The SCOTUS will overturn this unconstitutional abridgement of the freedom of speech.
Remember the part that says: “Congress shall make NO LAW that abridges the freedom of speech” ???
Infidelsays
You’re talking about compromised justices, like Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who rejected an appeal from some Indiana students who were being forced by their school to take the jabs. Sadly, the only 2 constitutional justices we have in the current court are Justices Thomas and Alito. The Trump appointees have done a John Roberts, and have made a mockery of the Federalist Society’s screening
mortimersays
Ilhan Omar may never have the strong belief in Islam’s truth to the degree that she would blow up of Congress, but I have no doubt whatever that she would fail to condemn the jihadists who blew up her political opposition.
Clifford Fodorsays
On your comment about the SCOTUS ruling this Islamophobia law unconstitutional because it is an abridgement of the freedom of speech – it should also be ruled unconstitutional because leans very heavily towards the establishment of a religion.
James Lincolnsays
mortimer,
Omar is more valuable for the “cause of islam” as a non-kinetic jihadist.
gravenimagesays
Ilhan Omar is (mostly) engaged in stealth Jihad.
gregbeethamsays
I don’t like the term ‘innocent Muslims’ simply because we are supposed to assume that a given Muslim is innocent just because he or she hasn’t committed any known atrocities as yet or hasn’t been arrested in connection with, or openly sympathises with a known terrorist group, or evidence obtained that they have provided support for them.
All Muslims are sympathetic to Jihadist terrorists because they aren’t Muslim if they aren’t so the questions are; is a given Muslim a real Muslim or not? And how does one establish what they are?
So to declare there is such a category as an ‘innocent Muslim’ is to ignore one of the basic charters of Islam, Jihad, (if they are true to the doctrine), and that in turn has the potential of placing non Muslims at risk by virtue of an unknown quantity.
mortimersays
To greg: there is truly a ‘Russian roulette’ quality to Muslims, because one Muslim in six self-identifies as supporting jihadic terrorist groups. The rest, of course, wish the terrorists to stop it.
It seems the more observant a Muslim becomes, the more he will support jihadic terrorism.
We cannot discover which is which, because the jihadic Muslims will conceal their intentions through taqiyya.
As with gun safety rules, we must assume that all the chambers in the revolver are loaded, and thoroughly check them before we dry fire the revolver.
Muslims are not thoroughly checked in this manner before entering the US or before getting secure positions. They may be truly loyal or it may be an act using taqiyya.
gregbeethamsays
That is exactly my position Mortimer, how in hell do we know if a good Muslim is actually a good Muslim, and is there any such thing anyway? I mean, a good Muslim to us is actually not really a proper Muslim at all when you come right down to it, which means that if you have any sense you would be very suspicious about what was really going on. I think they are too dangerous to have around, a potential unexploded bomb so to speak.
And I don’t understand how the democrats can possibly be so incompetent as to allow thousands of unknown un-vetted Muslims straight from Afghanistan into the United States; it is still boggling my mind. They are asleep at the wheel and leading the country we all depend on straight toward the abyss.
gravenimagesays
Mortimer, over half of Muslims in the West want to see the imposition of Shari’ah law–exactly what Jihad is meant to bring about.
gregbeethamsays
And those are just the ones that admit to it, the others are just being two faced, telling lies, which comes naturally to Muslims, they have to be just making noises that we would find acceptable otherwise they aren’t following the doctrine of Islam and are no longer Muslims.
gravenimagesays
Yes–good point, Greg. I imagine the real number of Muslims wanting to impose Islamic law on us is much higher.
Brian Hoffsays
So than anti-Islam government offical turn reigent builting into publc school.
mortimersays
Reply to BH: yeah, pal, and Muslims turn the chief temples of their opponents into mosques … Muslims should return Hagia Sophia to the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church.
mortimersays
… and Muslims should turn the Temple Mount back to the chief rabbi of Israel.
gravenimagesays
“Brian Hoff” here obviously never benefited from public school, or any other school.
