Thursday, February 08, 2007

A Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Background and justification to Amendment 28

Whereas Religion is defined as an institution dedicated to improving social conscience and promoting individual and societal spiritual growth in a way that is harmless to others not participating in or practicing the same;

Whereas the United States of America was founded on the ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one’s religion of choice, or no religion, and that there would be no compulsion of religion, nor state sanctioned religion, nor a “religious test” for participation in the body politic;

Whereas Islam includes a complete political and social structure, encompassed by its religious law, Sharia, that supersedes any civil law and that Islam mandates that no secular or democratic institutions are to be superior to Islamic law;

Whereas Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion and that Islam will dominate the world and supplant all other religions and democratic institutions;

Whereas Saudi Arabia, the spiritual home of Islam does not permit the practice of any other religion on its soil and even “moderate” Muslims states such as Turkey and Malaysia actively suppress other religions;

Whereas Islam includes as its basic tenet the spread of the faith by any and all means necessary, including violent conquest of non-believers, and demands of its followers that they implement violent jihad (holy war) against those un-willing to convert or submit to Islam, including by deception and subversion of existing institutions;

Whereas on 9/11/2001 19 Muslim hijackers acting in the name of Islam killed 3,000 Americans, and numerous other acts of terrorism have been directed at the American people around the world;

Whereas representatives of Islam around the world including Osama Bin Laden (architect of 9/11), the government of Iran including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, HAMAS, Hezbollah, and other Islamic groups have declared jihad (war) on America, and regularly declare that America should cease to exist;

Whereas there is no organized Islamic opposition to violent proponents of Islam;

Therefore: Islam is not a religion, but a political ideology more akin to Fascism and totally in opposition to the ideals of freedom as described in the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:

Article I

The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.

The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.

Article II

As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.

Article III

Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.

The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.

The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.

Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.

Article IV

Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.

Many thanks to Scott for authoring this and submitting to our inbox.

UPDATE- Some of our 'fans' out there have noted a couple of language errors with this post, which have now been corrected. Thank you kindly for your support!


Ronbo said...

Link posted at The Freedom Fighter's Journal.

This is an idea whose time has come.

Cheers, Ronbo

Anonymous said...

oh yes!
Something similar needed in proposed European Constitution.

Anonymous said...

This is a proposal which has slender poliltical support now and probably during a number of years. E g many will point at the many muslims who believe this is a religion and practise it peacefully.

I have chosen another road which probably will get faster results and avoid the very strong resistance of most muslims (see sidebar European sites). My proposed laws and policies will eliminate all expressions, freedom of action, and resources of islam which may be a threat to human rights and a decent society. The rules will hopefully set the stage for a real far-reaching integration/assimilation of muslims into society.

It may also be possible to slowly transform the view of real traditional islam (which is now gaining ground everywhere) so that even muslims will look at it as a cult. As I have written, traditional islam may in the future not be a religion allowed in Western countries. But before going down that road we must better investigate the possibility of a peaceful and tolerant islam where the dangerous parts are eliminated. Then we have a better political basis to declare real traditional islam as a cult. I am not willing to give up that possibility of a reformed islam until that issue has been investigated much more thoroughly than it is today.

No Sharia

Anonymous said...

President Ahmadinejad's real views are summarized on this website:

Anonymous said...

This was PERFECT all the way - until "Article IV". A BIG thank you to Scott/The Anti-Jihadist - this is the medicine we need!


John Sobieski said...

I think this is a very good start. While it will take years to move this into the mainstream, Islam and its violent believers will make the case for us.

I think a multipronged strategy is necessary. The easiest thing (in relative terms) to get passed by Congress is restriction on Muslim immigration to America. Of course, Europe, and its self destruction by allowing Muslims in huge numbers into their union will act as a strong case for essentially eliminating Muslim immigration to America. Furthermore, America should confront any attempts to impose Sharia by stealth, whether with rights to headcoverings for women, prayer accomodations, segregation of swimming pools and gyms, etc. All should be denied and ridiculed.

There are many small steps leading to the 28th amendment that must be taken. But given the examples Islam and its believers give us everyday of their tyranny and hatred for the infidels, it will not only be possible but necessary.

Anonymous said...

sobiesky, the UK and Europe have been led blindfold into an alleyway, where muggers wait to relieve them of their valuables at knife-point.
To make matters worse, the policemen turn their blind eye to the crime, and the magistrates are usurped by their foolish belief that the muggers are only criminal due to the fault of the victims' predecessors.
The UK government are just licensing Super Casinos, and at the same time are gambling with the far more precious-than-money ways of life of the settled communities of whatever faith.
May the memory of these Charlatans be ground into the dust of the Reconquista.

