Modern, liberal ideology must be overthrown

[Questatement]

A Real Islam Policy for a Real America

The key to this liberal ideology is the belief in tolerance or non-discrimination as the ruling principle of society, the principle to which all other principles must yield. We see this belief at work in every area of modern life. The principle of non-discrimination must, if followed consistently, destroy every human society and institution. A society that cannot discriminate between itself and other societies will go out of existence...

[Dan_77]

Wow... what a racist (religionist), bigoted rant based in nothing but fear of scary brown people.

Some quotes from the longer article:

I therefore will propose to the Congress tomorrow the following measures, which shall be called the American Freedom from Islam Act. With the exception of immediate family members of U.S. citizens, diplomatic personnel, and temporary visitors for business and other legitimate purposes, all entry into the United States of foreign persons known or determined to be followers of the religion of Islam, whatever their nationality or country of residence, shall cease.

The United States shall encourage the voluntary departure of Muslim naturalized citizens and their native-born descendants by offering all Muslim person over the age of eighteen $50,000 each in a one-time fee to give up any claim of U.S. residency or citizenship, to return to their native land, and never to seek to return. The federal government will assure that departing Muslims will receive a fair market price for their real property, investments, and other property that they must sell prior to leaving the United States.

For these reasons further steps are needed, aimed not just at stopping and reversing the growth of jihad support in America, but at stopping and reversing the growth of sharia in America. And to reverse the growth of sharia in America means to reverse the growth of Islam in America, through the forcible or voluntary departure of sharia-believing Muslims. Therefore I shall propose these additional measures: Any legal resident alien who advocates or adheres to, or who on investigation is reasonably suspected of adhering to, the sharia law shall be deprived of his resident status and removed from the United States; No resident alien who advocates or adheres to, or who on investigation is reasonably suspected of adhering to, the sharia law, will be naturalized as a U.S. citizen. In order to be naturalized, Muslims will be required to state under oath that they totally reject the Islamic doctrine of sharia and have no association with pro-sharia activities. Any naturalized citizen who violates this oath shall lose his citizenship and be removed from the United States. Any mosque or Islamic center in the United States that promotes or seeks to spread the sharia law shall be closed.

But wait, it gets better:

But now we need to consider a further problem. The measures enumerated so far will inevitably be attacked as in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Therefore, in order for the measures that I've proposed to stand and not be overturned, we must have a further law stating that the First Amendment does not apply to Islam, does not protect the free exercise of the religion of Islam, because Islam is not only a religion, it is a political movement aimed at establishing tyrannical power over non-Muslims, and specifically aimed at overturning our Constitution, laws, and liberties. However, even such a radical law would not get us out of the woods, because it also could be overturned as in violation of the First Amendment. Therefore, in order for the measures I have proposed to be truly secure and not threatened by constitutional challenge, we must go to the highest level of our political system. We must pass a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the practice of Islam in the United States. Through such an amendment we will be saying that Islam is incompatible with our existence as a society. We will be making a fundamental statement about the kind of society America is.

Apparently, according to the writer, America is (or should be) a society that bans entire religions from existence within its borders, based upon irrational fear of terrorism.

Oh, but wait, the writer later clarifies this to make this speech even less worthy of serious debate:

When we first became aware of the Islam problem, the focus of course was on terrorism. Then after a while we realized that even if there were no terrorism, there would still be jihad, covering all kinds of aggressive Islamic actions short of terrorism. But three or more years ago, I and others began saying that even if there were no jihad, Islam could still take over via the peaceful spread of sharia.

So, the writer is advocating that America should outlaw the peaceful spread of particular ideas, merely because he does not like them.

I see no point in mincing words here, so I'll cut right to it:

I am disgusted that such a human being as this writer gets to call himself an "American" and a representative of my people merely because he fell out of his mother onto American soil. This man has no concept whatsoever of what being an American means. His writing is an affront to the very heart of what makes my nation great - that ideas are to be heard and debated, that by the process of hearing and debating ideas, the best ideas will rise to the top and make us greater as a whole.

[Questatement]

Quote by: Dan_77 So, the writer is advocating that America should outlaw the peaceful spread of particular ideas, merely because he does not like them.