Infidelsays
Even allowing for your atrocious spelling, what exactly is ‘reigent builting’?
gravenimagesays
I think that “builting” is “building”–but I have no clue as to what word “Brian Hoff” was trying for with “reigent”. “Regent”, perhaps? Who knows?
somehistorysays
This man asks some really good questions. And he made some really good points.
If i elmi isn’t able to guy enough votes next year to stay in the House, she has to get this done while she has the chance.
i. elmi is a snake, but people are afraid to say this and afraid to refuse to “bend over” for mozlums.
As satan’s time is “short,” he is using his children…inside and outside the cult of islam…to make life as difficult as possible before he is chained and abyssed.
mortimersays
Your sophomoric mischaracterization and overgeneralizations about Muslims are shameful and disgraceful and are a great disservice that hurts the counterjihad. It appears to be psychiatric.
somehistorysays
So, now you are also a doctor? You somehow believe that you are all-knowing, that you are a historian, and are **in charge** of this site so that you can dictate to others as to what to write and when and how: that you control the narrative as to what is acceptable criticism of islam and its adherents.
You have pretended to be Christian, but failed to pass the tests.
it is clearly and abundantly evident, that you are nothing more than an arrogant mozlum who pretends to be against those who hate Freedom, in order to show off just how much about islam you know.
Well, islam is **all you know.** And that ain’t saying much.
I am not buying your hogwash. and I’ll write what I please whether you approve or not.
gravenimagesays
Mortimer, you don’t say what you like about the appalling Ilhan Omar. Why do you think that considering her a snake is “psychiatric”?
gregbeethamsays
In my view the solution is simple; we need to ban the Koran because it is obviously Islamophobic itself.
Note that to quote what the doctrine says in the Koran is apparently Islamophobic according to the Bill and has been on social media sites like Twitter and YouTube and to an extent on Facebook and LinkedIn and in the comments section at MSM for some time where your statements of fact can be deleted and you face a short or long term ban then by extension if quoting the content of the Koran is Islamophobic the Koran itself must be Islamophobic and therefore needs to be banned.
somehistorysays
That is logical and it is obvious in today’s world, logic is under strict ban, as is the Truth about anything.
gravenimagesays
The problem is that if the Koran is banned that Infidels will be unable to learn what Islam has in store for us. And Muslims would flout any such law, leaving Infidels like Robert Spencer and others here to suffer imprisonment for daring to read that book. I own several editions of the Qur’an myself.
somehistorysays
The problem is that mozlums read and follow the filth, but as stated by gregbeetham, people like you and Mr. Spencer, can’t quote it on social media, or make a video where you quote it without being called names, having your accounts blocked and your comments deleted.
mozlums travel freely into the U.K. and read and scream the words from the filthy book on social media, youtube, etc. and yet, Mr. Spencer and Ms. Geller are not even allowed into the country.
It is not logical that mozlums can read and quote the book and proclaim loud and long about what they intend to do to the rest of us, but no one outside the cult can quote it or say what their book commands them to do and what they fully intend to do to us without being silenced in one way or another.
gregbeethamsays
Of course the parameters of logical deduction is what the Left says it is, they just restructure it to fit the agenda and disregard pertinent evidence to do it. If there ever was a proper senate enquiry into the whole thing then there would be no choice but to do some sweeping changes but as it stands with most politicians being weasels and thinking wrongly that the majority agrees with the status quo when they actually don’t it might be a long time before things are put right.
Thing is, Ilhan Omar can be accused in Congress of knowingly lying to the house when proposing her bill which sugar coats Islam and evades addressing the fundamental doctrine of Islam contained in the Koran. Her bill only focuses on suppressing those who intend to respond to the content of the Koran without addressing the Koran itself or the reason why people have the view of it they have.
gravenimagesays
Somehistory and Greg, I think we need to speak out and expose the threat of Islam as much as possible. If enough people do this, they can’t shut us all up.
gregbeethamsays
Yes I have tried in the past and I ended up getting banned from commenting on YouTube and I have posted various examples of Muslim atrocities on Facebook but Facebook can limit who sees what you post, they can even limit the view to only yourself and nobody else. I have never joined Twitter but from what I hear about that place I never will, I get email notifications from Parler about topics of interest which is a free speech site but I haven’t had time to go back there as yet.
