is a little video a friend just sent me and I wanted to share it with the JW crowd.
Have a good weekend everybody. Keep up the good work Especially Robert Spencer and the JW staff.
Take care,
Andy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA-cZH0z5yE
underbed cat says
Also it is because it must first be defined for what the ideology is….a command to slaughter…..does this sound like a religion to you? But it calls itself as such and hides by deception, fibs and religious protections ……by a lazy…..house of leaders who can’t take the time to read a Quran or who has consulted a mosque only to be told that is hate speech….and vilified but unaware they are forbidden to allow facts to be known…and this will only allow ignorant to open the door to sharia law and the conquest of our legal system, land, lives of our military, police and citizen safety. with this vote they, the jihadists are well on their way.
jule says
Can’t they rewrite the the bill to say ANY religion or group that commits acts of terror in the name of any God or philosophy will be studied to see what could have lead or encouraged the acts. That does not single out any one. The Acts will single them out. It MUST BE DONE IN USA. No Where else will do it. We Must. Lets write to the guy who tried and get him to try again with better wording. Can someone make a petition that does not seem to single out a certain one and we get thousands of people to sign it?
Aussie Infidel says
Jule, It seems that the reps in the American Congress are just as cowardly – or complicit – as those in the Australian Parliament. And to add insult to injury, “more than 20 centrist Republicans joined with Democrats to defeat the amendment.” What are these useful idiots afraid of? That such legislation might also be used to expose their own crazy supernatural beliefs?
What is needed is not a ‘proposal identifying “Islamic religious doctrines” that could be used by terrorist groups,’ – although that would be handy – but to legislate a legal definition of religion, which could be used for all judicial purposes. The former is simply an attack on Islam – as Ellison has alluded. But the latter is a wide ranging approach to deal with any religion or ideology which is contrary to a country’s laws or Constitution, or the principles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which have already been accepted by most Western countries.
Islam does not even have to be mentioned in the legislation. The Muslims would surely recognise that the legislation is aimed at them, but so what? The mullahs would be left squirming in their mosques trying to defend their ideology.
John Forbes says
Very poor decision to not examine the doctrine of the enemy ! ISLAM does not play by the same set of rules & LYING is seen as a legitimate tool!
People STILL do not understand & see the danger & believe we have time to stick to principles that do not apply to this problem & IDEOLOGY !
WE MUST EXAMINE – SELECT & QUESTION ENDLESSLY !
This is exactly what the followers of this ideology hate & fear & this is why the TERM ISLAMOPHOBIA was coined & best described as : COINED BY FASCISTS – USED BY COWARDS – TO MANIPULATE MORONS !
Tommy Clark says
Simply,
The 1st Amendment prevents Congress from interfering in any Religion, But, the Christian Church should be the tool used to educate and expose Islam as a dangerous Pagan religion.
Trump has it right, by restricting immigration and admission into the U.S. from Countries that are involved in mass killings of innocent civilians due to “caliphate” doctrines.
gravenimage says
You cannot rape or murder in the name of religion in the US–the First Amendment does not allow practice of religion where it breaks American law.
jule says
The Bill has to be rewritten to say Any or ALL Religions whose participants commit acts of terror in the name of it or their God shall be analyzed to see what caused or encouraged the behavior. As long as one is not single out or named specifically We Have To make it Pass. Not even Religions are allowed to commit acts of terror. Honor killings are terror, throwing acid is terror, killing gays is terror, beatings in the name of any God is terror, all the Sharia stuff is terror just as much as the usual jihad we hear about. One act by one person must cause the ‘religion’ any religion, to be studied in depth. We Have to do it. And find the clerics, Imams who incite. No other country will do it. WE MUST. Our GOVERNMENT MUST. No one else will.
jule says
No. That will lose in hot minute. Christian religion should not protest as ‘a Christian religion’ any more than Islam should protest against Judaism or Christians. It has to be American. Something needs to be made concerning the actions AND preaching hate or inciting violence without saying Muslim anything which will be outlawed in this country and the group doing it will be thoroughly studied to find what leads to illegal, inhuman, bigotry, ideas of genocide etc. acts and philosophy. It would only apply to Islam, I am sure, but no description can say Muslim or it will be shot down for CERTAIN.
jule says
We gotta have it rewritten just to say any or all religions where people commit acts of terror in the name of their religion will be analyzed to see what could have lead then or encouraged them to do such things. ‘ANY OR ALL’ so as not to single just one out.
Andy says
I hope most people reading these articles from JW realize what is happening to there western democratic freedoms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3quruHpcuo
billybob says
Rod Serling’s “Twilight Zone”. I loved it when I was young. My friend and I would each buy a chocolate bar and a Coke each with our 25 cent allowance on Friday night and stay up to 10:00 pm when the show came on to watch it.
billybob says
Typo: Should read Rod Sterling
billybob says
Disregard that. It is “Serling”. Can’t read my own type.
Daniel says
F.Y.I.
Andy there is anther version of this same video on u-tube that includes a the part about religion and God that the others leave out which I have on my website.
Andy says
Hi F.Y.I.
I put the other edited Twilight Zone The Obsolete Man which includes the part about religion and God on Jihad Watch under the topic of Canada Five Officers of The CSIS spy service launch $35 million lawsuit against it for “Islamphobia”.