Anonymous said...

Thanks to all for the positive comments for my proposal. Now,
"no sharia's" proposals will meet with defeat specifically because it would violate the 1st Amendment, since Islam is a "religion". My proposal eliminates that obstacle and allows us to do just what "no shiria" wants. Also, my proposal does assume that Islam cannot be reformed, which people can disagree with, but seems wishfull thinking at best.

For "annonymous" Article IV is very necessary in order to prevent treating people in America like we treated the Japanese in WWII. And despite the fact that Islam is a deadly threat to America, many, and maybe most, American Muslims are not a violent threat, particularly if we can prevent the teaching of violent Islam in Mosques. Pretty hard to spread that idea outside of the Muslim holy places.

So I think my proposal pretty well satisfies all our needs (though not those of our European friends, I'm not sure what they can do).

And "John" is exactly right, and though I doubt my proposal would EVER become law, if it did it would make it very easy to accomplish what John suggests. In the meantime we do need to be stopping the immigration of Muslims and prohibiting special accomdations for them (such as seperate swim times at "public" pools and such). Force them to integrate into society by refusing to let them self-segregate.


felix said...

Check out the proposed Declaration of War Against Radical Islam below:

Declaration of War

Anonymous said...

Your proposed amendment is as un-American as it could possibly be.

Article I and II revokes the 1st amendment rights of citizens who do not practice "approved" religions.

Article III calls for:
Government seizure of private property without due process or compensation.
The murder of anyone who practices or teaches the "forbidden" religion.

Article IV is nonsensical, as you cannot have "freedom of conscience" if you fear being murdered by your government for your religious views.

If you replace "Islam" with "Jew", it reads as if from Nazi Germany. If you replace "Islam" with "Christianity" and it reads as if from Stalinist Russia.

What you propose is not a protection of American ideals, but the establishment of a totalitarian theocracy which would inevitably lead to human atrocities. That you and those who have commented would even consider such an un-democratic proposal troubles me deeply.

I understand the threat of Islamic extremism, but beware you don't become the enemy you despise.

Anonymous said...

Brian, I don't think you understand the "threat" from Islam. Perhaps you should visit or or many others.
I think my proposal is narrowly tailored to address ONE and ONLY ONE threat. I submit that this is the ONLY REAL way to combat in insidious cancer that is growing within our own shores. If we don't do something like this in 5-25 years we will be in a violent "religous" war on our own soil. Its already started in Europe, and in this war Islam isn't interested in peace. Death is the only option they offer if you don't want to submit.

Anonymous said...


I do understand the threat of radical Islam. It is a very real threat, but it is a threat of radicalism, not Islam. The decision we face in this country is whether we continue to be an open and democratic society based upon tolerance and equality under the law, or whether we become a more closed, authoritarian society. You are proposing that we institute a radical authoritarian (Christian) government in order combat radical authoritarian Islam. Do you not see the irony in that?

The ideals of equality and democracy are a huge risk. When a society is truly free, it is also free to enslave itself. If we maintain an open and tolerant democratic America, we do run the risk of losing our country to radical Islam. I believe that an open democracy can stand up to the challenge of Islam, I'm sorry that you do not.

Anonymous said...

Brian, I AM NOT proposing a "radical authoritarian (Christian) government". The very preamble and justification for the amendment spells out that what is threatened by Islam IS freedom of religion or no religion. This amendment would in no way affect freedom of religion, nor establish a "Christian" government.

Accomodating Islam will eventually destroy ALL freedoms in this country. There is NO Muslim country, even Turkey, where freedom of religion flourishes.

You are kidding yourself if you beleive that we can "tolerate" an intolerant "religion" like Islam. It is not the "radicals" that are the problem, they are the REAL followers. Muslims that don't follow jihad are bad Muslims.

Also, a free people should be allowed to protect their identity and their way of life. We are not under any moral compulsion to accept among us those who have openly declared war on our society.


Anonymous said...


Freedom of religion does not flourish in Muslim countries because they are currently theocracies. No theocracy has ever allowed freedom of religion. Not even Christian theocracies tolerated dissenting religions. That was kind of the point of the American colonies, to leave the persecution of a Christian theocracy which existed in England at the time.

By your proposal, certain American citizens should not have the same protections under the constitution as you or I. They can be upstanding, law-abiding citizens who love their children, pay their taxes, and love America just as much as you or I. But if they for one instant advocate that the teachings of Islam speak to them on some level, you would have them thrown in jail or killed. You would remove the rights of an entire group of people based on nothing more than their spiritual beliefs simply because some Muslims advocate violence. It is completely antithetical to American ideals. You would kill America to save it.