Rumble and BitChute are still free speech sites and actually Rumble is growing in leaps and bounds at the moment (so they say).
gravenimagesays
We have to do what we can.
Infidelsays
I think Vibhuti Jha, in his attempt to oversell the importance of India, overlooked a key aspect of this bill
Attacking Burma, alongside India, would alienate them, but in the case of Burma, it would drive them more into the influence of Beijing. Under the former government of Ahn San Syu Kyi, Burma started distancing itself from Beijing when they saw the effect of Belt/Road projects on their debt, and started dealing w/ India instead. The US has this Quad alliance w/ India, Australia and Japan, and India was doing a good job attracting countries that weren’t willing to ally w/ the US, such as Sri Lanka. Burma, under its current junta, is already gravitating towards Beijing, and India risks being made the same sort of adversary that it voluntarily was under past Congress governments
As one saw w/ Ilhan Omar’s questioning a former Trump State Department official on Assam – an Indian state that I daresay this slut can’t find on a map – her sole agenda is making sure that the ability of muslims to wage jihad shall not be infringed. India did the right thing then by refusing to meet w/ a Democrat delegation (including Omar’s fellow Marxist Pramila Jayapal), and it should not hesitate to downgrade diplomatic relations w/ the US. In fact, Vibhuti Jha, the guy here, himself suggested that India refuse to accept the ambassador designate Eric Garcetti, who’s just being rewarded for running LA into the ground
One more point – I found it interesting to hear RS’ mission be described as some sort of jihad by Mr Jha. Nicely done ?
born saturdaysays
next is other laws of sharia to be passed such as children marriages just like they passed it in europe…..
I hope it doesn’t get that far either Gravenimage and somehistory the bill itself is discriminatory why couldnt have Ilhan Omar had made a bill against persecution of all religions even Atheism and not just Islam? I mean if would be great if there was a bill against Christiaphobia and country’s like Turkey who are destroying our churches snd commiting cultural genocide where held to account and also Pakistan Bangladesh which is persecuting Hindus and Christians and destroying Hindu temples should be held to account
gravenimagesays
Of course, this is not Omar’s goal.
Infidelsays
I’ve been watching more of David Wood’s videos. He refers to himself as D. Wood, but he could rebrand himself in those programs as ‘Dawood’, which is a muslim name and name of the famous leader of the Mumbai underground, now based in Karachi. And under that name, he could do all his stuff, such as demonstrating how Mohammed committed shirk or how Mohammed did not do what allah asked him to do and so on ?
gravenimagesays
Infidel, David Wood is about telling the truth, including to Muslims.
Boycott Turkeysays
Very good conversation between Robert Spencer and Vibhuti Jha I hope this law doesn’t go through senate if it does go though the senate can it be challanged ? I think it’s unconstitutional to have a blasphemy law in disguise also why is there no bill to protect Christian’s Hindus Apostates who left Islam?this bill will be used to persecuted Christians and Hindus more also I noticed the hate channel TRT news channel where celebrating it
somehistorysays
If they try to apply this inside the U.S., actually arrest someone, or charge someone, that person can then argue it out in court with others submitting briefs in support. of the defendent Until someone is charged, there won’t be a suit against it.
gravenimagesays
I hope it doesn’t get that far.
Infidelsays
I think that it can be challenged even if they don’t get to the point of actually arresting someone. The moment it’s signed by POTUS, some people should get together and challenge it, preferably in a court where it’s likely to be upheld. Do what the Dems do – court shopping, and pick a place where the judges are likely to strike it down
Is SIOA still active? Haven’t heard of them for a while. People like Jha and others should join it
Boycott Turkeysays
The problem is infidel I don’t think it’s just the democrats I think there some republicans who agree with the bill to by the way excuse my ignorance what is POTUS ?
gravenimagesays
POTUS means “President of the United States”.
somehistorysays
You can’t *fight* something if it hasn’t affected you directly. If it affects someone, then that person can fight it, and others can file briefs in support of the fight But it must affect someone directly. to be arrested, charged, etc. in some way.
Discover more from
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
mortimer says
The SCOTUS will overturn this unconstitutional abridgement of the freedom of speech.