Fact or fiction, the Trojan Horse which was drug into Troy seemed to be an innocent enough trophy - but it wasn't until the gates were opened and the city inhabitants were in the minority that the destruction ensued.

As they say, "You can take the boy out of the country... "

'Westernized' Woman Allegedly Hit by Dad's Car Dies

The lack of Muslim integration in Europe will demonstrate the end result for Americans only by that time, it will most likely be too late.

Been following the recent CAIR scandal?

[Jack]

Yeah, let's destroy America to save America. Let's do the terrorist's work for them. Suspend the Constitution, re-write it to accommodate our political paranoia. Let's turn the U.S. into a closed-border theocracy, all in the name of "freedom"(?).

[grandpa]

Quote by: Questatement Fact or fiction, the Trojan Horse which was drug into Troy seemed to be an innocent enough trophy - but it wasn't until the gates were opened and the city inhabitants were in the minority that the destruction ensued. As they say, "You can take the boy out of the country... "

Oh yes, because literally all Muslims would want this country to be in disarray.

Grandpa h.

[Questatement]

Quote by: Dan_77 His writing is an affront to the very heart of what makes my nation great - that ideas are to be heard and debated, that by the process of hearing and debating ideas, the best ideas will rise to the top and make us greater as a whole.

Although I agree that a Constitutional Republic was a better idea than a monarchy, its was through military battle and the blood of patriots that the American way 'rose to the top.'

[Questatement]

Quote by: Jack Yeah, let's destroy America to save America. Let's do the terrorist's work for them. Suspend the Constitution, re-write it to accommodate our political paranoia. Let's turn the U.S. into a closed-border theocracy, all in the name of "freedom"(?).

What specific part of the Constitution would need to be suspended or re-writen?

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Questatement

The attack on religion is laudable.

however I would entirel disagree with the artical and your theme to reduce liberal America

It would be better to enable full expansion of ideals to liberate the people from the tired ties of all religion

Thus ammend the constitution to stop the practice of any form of religion in public places or as gathered groups

Individual spirituuality in solitude away from the public gaze being more difficult to control or police should be considered acceptable

I suggest you entirely rethink your approach and move away form past ties to myths and untruths

[Questatement]

Quote by: grandpa Oh yes, because literally all Muslims would want this country to be in disarray. Grandpa h.

Muslims presently constitute 1/4 of the world's population. Population experts predict that will reach 50% in the next fifty or so years.

Now, just for fun.

Assuming you would live 80 years, what predominately Muslim country, and in what time frame up to the present, would you chose to live?

Why?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Questatement Although I agree that a Constitutional Republic was a better idea than a monarchy, its was through military battle and the blood of patriots that the American way 'rose to the top.'

I predict this will mostly be a discussion of what is constitutional and what's not, but I'd like to point something out: If white, Christian Europeans were justified to come to this continent and kill off much of its native population, the alleged absolutely terrible Muslims would be justified
in doing something similar.

Without acknowledging this idea, the points of such a discussion are unclear to me.

Grandpa h.

[Questatement]

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel Questatement The attack on religion is laudable. however I would entirel disagree with the artical and your theme to reduce liberal America It would be better to enable full expansion of ideals to liberate the people from the tired ties of all religion.

While you're talking 1.7 billion Muslims out of their religious beliefs, not to mention some 5 billion others with alternate religious beliefs, I'll be advocating a return to what made American the world power that she became, climaxing in the 1940 thru the 1980's.

[Chris the Chees]

Aside from the obvious racist nonsense within the article, I think there is something to be learned from the use of the word 'liberal'. There are of course lots of different images drawn by the use of the word liberal. In the 18th and 19th century, a liberal was a person who favour laissez-faire economic policy and social reform of the Malthusian variety.

The dictionary would have us think of a liberal as:

"Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
#

Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."