Sorry about that, I wanted to put both versions on the JW site, Here is The Obsolete Man with the part about religion and God. I personally believe in a God and the trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit with our savior being Jesus Christ.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQCJtfENAc
Papa Whiskey says
“You are abridging the free exercise of that religion.”
Quite so. And, as that religion mandates killing infidels in its name for the reward of paradise, it should not be freely exercised. It should instead be exposed, analyzed, criticized, and mocked — and, in due course, extirpated.
4infidels says
Exactly. Ellison is admitting that jihad is a part of mainstream Islamic practice and he doesn’t want thr free expression of Islamic jihad in any way restricted.
jule says
So let them try again but put any and all religions sited by anyone performing an act of terrorism. (not just Islam, but Any and all Religions)
gravenimage says
I take your point, jule–but what other religions demand violence from their followers?
jule says
Exactly but then the passage would be easy because it does not pick on just the one and is not ‘islamophobic’ because Any/All religions whose members do such acts…….So Ellison can say NOTHING….unless he wants to state the obvious, which he will not. We must make it pass and not just keep making comments. No other country will do it. al Sisi tried to get Cairo University alAzhar but they will not. We Must without stating we do it it Just for Islam. (but there will be no other)
Greyhound Fancier says
It’s an modern day version of Baal worship. Why wouldn’t civilized people want to curb the mayhem, primitive customs, violence, and destruction of Islam?
Olog-hai says
That would not be free exercise of a religion anyhow. It’s unfree exercise of a pseudo-religion.
Emilie Green says
This is just a kick-the-can-down-the-road moment. This question will, at one time, have to be addressed. For many of us, we’ve already done that. We’ve studied the sources of Islam and the practices of Muslims. And we see with our own eyes how Muslims behave.
And we’ve noted that today’s Muslim behavior is unerringly similar to the behavior borne out in the history books of the last 1400 years.
Of course the defeat of this amendment is disappointment. But the fact that such an amendment was proposed is encouraging; it means that some people in Congress are paying attention to the doctrines of Islam. THAT is a really positive sign.
So the amendment goes down. Does the Muslim problem go away? Of course not. Predictably the Muslim problem will worsen because more and more Muslims are drifting into the West. And they will kill more and more of us. More and more attention will shift onto Islam.
This issue will return.
boakai ngombu says
the MB may bring the subject back to our attention. the project has a plan. attack the plan
“Allah (unknowable) is our objective,” and, “Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope,” are not religious doctrines, per se. these speak of intent to live a certain way. so live away… but
the way of Allah seems to be the many ways an adherent may disrupt, maim, intimidate, abuse, enslave, harm, kill others. we have laws against such and such can be enforced
“the way of Allah” and “jihad is our way” – don’t need to be broken down into minutia, its the way that threatens the pursuit of happiness, the right to peaceably assemble; its the way that seeks to own inalienable rights. Make the way unacceptable and prohibited
the MB says, “the prophet is our leader” well, what should we do with the pedophile, thief, adulterer that is followed?
and, “the Koran is our law,” they say. its not legal by our standards and there is no reason to integrate it into the present system and make it legal.
besides, Erdogan says ” the mosques are our barracks”; “the domes are our helmets”; “the minarets our bayonets”; “the Muslim faithful our soldiers.” doesn’t that describe an alien military force. why support that, when all we want is peace and quiet with no threat of a traitorous bunch eliminating that?
we can make it go away when the religion is sidelined. its fake, anyway, unable to satisfy the soul
Keys says
Good points, boakai ngombu, related to the US Constitution.
Yes, Islam and its Allah fabrication are “unable to satisfy the soul.”
And so many muslims think 72 virgins will satisfy their soul !
Evil foolishness !
jule says
It must be rewritten saying any or all religions whose participants cause any act of terror will be analyzed to discover what it was that encouraged, incited such behavior to be done in the name of said Religion or God by any name. Just so it does not point to just one religion (but how many will it apply to?) or seem to persecute one religion. We gotta get it done. Just use unbiased language. I am surprised the guy did not tHinK of that. Surely he knew it would be shot down. Where are the SMARTS?
John A. Marre says
It is utterly impossible for the vast majority of people to process the overwhelmingly obvious fact that Islam is not a religion. In spite of masses of evidence that it is a political movement clothed in the trappings of religion and seasoned by the frequent mention of “Allah,” they cannot crack their mind-set open even one small bit and let in the truth that Islam is not a religion like Christianity, Judaism and Shinto.
Jim says
Sensible to insane! What the ‘bleep’ is shinto? Is that where you fold paper and make little animals?
gravenimage says
Jim, you are thinking of Origami.
Here is some information on Shinto, if you are interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto
jule says
Some people think we object just because they call their God ‘Allah’….like we are such simpletons or bigots that just the name offends us. Many people who know nothing of Islam except that it is called a Mid East Religion of one God named Allah, really do believe we are all simply bigots. They really do not know.
Thats why this Bill must be rewritten and passed using unbiased language that says Any/All religions who members commit acts of terror (and there are many kinds) will be analyzed to discover what caused, encourage or incited their acts of terror. The bill cannot point at just one Religion or Just Islam but any or all (but how many do?) Make the language nonspecific like its singling out one certain culprit. EVEN Religions are not allowed to incite terror. No other country will do it. We must and we must get the Government to and to make it Public.