Remember the part that says: “Congress shall make NO LAW that abridges the freedom of speech” ???
Infidel says
You’re talking about compromised justices, like Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who rejected an appeal from some Indiana students who were being forced by their school to take the jabs. Sadly, the only 2 constitutional justices we have in the current court are Justices Thomas and Alito. The Trump appointees have done a John Roberts, and have made a mockery of the Federalist Society’s screening
mortimer says
Ilhan Omar may never have the strong belief in Islam’s truth to the degree that she would blow up of Congress, but I have no doubt whatever that she would fail to condemn the jihadists who blew up her political opposition.
Clifford Fodor says
On your comment about the SCOTUS ruling this Islamophobia law unconstitutional because it is an abridgement of the freedom of speech – it should also be ruled unconstitutional because leans very heavily towards the establishment of a religion.
James Lincoln says
mortimer,
Omar is more valuable for the “cause of islam” as a non-kinetic jihadist.
gravenimage says
Ilhan Omar is (mostly) engaged in stealth Jihad.
gregbeetham says
I don’t like the term ‘innocent Muslims’ simply because we are supposed to assume that a given Muslim is innocent just because he or she hasn’t committed any known atrocities as yet or hasn’t been arrested in connection with, or openly sympathises with a known terrorist group, or evidence obtained that they have provided support for them.
All Muslims are sympathetic to Jihadist terrorists because they aren’t Muslim if they aren’t so the questions are; is a given Muslim a real Muslim or not? And how does one establish what they are?
So to declare there is such a category as an ‘innocent Muslim’ is to ignore one of the basic charters of Islam, Jihad, (if they are true to the doctrine), and that in turn has the potential of placing non Muslims at risk by virtue of an unknown quantity.
mortimer says
To greg: there is truly a ‘Russian roulette’ quality to Muslims, because one Muslim in six self-identifies as supporting jihadic terrorist groups. The rest, of course, wish the terrorists to stop it.
It seems the more observant a Muslim becomes, the more he will support jihadic terrorism.
We cannot discover which is which, because the jihadic Muslims will conceal their intentions through taqiyya.
As with gun safety rules, we must assume that all the chambers in the revolver are loaded, and thoroughly check them before we dry fire the revolver.
Muslims are not thoroughly checked in this manner before entering the US or before getting secure positions. They may be truly loyal or it may be an act using taqiyya.
gregbeetham says
That is exactly my position Mortimer, how in hell do we know if a good Muslim is actually a good Muslim, and is there any such thing anyway? I mean, a good Muslim to us is actually not really a proper Muslim at all when you come right down to it, which means that if you have any sense you would be very suspicious about what was really going on. I think they are too dangerous to have around, a potential unexploded bomb so to speak.
And I don’t understand how the democrats can possibly be so incompetent as to allow thousands of unknown un-vetted Muslims straight from Afghanistan into the United States; it is still boggling my mind. They are asleep at the wheel and leading the country we all depend on straight toward the abyss.
gravenimage says
Mortimer, over half of Muslims in the West want to see the imposition of Shari’ah law–exactly what Jihad is meant to bring about.
gregbeetham says
And those are just the ones that admit to it, the others are just being two faced, telling lies, which comes naturally to Muslims, they have to be just making noises that we would find acceptable otherwise they aren’t following the doctrine of Islam and are no longer Muslims.
gravenimage says
Yes–good point, Greg. I imagine the real number of Muslims wanting to impose Islamic law on us is much higher.
Brian Hoff says
So than anti-Islam government offical turn reigent builting into publc school.
mortimer says
Reply to BH: yeah, pal, and Muslims turn the chief temples of their opponents into mosques … Muslims should return Hagia Sophia to the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church.
mortimer says
… and Muslims should turn the Temple Mount back to the chief rabbi of Israel.
gravenimage says
“Brian Hoff” here obviously never benefited from public school, or any other school.
Infidel says
Even allowing for your atrocious spelling, what exactly is ‘reigent builting’?
gravenimage says
I think that “builting” is “building”–but I have no clue as to what word “Brian Hoff” was trying for with “reigent”. “Regent”, perhaps? Who knows?
somehistory says
This man asks some really good questions. And he made some really good points.