While to the neo-conservative it has become a word of perjorative to disparage those with whom they disagree. It is a term which is seemingly going out of favour at the moment. I suppose over use has begun the process of reducing the words meaning, and the effect has worn off. Naturally a replacement is in order, and that replacement seems to be the word 'socialist'. Of course this has happened before the conservative word of choice to misrepresent their opponents has shifted from 'liberal' to 'socialist' several times before in the past. I wonder how long it will be until that word again loses the power to strike fear into the hearts of the more ignorant elements of the US public and conservatives shift back to liberal as their dishonest slur of choice.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Questatement While you're talking 1.7 billion Muslims out of their religious beliefs, not to mention some 5 billion others with alternate religious beliefs, I'll be advocating a return to what made American the world power that she became, climaxing in the 1940 thru the 1980's.

According to your beliefs, yes, singling out and attacking Muslims will somehow make us great again. And please explain what was so astoundingly great about the 1940's thru the 1980's.

Grandpa h.

[Questatement]

Hitler completely defeated and communism suffering a major, global set-back.

All at the hands of American ideology and the economic and military prowess to back it up.

Regarding my challenge, have you decided which country and time yet?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Questatement Hitler completely defeated and communism suffering a major, global set-back. All at the hands of American ideology and the economic and military prowess to back it up.

Actually, the Russians put in the greatest effort to militarily defeat Hitler. Some major US companies actually supported the Nazi regime, and our government even denied entry to Jews fleeing persecution. And the Soviet Union largely collapsed because of their own reforms, commonly called Glasnost. So yeah, yay team!

Grandpa h.

[Questatement]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Aside from the obvious racist nonsense within the article, I think there is something to be learned from the use of the word 'liberal'. There are of course lots of different images drawn by the use of the word liberal. In the 18th and 19th century, a liberal was a person who favour laissez-faire economic policy and social reform of the Malthusian variety.

I gave you a link with thousands of words to describe the type of liberalism and the context it applies to. Do you really think we have a need to additionally define it for the purpose of this thread?

[Questatement]

Quote by: grandpa Actually, the Russians put in the greatest effort to militarily defeat Hitler. Some major US companies actually supported the Nazi regime, and our government even denied entry to Jews fleeing persecution. And the Soviet Union largely collapsed because of their own reforms, commonly called Glasnost. So yeah, yay team! Grandpa h.

If you're looking for a perfect government... I wish you luck.

So Americans did not tip the scales against Hitler and Glasnost was not in response to competition with the US and our superior approach to governance?

Muslim populations will only advance to the projected numbers in the welcome arms of liberal, Western immigration policies.

Did you select your Muslim county and time frame yet?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: grandpa If white, Christian Europeans were justified to come to this continent and kill off much of its native population, the alleged absolutely terrible Muslims would be justified in doing something similar. .

Are you implying that we shouldn't oppose them??

[soothsayer]

Chris the Chees...

your "dictionary" definition of "liberal" has been re-written repeatedly over time by the socialists who predominate within academia.

"Liberal" once was the self-described compliment that monarchs gave themselves when they "liberalised' their dictatorial policies over their bourgeoise subjects as a political expediency---either their hand was forced because their economic power represented a real threat to their own, which translated to a real military competition, or, as matter of practicality with concomitant public relations advantages, they were able to appear magnanimous while taking advantage of their subjects' ingenuity in business by making them more amenable to increasing taxation.

So, in essence, politically, classically "liberal" means "leaving people alone" by someone of power who traditionally did quite the opposite.

In modern American political parlance, "liberal" means something entirely different. Characteristic of their doublespeak and rewriting history, they are only "liberal" in printing fiat money and "liberal" in spending it, and "liberal" in taxing one group and "redistributing it" to another in exchange for popular votes and campaign contributions from corporate benefactors.

The reason modern day "liberals" are tacitly (and often overtly, as well.. i.e. CAIRN) "in bed" with islamists is because they like the idea of "submission" for which islam stands---they just think they will be submissive to them...
hence their collusion with labor groups to provide "prayer times" during the workday in order to decrease productivity and hence, increase dependency upon their real source of power, fiat money.

As far as

[Questatement]

I'm going out on a limb here since no information is out yet.

Dollars to donuts that the Ft. Hood incident is a perfect example of what comes with the lack of discrimination going on in liberal thought and practice concerning Muslim immigration... be it first, second, or third generation immigrants.

And while Obama condems it out one side of his mouth, he invites more of the same out the other.