ItsReallyQuiteClear says
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might point out how this amendment was voted down so soon after the Al Shabaab murders of Christians in Keyna, who were killed ostensibly because they couldn’t recite Islamic doctrines, and how this down vote might contribute to the endangerment of non-Muslims in the U.S. But since I’m not a conspiracy theorist, I’ll only point out that the down vote only serves to make false rhetoric about Islam, like that from Linda Sarsour, more readily available through mainstream channels. And that also contributes to the endangerment of non-Muslims.
I’m not being sarcastic. I’m only being *moderately* sarcastic. The only sarcasm anyone should worry about is extreme sarcasm. And sarcasm isn’t inherently evil, but some people have hijacked sarcasm…
somehistory says
Your last paragraph is so funny. thanks for the laugh.
ItsReallyQuiteClear says
🙂
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
“If you have an amendment that says we’re going to study one religion and only one, we’re going to look at their leaders and put them on a list — only them — and you are going to talk about what’s orthodox practice and what’s unorthodox, then you are putting extra scrutiny on that religion,” said Muslim Brotherhood-linked Rep. Keith Ellison.
For the first time I agree with our Moslem congressman. Yes, let’s do what he said and put extra scrutiny on Islam. I’ll go further, let’s pass a law making Islam a hate crime. That’s what it is anyway, so let’s make it formally illegal and jail people apprehended with a copy of the Holy Ko-Ran. Yeah.
Jim says
Sir, you are a scholar and a gentleman! I’ll vote for you anytime!
somehistory says
Back in the 1940’s, when the world was at war…much like today…a book published by Jehovah’s Witnesses was banned in the U.S. Due to it’s title and some of the things that were said to be the revealing and fulfillment of Bible prophecy.
Now, moslums…instigators and participants in the war… can’t even be looked into…as to whether they are warmongering, terrorism advocates or not. Their book…unholy and clearly a book of war and hate and subversion, has not been banned. It has been protected and those who burn it, bury it, tear it, tell the truth about it, all run the risk of prosecution, and some have been punished.
ellison and his crowd aren’t interested in the welfare of persons. He is interested only in what all moslums are…to further the goals of making the entire world of people on this planet subject to the wild beast of ilsum. His round file is likely full of truth, justice, security, peace, life, virtue and integrity.
ItsReallyQuiteClear says
somehistory,
Thanks for sharing the point about Jehova’s Witnesses’ book being banned in the U.S. It sounds like Russia is trying to ban the religion (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/04/20/russia-just-effectively-banned-jehovahs-witnesses-from-the-country/?utm_term=.216f2ea758ea). Are they seriously more dangerous than Muslim extremists?
With history — I’m specifically referring to U.S. history here — so full of examples and precedents of (at least de facto) immigration bans, deportations and internment, and IRS denials* of tax-exempt status for organizations claiming religious exemptions, it’s not like it should be utterly impossible to begin to apply some of these limitations to some Islamic groups. The study that was proposed in this defeated amendment could have been a part of those processes.
* In fiscal year 2016, the IRS disapproved applications for tax-exempt status from 37 “Religious, charitable, and similar organizations”. So it doesn’t never happen (I swear, I’m a native English speaker). But maybe it’s just plain easy to be approved: 79,545 of 84,588 applications that were “closed” were approved.
Source: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/16databk.pdf, p. 55, Table 24a
somehistory says
ItsReallyQuiteClea,
Thanks for the information.
Not only was the book banned, but several top level members were put in prison for writing it.
I had a friend, who at that same time ( the ’40’s) had a little girl, living in W. Texas and was preaching. she told me of the day her husband and some others being arrested and put in jail. She was arrested and jailed too, and since her friends and relatives were all inside, she had to keep her little two-year old with her in the cell.
My mother was a Witness until she died some years ago. I can truthfully say, we have so much more to fear from those who would easily murder us than we do from Jehovah’s Witnesses who won’t even become police officers, or join the military because of the killing issues. And even being a guard or going hunting is discouraged for the same reason.
It’s a picking and a choosing…based on the pickers and choosers biases, as to which group is allowed to do whatever and others are fair game.
ItsReallyQuiteClear says
somehistory,
Thanks for sharing the additional information and personal connections. That always helps to make history more meaningful. It makes me sad to think about what happened to your friends.
gravenimage says
Yes–Jehovah’s Witnesses are no threat.
somehistory says
Thank you.tsReallyQuiteClear. It was hard for them, but she laughed when she told me and her daughter was adult when I heard it, and she felt a little special due to her unique experience.
And you, g.
gravenimage says
Thanks, Somehistory.
mohamonator says
Get real, folks. This legislation was not going to pass in this universe. This was Rep. Franks and his supporters trying to score a few political points–which they have now done. If the earth flipped on its axis and this thing had passed, it could not have withstood a Supreme Court challenge.
These kinds of initiatives are much more effective undertaken as administrative initiatives within agencies like DHS and FBI.
John Rosado says
You miss the point of islam. It is not just a religion. It is a total way of life from religion to culture to law. The law of islam is at odds with the US constitution.
Read the Koran and read the Hadith.
Olog-hai says
Funny you want Obama-subverted executive agencies to handle it.
Voytek Gagalka says
The House “amendment” or not, the Defense Department as well as the whole rest of Trump administration should implement those policies nevertheless. Would it be violation of the Constitution just to enforce existing laws (against sedition, for instance) by executive branch? Such laws are already there; just EXECUTE them! For what else the US has “Executive Branch”? To run each time and ask Congress for “permission” to execute them? Is the Trump administration already paralyzed and afraid to be “impeached” by executing existing laws? If that would not be so tragic it would be laughable.