We don't need a draconian amendment to the constitution to deal with radical Islam in this country. We simply need to enforce the rule of law. Those who would advocate or plot violence against this country should be prosecuted under the law. Those who obey the law are free to practice whatever faith they wish, or no faith at all. That is what freedom of religion means.

Anonymous said...


Wrong again. Their "hate" speech, including that of exhorting their followeres to kill in the name of Allah is protected by the 1st Amendment since Islam is a "religion".

All my proposal does is make it possible to criminalize what is already criminal if someone other than a Muslim does it. Islam "plots violence" against our very way of life. Show me where ANYONE is attempting to prosecute that.

My proposal would not create a theocracy, but Muslims desire to implement THEIR theocracy, by force if necessary. If the example of what is happening right now in Britain doesn't convince you that Islam is not interested in integrating into the host culture I don't know what will.

If I could get this proposal passed by waving a majic wand I would. Sadly, I doubt that it will ever even reach the level of national discourse. If it did of course, the apoplectic reaction of Muslims in the USA would pretty much prove my case.

Islam is at war with the US. The enemy is inside the perimeter and our laws protect him while endangering us.


felix said...

To Brian and anonymous,
Check out the 'Declaration of War v. Radical Islam' above. I think it meets the objections you raise.

Anonymous said...


I posted a note on your blog about your declaration of war. Our 2 strategies go hand in hand. Not sure if we could do yours without first doing mine, but yours is a good idea too.


Yankee Doodle said...

A few points:

1) I think the readers here in the blogosphere have a very good handle on what Islam really is -- there is disagreement on some points, and on some phraseology, but we're getting an education. And, with every terrorist act that occurs, more people outside the blogosphere are getting an education, too.

2) The First Amendment protects not only religious beliefs and religious speech, but also political speech. Islam, as founded by Muhammed and as practiced throughout the world and throughout history, is a political as well as religious ideology. It is an ideology of conquest -- absolute conquest, of the people, their bodies, their minds and their souls, both in this world and in the hereafter. In principle, it matters not whether we call it a religion or a political movement, since both are protected by the First Amendment.

3) Islamic law itself is unconstitutional. To implement it, the US Constitution would have to be essentially done away with. That in and of itself argues not for changing the Constitution, since changing it is what the other side wants, but for enforcing it. The Constitution, as it is, is one of our biggest strengths. Our weaknesses are in the understanding of our Constitution among our citizens, so many of whom have been dumbed-down, and in abiding by it among our politicians, so many of whom lean whichever way the wind blows.

4) While many Muslims are sent here by certain elements in the Islamic world to subvert us, many come here to escape the radicalism; they are in search of freedom. They are quiet, since there are so many violent radicals in the Muslim community who intimidate them. It is difficult for them to organize, since they in particular get targeted by the terrorists. We need to not turn the decent people away by labeling them our enemies.

We defeated Communism without amending the Constitution, we defeated Nazism without amending the Constitution, and we will defeat Islam without amending the Constitution.

Do not prohibit the preachers of hate from preaching hate; rather, let them speak, and let's identify who they are. If they are not US citizens, kick them out of the country. We need to stop allowing Saudi Arabia and other countries, with government money, to establish mosques in our country preaching a political doctrine which means the destruction of our country. We should consider pressing for the freedom to preach other religions and political ideas in those countries, such as Saudi Arabia, where Christianity is basically illegal. We should also consider holding the Saudi government and others responsible for the actions of their citizens, when it can be shown that they have not only negligently failed to prevent such actions, but have actually aided and abetted them.

The main thing we need is elected leaders with 1) wisdom and 2) guts. Perhaps Tom Cruise and his Impossible Mission Force could find us some candidates?

The bottom line, though, is that the faults are not in our Constitution, but in ourselves; the US Constitution was never intended to be used by anyone to foist Islam or any other political or religious agenda on us, but rather, to prevent that. (Click here for some quotes.) If, in battling Islam, we establish a mirror society that is every bit as evil, only anti-Muslim, then the devil, attacking from the opposite direction, will still have won, and we, outflanked, will still be in Hell-on-Earth.

Anonymous said...

What Yankee Doodle said.

Anonymous said...

My proposed Constitutional amendment would not create an evil, it would allow us to combat an evil. All you naysaysers remember your words in 5-25 years as we fight in the streets for our country. Islam means to destroy our way of life. Banning it would help us, not hurt us.