If i elmi isn’t able to guy enough votes next year to stay in the House, she has to get this done while she has the chance.
i. elmi is a snake, but people are afraid to say this and afraid to refuse to “bend over” for mozlums.
As satan’s time is “short,” he is using his children…inside and outside the cult of islam…to make life as difficult as possible before he is chained and abyssed.
mortimer says
Your sophomoric mischaracterization and overgeneralizations about Muslims are shameful and disgraceful and are a great disservice that hurts the counterjihad. It appears to be psychiatric.
somehistory says
So, now you are also a doctor? You somehow believe that you are all-knowing, that you are a historian, and are **in charge** of this site so that you can dictate to others as to what to write and when and how: that you control the narrative as to what is acceptable criticism of islam and its adherents.
You have pretended to be Christian, but failed to pass the tests.
it is clearly and abundantly evident, that you are nothing more than an arrogant mozlum who pretends to be against those who hate Freedom, in order to show off just how much about islam you know.
Well, islam is **all you know.** And that ain’t saying much.
I am not buying your hogwash. and I’ll write what I please whether you approve or not.
gravenimage says
Mortimer, you don’t say what you like about the appalling Ilhan Omar. Why do you think that considering her a snake is “psychiatric”?
gregbeetham says
In my view the solution is simple; we need to ban the Koran because it is obviously Islamophobic itself.
Note that to quote what the doctrine says in the Koran is apparently Islamophobic according to the Bill and has been on social media sites like Twitter and YouTube and to an extent on Facebook and LinkedIn and in the comments section at MSM for some time where your statements of fact can be deleted and you face a short or long term ban then by extension if quoting the content of the Koran is Islamophobic the Koran itself must be Islamophobic and therefore needs to be banned.
somehistory says
That is logical and it is obvious in today’s world, logic is under strict ban, as is the Truth about anything.
gravenimage says
The problem is that if the Koran is banned that Infidels will be unable to learn what Islam has in store for us. And Muslims would flout any such law, leaving Infidels like Robert Spencer and others here to suffer imprisonment for daring to read that book. I own several editions of the Qur’an myself.
somehistory says
The problem is that mozlums read and follow the filth, but as stated by gregbeetham, people like you and Mr. Spencer, can’t quote it on social media, or make a video where you quote it without being called names, having your accounts blocked and your comments deleted.
mozlums travel freely into the U.K. and read and scream the words from the filthy book on social media, youtube, etc. and yet, Mr. Spencer and Ms. Geller are not even allowed into the country.
It is not logical that mozlums can read and quote the book and proclaim loud and long about what they intend to do to the rest of us, but no one outside the cult can quote it or say what their book commands them to do and what they fully intend to do to us without being silenced in one way or another.
gregbeetham says
Of course the parameters of logical deduction is what the Left says it is, they just restructure it to fit the agenda and disregard pertinent evidence to do it. If there ever was a proper senate enquiry into the whole thing then there would be no choice but to do some sweeping changes but as it stands with most politicians being weasels and thinking wrongly that the majority agrees with the status quo when they actually don’t it might be a long time before things are put right.
Thing is, Ilhan Omar can be accused in Congress of knowingly lying to the house when proposing her bill which sugar coats Islam and evades addressing the fundamental doctrine of Islam contained in the Koran. Her bill only focuses on suppressing those who intend to respond to the content of the Koran without addressing the Koran itself or the reason why people have the view of it they have.
gravenimage says
Somehistory and Greg, I think we need to speak out and expose the threat of Islam as much as possible. If enough people do this, they can’t shut us all up.
gregbeetham says
Yes I have tried in the past and I ended up getting banned from commenting on YouTube and I have posted various examples of Muslim atrocities on Facebook but Facebook can limit who sees what you post, they can even limit the view to only yourself and nobody else. I have never joined Twitter but from what I hear about that place I never will, I get email notifications from Parler about topics of interest which is a free speech site but I haven’t had time to go back there as yet.
Rumble and BitChute are still free speech sites and actually Rumble is growing in leaps and bounds at the moment (so they say).
gravenimage says
We have to do what we can.