Ed DeFolnzo says
please id 20 centrist republicans. I do not wish to support my enemies.
PRCS says
“the proposal called for the Pentagon to identify Islamic leaders who preach peaceful beliefs versus those who espouse extremist views.
Does the idiocy ever end?
John Rosado says
I applaud Congressman Franks for his bold initiative to enter the amendment. It is courageous and can get a fatwa against him. I pray our God in heaven protects him.
If you read the Koran then you can see the Evil that is islam. If you read the life of Mohamed then you can see the evil of the man that wrote the Koran even though he was literate.
Jerry says
The House on Friday rejected a controversial GOP proposal… and it will be unconstitutional and will lead to the targeting of Muslims.
That’s seems rather kooky to me. If you have a doctrine, religious or not, that might contain seditious or terroristic threats against our nation then how is it unconstitutional to identify them? Wouldn’t it be more unconstitutional to not identify them?
No religion is above the law or fair criticism. We got a ton of hate laws in this country. But what’s more hateful than threatening war and terror for religion? Ellison and his political cronies have been playing the religion card way too often. It’s time we put the safety and security of our nation above the childish aggrandizement of the word “religion.” This isn’t some fantasy war game where magical words are granted unlimited power. Our constitution should never be a tool for violent or seditious ideologies simply because they’re called a “religion.” If our representatives don’t have enough constitutional wisdom to know that, then what the hell good is a constitution?
This was a fine, humanitarian proposal and was destined to save lives. It’s a crime and a shame we have so many cowards in high places.
Demsci says
//”If you have a doctrine, religious or not, that might contain seditious or terroristic threats against our nation then how is it unconstitutional to identify them? Wouldn’t it be more unconstitutional to not identify them?”//
I think, as you, that it is unconstitutional to NOT identify them.
But the members of the house were presumably in a mindset of objecting against a negative. Hear me out. I am in favor of the proposal, but yes, that did constitute some kind of judgement on Islam and Islam alone, and it suggested DISCRIMINATION on grounds of choice of religion in a democratic nation, for followers of one religion only. That could be described as negative measures.
And doing that to Islam is a huge taboo, no-no among Westerners, in this period. Presumably because of dedication to fair play and equality before the law (the very law many Muslims want to overturn!).
But if the proposal would have been couched in “defending the core values, tenets, laws of Democratic
Western Civilization (and pres.Trump outlined some of them in his Warsaw speech), then the question becomes:
Is Islam, or are a significant proportion of Muslims,
threathening, and even now significantly diminishing the state of affairs in which values, tenets, laws of the West could be functioning, thriving, or not?
If yes, the highest priority emphasis on knowing, cherishing and defending the West’s values, tenets and laws, justifies the discrimination of Muslims on grounds of choosing Islam in a democratic nation, which is to be regarded something they can be held accountable for.
And we could charge the abovementioned housemembers with negligence in defense of Western values, tenets and laws.
Jerry says
“and it suggested DISCRIMINATION …”
Congress is constantly making religious determinations, everything from peyote in religious ceremonies to contraception. There is no good reason why an investigation should be considered discrimination. The establishment clause isn’t only to protect religion and the religious, it’s to protect the rights of the non-religious. As noted in a court decision from 1947,
“A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches.” Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 8 (1947).
But islamic law contradicts that up to and including murder. Allah says kill the unbeliever and many muslims have been killed or brutalized for their apostasy as have a multitude of non-muslims for their unbelief. In addition, sharia is discriminatory in other ways against women and non-muslims. It is not discrimination to look into this, especially with muslims committing mass terror/murder in the name of their religion and whose doctrine contains unambiguous threats of murder, war, and extortion. Like,
– Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. (Koran 9:5)
According to islam I am an idolater so I take that personally. I shouldn’t have to be subject to terroristic threats of any religion, that does not deserve constitutional protection. A hypothetical example, if I had a religion that threatened Congress and they started showing up dead, I doubt they’d consider it discrimination to look into my “religion.” Islam is no different, that religion contains terroristic threats and people are dying for it. And what I’d like to know is, when are they going to do something about it.
Jerry says
Ellison acts intellectually stunted to me. But it doesn’t matter, our political leaders are perfectly willing to fall for his 2-bit jive talk.
“You are abridging the free exercise of that religion. “–Ellison
ha! I bet he was tap dancing when he said it!
Demsci says
Brilliant post. I know that the proposal was NOT Discrimination, but I declare that countless times it was put to me by those who talked about Islam that, yes, proposals like this do constitute discrimination on grounds of religion. Outright rejection and end of debate followed. This is the lay of the land, Jerry, IMO.
You, I and (almost?) all of JW are Agreed on this. But how do we convince these “members of the house” and the Dems and Reps they represent?
My proposition it is: To NOT ONLY appear to cut Islam in Democratic Nations down a size and NOT ONLY to emphasize the bad in Islam. And so NOT ONLY to appear to discriminate the “poor Muslims”. Those are OK, but
Also , we could phrase, formulate the essential values, tenets, laws of not yet clearly named:
WESTERN DEMOCRATIC …… IDEOLOGY, with a clear set of values, tenets, laws.