Yankee Doodle said...

Scott, you have some good ideas. I think we all do. The fact that we are all not in agreement, but rather each seeing things differently, is our biggest strength. We're not afraid to think, we're not afraid to suggest and debate.... Sooner or later, one of us is going to hit the nail squarely on the head and come up with the magic formula.

I contrast that to the other side -- they're mindless jihadi automatons. They all think pretty much the same thing (with maybe a dozen variations that for our purposes here are relatively insignificant) -- AND THEY'RE ALL WRONG! AND NOBODY OVER THERE IS ALLOWED TO SAY SO!! Radical Islam is stupid and the emperor has no clothes!!! (ROFLMAO)

I did two posts addressing this friendly Muslim issue based on recent news events in the UK. They're long and wordy (sorry). If someone here can't get to sleep, or is very bored at work on Monday, maybe these will help -- ;)

Friends in the Muslim Community

Dysfunctional Religion, Dysfunctional Families: Dysfunctional Society

Anonymous said...

Some good comments have been made in this discussion. I agree with yankee doodle that there should be no constitutional amendment introduced now. The constitution is an enormous strength as it is.
However, our war against political islam m a y later have some consequences for the Constitution but it is very unclear today if they are needed at all and what they shall contain. Our weakness now is not caused by weaknesses in the constitution but by political correctness, weak policies and weak politicians.

Europe is currently the main front in the fight. I dislike all talk about the surrender of Europe to islam. Europe can not be allowed to capitulate. Yes, our policies and politicians are suicidal but as I say (see this blog sidebar European sites) in my theory of the Islamization of Europe, each defeat for us will start to arise Europeans. There will be no capitulation but an increasing level of violence in certain countries and more and more fights there between islam and democratic forces, and where various European democratic governments will help each other. In the end there will be a defeat for one side - and probably for Islam. And in that situation islamists and islam will feel the ironhand of a tolerant and openminded culture which no longer allows an intolerant creed.

Somewhere during this very long process we may neeed American troops fighting together with us, but it is uncertain if that is needed. We Europeans shall be able to solve this existential problem ourselves. But we are the frontier and we need a stable base and all kinds of support from behind i e from the US. But we shall do the fighting ourselves if our politicians let the process go too far so the governments of the various cvountries - or the Europeans in those countries if the goverments are paralyzed - are forced to use force to protect liberty and human rights.

The legal system I am formulating is intended to stop political Islam´s inroads into Europe before it goes so far that a military solution is needed. If I can get helpful comments regarding that work from all knowledgeable bloggers, I would be most grateful!

No Sharia

Eyes said...


Yankee Doodle said...

"I dislike all talk about the surrender of Europe to islam."

To borrow from John Paul Jones, Europe has not yet begun to fight.

"Somewhere during this very long process we may neeed American troops fighting together with us, but it is uncertain if that is needed."

My grandparents have some maps of Normandy from when they were younger. Should I get those and dust them off?

Europe did just fine facing the Mujahideen in previous centuries, so I'm not worried, once Europeans wake up. I think Americans are starting to doze off again (and I'm not talking about the anti-war crowd), since many see us as bogged down in Iraq, and there's no news about Salami Bin Laden. Meanwhile, the everyday problems continue....

One big thing in our favor is how fragmented the Islamic world is, especially that part that advocates violent jihad. Hatred is a major factor there; they hate us, but they hate each other, for religious, ethnic and tribal reasons. They can't stop fighting amongst themselves. Even the radicals trying to unify them want to do so by force. It hasn't changed in over a millenium. As soon as they conquered Spain, their side immediately took to fighting amongst themselves. The Christian side was already doing that, so the Reconquista took centuries, whereas the initial conquest only took three years.

If we could just contain Islam and promote liberty in Islamic countries, I think radical Islam will collapse by itself. The same strategy that Reagan used against the Soviets could work like a champ to deradicalize the Middle East and Southwest Asia.

Cubed © said...

John Sobieski said..

"I think this is a very good start. While it will take years to move this into the mainstream, Islam and its violent believers will make the case for us."

It is a great start; we desparately need to make the distinction between political Islam and religious Islam; ultimately, this will lead us to understand how to deal with Islam without messing with the whole "right to believe."

What encourages me the most about the suggestion of an amendment to the Constitution is that it signals the beginning of the awareness that Islam is a bi-partite entity, and entity that fuses belief and government into a single mass.

The solution to the whole "Islam problem" is for all of us to refer to the Constitution and its inspired protection of belief through its "privatization."