Infidel says
I think Vibhuti Jha, in his attempt to oversell the importance of India, overlooked a key aspect of this bill
Attacking Burma, alongside India, would alienate them, but in the case of Burma, it would drive them more into the influence of Beijing. Under the former government of Ahn San Syu Kyi, Burma started distancing itself from Beijing when they saw the effect of Belt/Road projects on their debt, and started dealing w/ India instead. The US has this Quad alliance w/ India, Australia and Japan, and India was doing a good job attracting countries that weren’t willing to ally w/ the US, such as Sri Lanka. Burma, under its current junta, is already gravitating towards Beijing, and India risks being made the same sort of adversary that it voluntarily was under past Congress governments
As one saw w/ Ilhan Omar’s questioning a former Trump State Department official on Assam – an Indian state that I daresay this slut can’t find on a map – her sole agenda is making sure that the ability of muslims to wage jihad shall not be infringed. India did the right thing then by refusing to meet w/ a Democrat delegation (including Omar’s fellow Marxist Pramila Jayapal), and it should not hesitate to downgrade diplomatic relations w/ the US. In fact, Vibhuti Jha, the guy here, himself suggested that India refuse to accept the ambassador designate Eric Garcetti, who’s just being rewarded for running LA into the ground
One more point – I found it interesting to hear RS’ mission be described as some sort of jihad by Mr Jha. Nicely done ?
born saturday says
next is other laws of sharia to be passed such as children marriages just like they passed it in europe…..
eduardo odraude says
Another fun argument against Islam (D. Wood):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhOZOLU1iKc
gravenimage says
Brilliant logic from David Wood, Eduardo!
Of course, there is no logic in Islam…
Boycott Turkey says
I hope it doesn’t get that far either Gravenimage and somehistory the bill itself is discriminatory why couldnt have Ilhan Omar had made a bill against persecution of all religions even Atheism and not just Islam? I mean if would be great if there was a bill against Christiaphobia and country’s like Turkey who are destroying our churches snd commiting cultural genocide where held to account and also Pakistan Bangladesh which is persecuting Hindus and Christians and destroying Hindu temples should be held to account
gravenimage says
Of course, this is not Omar’s goal.
Infidel says
I’ve been watching more of David Wood’s videos. He refers to himself as D. Wood, but he could rebrand himself in those programs as ‘Dawood’, which is a muslim name and name of the famous leader of the Mumbai underground, now based in Karachi. And under that name, he could do all his stuff, such as demonstrating how Mohammed committed shirk or how Mohammed did not do what allah asked him to do and so on ?
gravenimage says
Infidel, David Wood is about telling the truth, including to Muslims.
Boycott Turkey says
Very good conversation between Robert Spencer and Vibhuti Jha I hope this law doesn’t go through senate if it does go though the senate can it be challanged ? I think it’s unconstitutional to have a blasphemy law in disguise also why is there no bill to protect Christian’s Hindus Apostates who left Islam?this bill will be used to persecuted Christians and Hindus more also I noticed the hate channel TRT news channel where celebrating it
somehistory says
If they try to apply this inside the U.S., actually arrest someone, or charge someone, that person can then argue it out in court with others submitting briefs in support. of the defendent Until someone is charged, there won’t be a suit against it.
gravenimage says
I hope it doesn’t get that far.
Infidel says
I think that it can be challenged even if they don’t get to the point of actually arresting someone. The moment it’s signed by POTUS, some people should get together and challenge it, preferably in a court where it’s likely to be upheld. Do what the Dems do – court shopping, and pick a place where the judges are likely to strike it down
Is SIOA still active? Haven’t heard of them for a while. People like Jha and others should join it
Boycott Turkey says
The problem is infidel I don’t think it’s just the democrats I think there some republicans who agree with the bill to by the way excuse my ignorance what is POTUS ?
gravenimage says
POTUS means “President of the United States”.
somehistory says
You can’t *fight* something if it hasn’t affected you directly. If it affects someone, then that person can fight it, and others can file briefs in support of the fight But it must affect someone directly. to be arrested, charged, etc. in some way.