Once we have done that we can go on a COMPARISON style cultural fight.
For instance. WDI (West Dem Ideol) is for freedom of speech, Islam is for censorship, blasphemylaws. – WDI is for freedom of religion for all, Islam forbids it’s children to change their religion. – WDI is for equality before the law, Islam is for unequality for women and non-believers. – WDI is really for democratic nation or republic, Islam really wants a caliphate. I am sure we can actually formulate of difference, and we can also prove that substantial numbers of Muslims do follow these anti-Democratic values, tenets, laws.
We could try te become adept in comparison between the abovementioned TWO ideologies and try to disseminate everywhere people listen that with the current numbers of both ideologies, it can be stated that either Islam wins territory at the cost of WDI and “Islam eats WDI” or we defend our WDI-territory and preferably “eat Islam”.
But the people and their representatives cannot have both; Protecting “poor innocent Muslims” AND the “territory of WDI values, tenets and laws” because Islam and Muslims just will make these shrink if we continue with our current policies.
Treat the Muslims like we would treat Nazi;s and Communists in the past, I say.
And that is not “painting all Muslims with one brush”. It is even arguable that the current LEFT does “paint almost all Muslims with one brush” by insisting that Islam is just like other religions and rather neutral, and harmless, and by only acknowledging the hostile attitude of a few Muslims, while denying that possible hostility of the vast majority.
Kiki says
That’s a bad idea on the House’s part. How can we fight the ideology of jihad if police aren’t given enough information?
If Islam is ever to reform from the terrorist attacks and ‘honor-killings’ that have killed so many innocent men, women, and children, it can only happen with honest dialogue.
Same goes for people combating jihad–security experts can’t combat what they don’t understand.
Susan B says
It is impossible for islam to reform. Terrorist attacks and honor-killings are a big part of what islam commands.
ArcadiaP says
Only one way to fight this. Vote against all those in the the house that killed the bill. It is that important if we wish to take back our country. All politics is local.
Peterson says
Everybody who voted against is equally guilty. Just one vote would have passed the amendment.
Peterson says
Actually many terrorist attacks are required to create such an opinion. Protecting someone too much is also bad. If Trump was not elected American by now would have learned what is Islam.
Frank Anderson says
The often quoted Bill Clinton statement concerning his impeachment, “It depends on the what the meaning of “is” is!” could apply here as to abridgement of “religion”. What is the difference that exists between “religion” and an advocacy of 1) violence in every form, 2) in law-defiance, and 3) of overthrow of the rights and liberties of all citizens? Legally defining Islam a religion would also accept any totalitarian system under the same label and give them the same rights to destroy us.
Whether or not “government” should educate citizens on the subject, it should certainly have the authority to educate and inform itself of an ongoing plot to overthrow it and enslave its citizens. Government is not the only place to show the uninformed what Islam teaches and seeks. Like drug education, some (like the formerly Jewish Adam Gadan (sp?) who was the speaker for the Taliban) will find Islam attractive in spite of educational efforts. But some will get out of a stupor of ignorance and be part of the resistance that should grow and win. How many other places are there to inform people what is coming at us as though we are standing between railroad tracks and there is a noisy rumble with bright lights and a loud horn headed our way? JW is a great start, along with most of its readers. I predict for every 10 each of us will awaken, 2 or 3 of them will awaken 10 more each. Why not try?
Zé says
Doesn’t the house have 435 members? 208 voted for, 217 voted against, that leaves 10 people who did not vote. Who are they?
I think you counter-jihad Americans should identify the 217 traitors and do your best to unseat them in 2018.
gravenimage says
The ones who did not vote did not necessarily abstain. At any given time, even when Congress is in session, a certain number of Congresspeople are at home attending to business in their districts.
duh swami says
It always amazes me just how weak the human mind really is…
The word ‘religion’ is the most evil idea ever created by humans…It is the key to the lock on the Gates of Hell…Because of it, untold millions have been murdered and enslaved by people under it’s evil spell…Death and destruction follow it wherever it goes…
Olog-hai says
Meanwhile, the highest death toll is still held by atheistic communists who decry religion and especially want to wipe out Christianity.
Robeaver says
Nonsense. Communism was their religion. Religion and ideology are la meme chose. The same thing.
gravenimage says
There have been lots of evil ideologies, both religious and not. Fascism, Communism, and Islam have been among the worst.
Of course, then there are lots of ideas that have been a great boon to mankind and his moral development.
Olog-hai says
More than 20 centrist Republicans joined with Democrats to defeated the amendment, 208 to 217. …
“Centrist” my foot. Left-wing Republicans. Unipartiers. The very type of Republican that Goldwater tried to warn us about in his book The Conscience of a Conservative.
sophie says
utterly tragic and disturbing.First rule of war “Know your enemy.:Sun Yat Sen
Oh America !
Terry Gain says
Islam is a supremacist, totalitarian ideology which was spread by terrorism and conquest and is now being spread by deceit and propaganda. It is not a religion.
shoebear says
Almost all terrorism throughout the world today is committed by Muslims in the name of Allah. However, most Muslims are not violent.
There is no moderate version of Islam. Rather, there are moderate people who are Muslims.
gravenimage says
If they are good people, they are bad Muslims.
Daniel Triplett says
Most Nazis didn’t gas Jews either. That doesn’t mean those who didn’t were “moderate” people. They all pledged allegiance to Hitler.