It wasn't just the study of Aristotle, Cicero, and John Locke that led the Framers to the conclusion that government must remain out of the business of compelling or even trying to influence belief, and that for belief to remain a matter of individual conscience and choice, we must have a secular Constitution - one that does not permit the government to interfere with our thinking, but rather, sticks to its proper role as a protector of objectively derived and defined individual rights.

A very important contribution to the thinking that led to the First Amendment was made by the pre-Revolutionary author, Robert Molesworth, whose writings were considered pivotal in the justification of the American Revolution.

He studied tyranny extensively, and found that wherever government was fused with religion (e.g. Islam), government tended to be regarded as an agent of God rather than as a product of the human mind (exactly as it is in Islam). When that happens, any criticism of government tends to be regarded as a sin, a moral issue, rather than as honest intellectual disagreement (as it is in Islam). Government uses this as a means of protecting itself against debate and criticism.

The decision to make ours a secular Constitution (the only two references to religion are prohibitions against it - no state religion shall be established, and religion shall not be used as a "litmus test" for holding political office) was not made lightly - it was a hotly debated issue during its authorship and the ratification process, but one that was supported by some very important religious leaders, most especially a prominent Baptist clergyman of the day.

He wisely recognized that if any one particular religion managed to harness the force of government to its own use, the freedom of other religions would be at risk (as they are in Islam). By the time the Constitution was ratified as the first governing document of the new United States, it was supported by every delegate, even the fundamentalists from Tennessee.

Some people fear that this last prohibition, the one against religion as a "litmus test" for holding public office, could lead to a takeover by the Islamic aggressors and the conversion of the United States into a de facto Islamic nation. That's why there was some anxiety when Keith Ellison was elected.

This is not so provided we go to the effort of separating out political Islam from religious Islam.

While one must remain free to think or belief anything, even that the moon is made of green cheese, one may not violate the rights of others. This means that if one's religion advocates human sacrifice, for example, the belief will be honored, but the action will not.

As a political entity dedicated to the overthrow of the United States and the substitution of the Koran for the Constitution, there would quite properly, under the Constitution, be no problem with a prohibition - perhaps in the form of an amendment - against Muslims holding political office or many other important positions requiring the promise to support, rather than overthrow, the Constitution and to respect the rights of citizens.

There is a site I recently saw, and that maybe a lot of you already know about, that addresses the difference between political and religious Islam, and publishes a few core books about it. I haven't read the books yet, but I may buy a couple. You may want to go take a look - the publications may prove very useful as an educational tool both for ourselves and for people we talk to, to say nothing of teachers.

The name is the Center for the Study of Political Islam (

This is the kind of clarification we need to solve this problem, and to overcome the widespread notion that any criticism, prohibition, etc. against Islam is an assault on the freedom to believe.

CAIR sure does push that notion, and unfortunately, it works.

Anonymous said...

There is no seperation of the political from the religious in Islam. And it is not possible to seperate the two purposes in Islam. The best one can hope for is that individual Muslims be apathetic about their religion. Unfortunately, all it takes is a few "radicals" to cause a world of trouble. The current war by representatives of the "religion of peace" against a truly peacefull relgion, Buddism, in Thailand is proof that Islam is dangerous to ALL other faiths.


Anonymous said...


Islam has no problem in fusing religion with politics - it is we, who do not have to worry about such a fusion, and have never experienced it, who have trouble separating the two out, and it is our responsibility to learn how to do this so that we can effectively deal with the problem.

The basic deal is this: if Islam (the religious part of the fusion) wants to substitute the Koran for the Constitution, we can say, "Hey, Islam-the-religion, it's perfectly OK for you to believe that, even though it's irrational. But Hey, Islam-the-political-entity, it's absolutely not OK for you to act to do that, and we will invoke all the various means at our disposal to see to it that you don't."

Let me repeat what I said, in case you missed it in my long comment:

"While one must remain free to think or believe anything, even that the moon is made of green cheese, one may not violate the rights of others. This means that if one's religion advocates human sacrifice, for example, the belief will be honored, but the action will not."

This is an example of how to go about the successful separation of politics from religion, including in Islam-the-religion/political-fusion.

If we paid attention the freedom to believe as contrasted with the freedom to act, no Constitutional amendment would be necessary - but teasing Islam-the-religion and Islam-the-political-entity apart is going to be a difficult concept for most of our people to grasp.

Anonymous said...