Every Muslim pledges allegiance to Allah. Every Muslim either swings the sword, or supports those swinging the sword. All Muslim parents teach their children they must emulate Muhammad, the Perfect Man.
This makes no Muslim a moderate person. All 1.7 Billion are equally guilty. Apostasy is how they prove they are not.
Frank Anderson says
Daniel, take a look at 18 U.S.C. section 2, “. . . anyone who aides, abets, counsels or acts in furtherance of a crime is equally guilty. . .” Consider this language from US v. Gary Greenough:
It is well established that
[t]]he elements of a conspiracy . . . are: (1) an agreement between two or more persons, (2) an unlawful purpose, and (3) an overt act committed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy . . . . The existence of the conspiracy can be proved by inference evidence . . . . Direct evidence of an agreement to join a criminal conspiracy is rare, so a defendant’s assent can be inferred from acts furthering the conspiracy’s purpose. The government is not required to prove that each alleged conspirator knew all the details of the conspiracy; it is enough to establish that a defendant knew the essentials of the conspiracy . . . that the defendant intended to join or associate himself with the objective of the conspiracy . . . even if he did not join it until after its inception, and even if he played only a minor role in the total scheme [United States v. Gary Greenough, 609 F. Supp 1090, 1093-1094 (SD Ala. 1985).].
mortimer says
DELUSIONAL! “…to identify those heroic Muslims within the world that will help us begin to delegitimize this ideology of global jihad.”
The jihad ideology (jihadism) is normative Islam, rather than an aberration.
ALL Muslims participate in VERBAL JIHAD by concealing, hiding, dissimilating and lying about the meaning, motive and methods of jihad. All Muslims must LIE about jihad or they have abandoned Islam.
Frank Anderson says
Mortimer, I suggest former Muslims who “see the light” and convert at the price of risking their lives are heroic, and truly worthy of all the praise, respect and support they can receive. As long as a person remains involved and accepts the label Muslim, his word to an infidel is worthless. I believe we agree on that and quite a few other subjects. I still wish to understand where de-programming comes into play. Out of more or less 1.5 Billion Muslims, how many “see the light” and get out? Will enough get out to make a difference? Please help me understand your repeated references to de-programming.
I further suggest that when I refer to the word “delusion” I have reference to Viktor Frankl’s “delusion of reprieve” in Man’s Search for Meaning, where people who were powerless in the death camps survived from day to day on the belief they would be rescued. It was a false and groundless belief that gave them comfort as they awaited their murder. We are not powerless and should take every opportunity to inform and motivate people what is here now and where we are headed. Actions not false hopes of someone else’s action will save us.
Warren Raymond says
There is something about the word “centrist” that gives me the creeps.
Frank Anderson says
Mr. Raymond, I suggest “centrist” means a person who cannot make a decision.
underbed cat says
Do Americans have a right to know who voted against this proposal?
underbed cat says
Do Americans have a right to know who voted against this proposal? I agree with Mortimer. “The jihad ideology (jihadism) is normative Islam, rather than an aberration.”
The doctrine demands also that the jihad ( verses that call for violence and the religious right to warfare or killing) must be protected by denying the existence which is clearly stated in the Quran if one were to read this book. The professional looking MB knows this…the average muslim knows this, the ex-president knew this, many citizens who read the Quran called islamophobes know this…so how to process the information that the leadership denies this, I can only conclude that money and misinformation has been sent to help with this denial. It is dangerous, disgusting and demoralizing.
“Ellison added:” ‘You are abridging the free exercise of that religion.” The is the religion of Ellison he should of course be given the right protect his religion so they can bring sharia law and jihad and soldiers of allah types and accuse the U.S. of bigotry for trying to stop terrorism…how bizarre for me to have to accept this reality …our leadership has switched sides.
Jerry says
…Ellison he should of course be given the right protect his religion so they can bring sharia law and jihad and soldiers of allah types and accuse the U.S. of bigotry…
That’s right, it’s just a political ploy to waylay any attempt by our legislature to investigate the crimes and seditious aims of islam. I don’t think for one second that Ellison gives a damn about religious freedom. When he defends islam he in fact is promoting religious discrimination and tyranny, because that’s what islam is. You know, I know it, and so does he.
underbed cat says
Thanks Jerry. I know I am around informed people here, what is perplexing is the inability to spread this information, since the media and the muslim brotherhood marketing and muslim media are working full steam,to as you say, .”..it’s just a political ploy to waylay any attempt by our legislature to investigate the crimes and seditious aim of islam.” Our government has been subverted to view islam to be normative peaceful and defined as a religion so we will allow the roots of terror that is islam to take hold.
underbed cat says
Thanks Jerry. I know I am around informed people here, what is perplexing is the inability to spread this information, since the media and the muslim brotherhood marketing and muslim media are working full steam, to as you say, .”..it’s just a political ploy to waylay any attempt by our legislature to investigate the crimes and seditious aim of islam.” Our government has been subverted to view islam to be normative peaceful and defined as a religion so we will allow the roots of terror that is islam to take hold.
James Stamulis says
Congress of COWARDS! When have they defended Christians in the last 8 years of Obama’s attacks?