No Sharia,

You and I think very much alike on this issue; I agree with your statement:

"My proposed laws and policies will eliminate all expressions, freedom of action, and resources of islam which may be a threat to human rights"

The biggest problem is to teach our people just what a "right" is; the postmodern infestation of our school system has systematically erased any notion of "rights" among many of our people, and substituted for the concept some sort of notion that a "right" is an entitlement, some sort of "government permission slip" that can be granted or taken away.

This problem is HUGE!

Anonymous said...

Sorry Cubed and "no Sharia", you can't do what you're talking about without my amendment. The VERY "expressions" which advocate violence to non-Muslims are protected because they are part of the Koran. There is NO WAY you can legislate Radical Islams' (actually just Islams') ability to propogate violence away unless you first de-legitimize it as a religion. Ergo, my amendment. Doesn't matter though, it'll never happen. But we're alread starting to see Muslim violence directed at non-Muslims on the streets of America (remember the DC Beltway sniper? he was Muslim, and there is Muslim violence in Michigan now). So, support my amendment or prepare for civil war. I guess we're going to get the war because "political correctness" won't allow even people like you who recognize the threat to realize the need for the solution.


Anonymous said...


The focus of my proposals is on Europe where I live. There we don´t have the Bill of Rights found in the American Constitution. That makes it much easier to introduce legislation of the type I recommend even if there are some obstacles there too. However, the coming violence and political development in the European societies will eliminate such obstacles.

Even in the US, I think that we can do a lot within the constitution to eliminate most expressions and actions of political islam. So many of the these violate the human rights of others meaning that we probably can forbid or prevent them. But then we need good and strong politicians with a passion for liberty but also an understanding of what is proper to do in a time of war. We may e g have to refine our definition of war.

No Sharia

GDAEman said...

Hmm... a lot of unsubstatiated claims in your list of "Whereas's." Perhaps references to support those claims would help solidify your foundation.

Many in the Islamic world want to get rid of their dictators, unfortunately the US government has supported them for decades. Saudi Arabia is the classic example; it was set up by the US to ensure stable oil prices by running the OPEC oligopoloy.

A more balanced history reads more like this. The west installs brutal proxy governments, the people try to resist, they are crushed. This creates a cause for for fundamentalist religious elements, who exploit that cause. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Let me expand.

Skipping the christian cursades (the west attacking the east). The West created boarders and installed proxy governments to control the middle east around the turn of the last century and after WWII. Remember Britain's colony in India, later creating Pakistan (classic divide and conquer)? Remember Britain being in Afghanistan and Iraq? It wasn't because those countries were imposing themselves on Britain. Remember the US toppling the democratically elected mossadeq in iran to install the Shah, who brutally suppressed people who wanted democracy? The Shah either killed or exiled most of the intelligent people, educated in the West. When the Shah finally fell, as brutal dictators often do, the vacuum was filled by the only remaining organized group, the fundamentalist religious leaders.

Granted, these are not all Islamic countries, but the point is the same.

Your frustration is understanable, but your response is unlikely to undo the damage created by decades of Western exploitation of the East.

GDAEman said...

The blogosphere has been abuzz with Feb. 1 Senate testimony of former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who's no shrinking violet when it comes to geopolitics.

The quote getting significant air play is:

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

But the testimony that applies directly to your blog post follows:

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD’s in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle” of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America’s involvement in World War II.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide
appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran—though gaining in regional influence—is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Something to think about.

Anonymous said...

Therefore: Islam is not a religion, but a political ideology more akin to Fascism and totally in opposition to the ideals of freedom as described in the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

That nails it right on the head. Islamic leaders have even been quoted as saying "The religion IS the politics, and the politics IS the religion" about Islam. It's high time we wake up and recognize that Islam is NOT a religion but a POLITICAL IDEOLOGY that is anathema to a free country. I read somewhere rather recently that an advocacy of Communism was something that would disqualify someone from being granted refugee status in the U.S., at least during the Cold War if it's not still the case. It's time to add the POLITICAL IDEOLOGY of Islam as a disqualifier for those who want to come here.

Another interesting thing I read a few months ago is that many followers of Islam would abandon it if the Muslim holy cities of Mecca or Medina were to be struck. Apparently one of their beliefs is that the Allah they believe in protects those cities from harm. A military strike or two that levels those cities would shatter those beliefs, expose the Allah they believe in to be at best a powerless "god", certainly far weaker than the God of Christianity and Judaism, at worst a total fraud, and could end up being a death blow to the whole ideology. I've got the feeling military strikes on Mecca and/or Medina will occur before it's all over.

Anonymous said...

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Anonymous said...

Scotti are you drunk? The topic of Islam has nothing to do with race. Your on the wrong blog.