Frederick says
The matter was the Franks Amendment (described above) to HR 2810, roll call vote 372. The final vote tally was 217 against to 208 for. There were actually 27 Republicans that joined the Democrats in this vote. Most of the the Republicans are not ‘centralist’ but members of the ‘Freedom Caucus’. Per congress.gov the 27 House Republicans not voting for this were:
Amash
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Costello (PA)
Curbelo (FL)
Dent
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Hill
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Meehan
Newhouse
Paulsen
Reichert
Ros-Lehtinen
Russell
Sanford
Stivers
Trott
Turner
Upton
Walden
Young (AK)
gravenimage says
Thanks for the additional information, Frederick.
Frederick says
Followup Comment: Reviewing the Congressional Record for Fri July 14 is interesting. The matter was initially THE OPPOSITE! IT PASSED 217 to 208! However 6 Democrats: Thompson (MS), Vargas, Sinema, Peterson, Torres,and Langevin asked to change their ‘Yes’ votes to ‘No’. Four Republicans: Newhouse, Trott, Fitzpatrick, and Faso also asked to change their ‘Yes votes to ‘No’. One Republican: Mini Walters ask to change here no vote to yes.
It appears the House Leadership didn’t realize the support the amendment had and moved members to change votes to ensure defeat!
gravenimage says
Disturbing.
Anne says
Too bad! Islam should not be described as a religion for it is not religion in the Western ethnocentric sense. It is an ideology that encompasses not only religious doctrine but legal codes and political aspirations that supersede secular constitutions ans seeks to dominate the world. Most of the practices advocated in its holy book are illegal in advanced societies as are the sharia legal codes that are derived from them.
somehistory says
islam is a criminal enterprise. It could be investigated using RICO.
If the government had the *will* and the desire to do so, it could investigate and put an end to much of what moslums do.
One day, islum will be eliminated from Earth. Hopefully, that day will soon dawn.
John Rosado says
Satan’s influence on mankind can be seen in many of the bad attitudes and actions that make the last days “critical times hard to deal with.”—2 Timothy 3:1 – 3
John Of Patmos agrees with you. Revelation 20:7 When the thousand years are complete, Satan will be released from his prison, 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to assemble them for battle. Their number is like the sand of the sea shore.
somehistory says
The Book of Revelation is one of my favorites. Jesus Christ knew what we would want to know and what we would need to keep our faith and hope alive and to stay spiritually awake. To not be afraid of the things coming, but to understand them.
One of the promises: “Look, I’m making all things new.” What a glorious day that will be.
Daniel Triplett says
Agreed. AG Jeff Sessions could destroy Islam with RICO.
Frank Anderson says
Daniel, I agree about AG Sessions. Take a look at the cases US v Gary Greenough, 609 F.Supp 1090 (SD Ala 1983). See also Greenough, 782 F.2d 1556 (5th Cir. 1986), See also US v Dan Alexander, 850 F.2d 1500 (11th Cir. 1988). Sessions conducted an excellent office, bringing many corrupt people to account.
Daniel Triplett says
Thanks Frank, I’ll research those cases. I appreciate the citations.
The first guy who can match every criminal verse of the compulsory Quran with a specific paragraph (law) from the US Code will have a compelling argument for criminalizing the practice or promotion of Islam.
Then we send that list and Sessions’ RICO Case History to the West Wing, the AG, and all 535 on Capitol Hill, and we may start making some progress.
Frank Anderson says
Daniel, I have met Sessions many years ago. I do not think he needs any outside guidance if presented a worthy case. He has his faults and areas where I disagree. One thing is certain: He is an honest and zealous enforcer of the law as written. Right now he is stymied by the failure to confirm a staff to replace Obama holdovers who have no regard for the law. If letters are in order consider letters demanding action on confirming his subordinates.
Daniel Triplett says
Agreed Frank. AG Sessions is a serious player.
I don’t know the stats of DOJ, but I do know for certain that 98% of Department of State employees donated to Hillary. It’s likely the other Executive Branch Agencies are similar. That’s a gigantic mess.
When President Trump says: “We must drain the swamp.” He means it.
I’d support firing ALL of them tomorrow. The “Resistance” is obviously deadly serious about their cause. Fuck all of them. Let them find a new job.
Frank Anderson says
Daniel, they would never miss a paycheck. There are too many Democrat firms around that would hire them immediately, starting with Special Counsel Mueller. But as long as they are “in office” no Democrat needs to fear DOJ: That’s why the new appointees are not being considered, much less confirmed.
jule says
That is utterly unrealistic. Do we want something done IN REALITY? or just talk that will sound like persecution to others and cause them to shut everything down with the Constitution? Like they did in this last bill. Something has to be done with wording that is in no way seen as persecuting one group….but would of course only cover one group. NO ONE, not Sessions, not anyone can make anything specifically against MUSLIMS.
People serious about this will use DIFFERENT WORDING or it will not stand one chance. So are you serious or just venting ‘feelings’?
Frank Anderson says
Jule, a little research into RICO, 18 U.S.C. section 1962 might help explain the prosecutorial possibilities. “RICO strikes against all who threaten the integrity of the marketplace–at one end of the spectrum mobsters and organized criminals in their illegitimate enterprises, and at the opposite pole otherwise law abiding business people in their respected and legitimate enterprises.” See, 31A Am Jur 2d, Extortion, Blackmail and Threats, 128 et seq, quoting Cianci v. Superior Court, 710 P.2d 375 (Cal. 1985)(which also holds that concurrent federal and state jurisdiction exists for civil RICO actions between private parties).
“Racketeering activity” is defined by enumerating specific state and federal offenses which when twice violated by an “enterprise” invoke civil and criminal remedies of the statute. 18 U.S.C. 1961(1), (4), (5).
“Enterprise” includes “any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity”. 18 U.S.C. 1963 (criminal prosecution) 18 U.S.C. 1964(b) (civil actions by Attorney General), 18 U.S.C. 1964(c) (civil actions by private plaintiffs).
No connection with traditional organized crime is required for either civil or criminal RICO actions. (Civil) Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 488 (1985)
RICO has been used against professionals and individuals “associated” with an enterprise even though they neither owned nor operated it. 31A Am Jur 2d, Extortion, etc., 135, see also, Bennett v. Berg, 710 F.2d 1361 (8th Cir. 1983), cert den, 464 U.S. 1008.
Considering the writings, teachings and actions over 1400 years the application of RICO could indeed remove the “religious” label and protection from a cult which teaches and lives for evil. Obviously I have done a little research and litigation on the subject. It is most interesting and nothing to dismiss as one approach.
somehistory says
Good information, Frank, for any who do not understand just what RICO is and how it can be, and has been, used to catch criminals who might get away otherwise.
It is not surprising that it is little understood, but if Mr. Sessions is the person you say he is, he should be able to go forward with an investigation of islm, the groups such as the mb, the *civil lib* groups such as cair, etc.
Frank Anderson says
Some, Sessions needs to fire ASAP all holdovers from Obama’s era. You can be sure they were hired in “fire-at-will” jobs to tow the party line on Islam. But all those terminations are being delayed by Democrat collaborators in the Senate, oddly enough, many of whom are Jews that Muslims would cheerfully dispose of given the opportunity according to their oldest teaching,. What I wrote was taken from an article I wrote over 20 years ago, which was reviewed and published. I believe it has merit and is correct. Thank you.
Daniel Triplett says
Huh? Of course I’m serious.
If we match every criminal verse of the compulsory Quran with a specific paragraph (law) from the US Code that criminalizes its practice, we will have a compelling argument for criminalizing the practice or promotion of Islam.
You seem to want to find a solution that still respects Islam as a religion with Constitutional rights.
I say, the very first step is delegitimizing Islam as a religion, and reclassifying it into its true characterization as a “Crime Syndicate.”
Here’s a well researched, articulate article about why Islam is NOT a religion:
[For some reason, I can’t paste the link, but do a search for Diane Sori, Islam Does NOT Deserve Tax Exempt Status Because Islam is NOT a Religion]
Daniel Triplett says
@Frank Anderson
That’s excellent work Frank. Great contribution to our cause, and something to be proud of.
somehistory says
RICO already covers *moslums* and what they are doing. islum is a criminal enterprise.
RICO has been used against the AB in several prisons…even though the members view their org as a *religious* org and have *church* meetings, etc. The AB is much like islum in that its members can’t leave. Once a member, always a member…unless they choose to die. “In with blood, out with blood.”
moslums are trafficking in humans for slave trading, sex-slaves, drugs, weapons, etc. That alone makes them liable for investigation and prosecution.
There does not need to be something written that will include Christians and other religions just so it doesn’t look like persecution. Churches are already investigated.
One time, I was in a Christian religious meeting and some undercover policemen came in and sat and listened to what was said and what took place. It happened several times over the course of a month.
The government already has a law that covers such things. As has been reported several times, cair members were un-indicted co-conspirators in the *holy-land foundation* case out of Dallas while Bush was president. if o had been non-moslum, they might have been indicted and be in prison now.
AEthlstan says
Islam is a terrorist group . . .
Norger says
Congress will not put the safety and security of this country about the “right” of Muslims to engage in sedition until there is an attack on one of our cities with casualties numbering in the millions. We’ve regressed from where we were after 9/11; the body count must continue to rise.
Norger says
Typo: I meant “above the right of Muslims to engage in sedition.”
catblue says
Considering Muslims and those that speak for them state these Jihadi terrorist are not Muslim and do not represent Islam, as Islam is the religion of peace…
Why would they not want the terrorist weeded out?
Let’s say I was Catholic (which I am not) and the church was filled with pedophiles, and the church hid and allowed this atmosphere to continue… would I not want the whole church to be investigated because that would be targeting Catholics which many friends and family are members of.
No, I would want the church investigated, child molesters charged, castrated and removed from society. I would also want all from the churches hierarchy that allowed and looked the other way to the atrocities committed again children, charged, punished and removed/excommunicated from the church.
I am sure most Catholics feel the same way and would have not problem with the above including castration of Catholic priest that raped/molested children. The point is, the whole religion is not targeted, only the faction of criminals within the Church.
That said, one can only guess all these Muslims crying or fearing being targeted are complacent with the atrocities committed in the name of Islam, what other explanation could there be?
ItsReallyQuiteClear says
catblue,
Exactly. And it’s very unfortunate that so many people are so intellectually lazy that that they won’t even consider exploring the “basic addition on their fingers” required to reach the conclusion you suggested.
Another, huge, obstacle is that so many people so readily believe that the greatest source of evil in the world is people who say “mean” things about Islam, rather than recognizing that Islam requires its followers to actually commit acts of great evil. A zero tolerance for “evil” words. An unlimited tolerance for evil actions.