Anonymous said...


You better put down your left coast newspaper and pick up the koran. Your post indicates that your depth of history dates way, way back before 9/11 by nearly a hundred years.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

If we can quarantine people who are infected with virulent tuberculosis, why shouldn't we quarantine those who are infected with virulent strains of Islam?

Anonymous said...

" When a society is truly free, it is also free to enslave itself."

Brian is obfuscasting the issue. Brian is a man. Brian is confused.

Brian, go enslave yourself and be free.

Anonymous said...

And People:

If you seriously consider Brian's statement, that "a truly free society, is free to enslave itself," the questions arises:

"On an individual basis, WHO WILL BE THE SLAVE A N D... WHO WILL BE THE MASTER?"

Because then you will have to go person by person, and ask, will you be the slave?

Because in such a society as above, SOMEBODY'S GOT TO BE THE MASTER!

That will be fun. Have a good time deciding, eh?

Anonymous said...

"Scotti are you drunk? The topic of Islam has nothing to do with race. Your on the wrong blog/

The topic of islam has EVERYTHING to do with racism. Because the islamics accuse non-moslems of RACISM every time, EVERY SINGLE TIME, non-moslems object to islamic shenanigans!

Epaminondas said...

I am against, guys & gals.
The first amendment is MY protection and yours.
Don't doubt it for a second.

Just treat these bastards as we treated the KKK. What they preach, the acts they preach and train for are, like the KKK's dreams, ILLEGAL.

But we are not serious about this.
Campaign instead for a serious, deadly FBI on this.

Sorry, but I would be compelled to work actively against this

Anonymous said...

No matter how you try to spoon feed people they still can't see it.

You CAN'T treat Islam like "we did the KKK" (which I'm not sure how we did treat the KKK - but I'm pretty sure we didn't ban their meetings - we just prosecuted individual acts of violence).

the difference is, we could combat racism by education, and time.

Islam is a different matter. Islam is not racist, it is not going to change its behavior because we march in the streets or civil rights rally's. Islam is the one marching in the streets now demanding that those of us who "insult" Islam be be-headed.
The KKK didn't even do that.

Also, a "deadly FBI", just what does that mean, besides the fact that the only way to stop the spread of violent Islam would be to censure the Mosques 24/7. How would the ACLU react to that?

Wake up! The first amemdment is protecting THEM, it is NOT going to protect US because ISLAM will destroy it (as they are already starting too)!

Scott W
Phx, AZ

Epaminondas said...

On the contrary Islam is racist.

One can hear it and see it every single day.

We don't need any time to enforce the statutes on hate, incitement to violence and racism, RIGHT FROM INSIDE THE MOSQUE. That is how Aryan Nation was destroyed as well IN CIVIL SUITS. The local chapter was made financially responsible for acts of violence they incited. No mosque is protected from this.

Stop and think about that.

The first amendment erosion would result INEVITABLY in the same result as the erosion of the 2nd.

Loss of the very reason we fight.

Without the slightest doubt - one day we would all live in fear of the govt. rather than the other way around.

I'd sooner NUKE THE WHOLE LOT and make Mecca a glass covered crater first. As a start.

"A republic, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT"

Anonymous said...

I meant to say, "Islam is not A racist", meaning that it is not possible to reform Islam by law and education (like we have done with most "racists in the US).

But of course, Islam is racist in the way that it treats all non-Muslims as less than human. but, again, no Civil Rights marches or laws are going to reform Islam.

As to nuking Mecca, great, but that ain't going to happen, at least not until we've lost several cities to Muslim nukes.

a mis-quided devotion to the US Constitution, by somehow believeing that this amendment is a threat to that very document, is short-sited and quite foolish.

A LOT of people are going to die before we come to our senses.


Anonymous said...

For much of this so-called amendment, you could replace the word "Islam" with the word "Christianity" and have a fairly accurate picture of much of history. Be careful what you wish for.

Anonymous said...

It's funny how Islam only became inherently terroristic and worthy of banning in the US in the last six years, especially considering we've had significant Islamic settlement for most of the last century.

There are many Muslims in America right now, as there have been for many decades, who are perfectly capable of practicing their religion openly and peacefully, and I hardly think it's necessary to take away an entire religion's rights just because their holy book may say some troublesome things. I'm fairly certain there are things in the Bible that might also be considered objectionable to an enlightened society.

Additionally, this amendment is so poorly written that a congressman would have to be a complete moron to vote for it. The whole thing reeks of the kind of hack writing found mainly within the most self-congratulatory circles of the blogosphere. Logic is completely absent in many places, and in others it seems contradictory. In other places, it's just plain poorly written and amateur (the section about funding comes to mind). Seriously, proposed amendments to the US Constitution should not be written in under an hour.

So, um, go back and brush up on your study skills for the SAT (Question 1: Some Muslims are terrorists and some terrorists are Muslims. Therefore: a. all Muslims are terrorists, b. all terrorism is religiously motivated, c. Islam is at war with freedom, or d. None of the above). I know the average jingoistic politician would have trouble teasing out the logic to answer this one, but seriously, I expected better of the average American with a high school diploma.

Anonymous said...

Hilarious! Awesome parody, dude.

GeorgeH said...

too wordy for the constitution.

I. The cult of Islam is not, and may not be construed to be, a religion under this constitution or that of any of the constituent states of the United States, nor under the laws of the United States or any of it's political subdivisions.

II. A Homo Sapiens who follows the cult of Islam is not, and may not be construed to be, a person under this constitution or that of any of the constituent states of the United States, nor under the laws of the United States or any of it's political subdivisions.

Hesperado said...

Hi Anti-Jihadist,

You might be interested in seeing my comments about your proposed Constitutional Amendment, along with my suggested revisions of it, on my blog, "The Hesperado":

P.S.: Also note, on that essay, the interesting suggestions from a reader who commented on my essay about your proposal.

Anonymous said...

I may agree with your proposal, but you'd have to also ban the ultra-conservative catholics too from yer system...

mississippimud2007 said...


Anonymous said...

Thanks for the nice post!

Anonymous said...

The original author wrote that

"Whereas on 9/11/2001 19 Muslim hijackers acting in the name of Islam killed 3,000 Americans,".

That is inaccurate. Why would the hijackers come all the way to America from Europe, cross over from Canada and target America alone? Is America mentioned by its name in Islam? Is America the only other country on the planet?

Well OBL himself explained clearly why they attacked the power symbols of America. As OBL repeatedly argued "as you bomb us, we will bomb you".

9-11 was simply an Arab revenge attack against America for its untold on-going atrocities against the Arab people. Madeliene Ablright once said that "Half a million dead Iraqi children was well worth price".

Maybe to her it is worth the price but not to Arabs.

The mass-murderers of the US goverment, who once mass murdered 200,000 innocent people in nagazaki and Hiroshima in 2 stirkes, butchered over 3 million Vietnamese for no good reason, should know that it is part of the human instinct to fight back.

Arab soldiers were not stationed across America to guard some "high value" resource (aka oil) but it was thousands upon thousands of US soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia against the will of its people and committing untold horrific crimes against innocent Iraqis who were caught in the middle.

Islam has nothing to do with anything. The Russians sacrificed over 20 million (10 mil military and 10 million civilians) of their people fighting the Nazi invasion (vs 400,000 in the US).

The US government has committed terrorism all along (napalming vietname villages, arming and financing coups in foreign nations, you name it) and as the old saying goes:

What goes around comes around.

The US government has more innocent blood on its hand than any Arab or Muslim government or organization, all combined since the 60s.

Anonymous said...

The reason why the mass-muderers of the US government will not win in Iraq is simply because the Iraqis, the natives, have more compeling reasons to fight a foreign occupier known for its brutality and its disregard for foreign human life (everyone in the world knows who nuked 200,000 innocent people) than US soldiers who at the end of the day wonder what the hell they are doing in other people lands 5000 miles away from home.

Tell me, oh bloggers, if Britain invaded America today would you fight it or not?

What goes around comes around.

Ben said...

I have, this 31st day of December, 2007, uttered and published a petition demanding that the Constitution be amended and Islam be outlawed. A true copy of the petition is posted here:
The original at petition on line lacks hyperlinks to the evidence.

Dean said...

Islam is not a religion. There are several places on the web that list the many reasons why it cannot be. Here is but one;

Islam is a total way of life that commands submission to the laws of Allah.

Islam institutionalizes the murder of infidels.
Islam insists on subordination and conversion through subjugation. It does not seek peaceful co-existence, it intends domination.
Islam is not compatible with democracy and does not allow free thinking.
Islam's ultimate goal is to apply Islamic law(Shari'a)globally.

Simply stated Islam wants to conquer the United States of America and replace it with the Islamic States of America.
It also intends to replace our Constitution with the Qur'an.

While many Americans fully expect to see an attempted violent overthrow of the U.S., reality perhaps tells a different story as you can read here;,1,3910166.story?coll=chi-news-hed

The intent is to conquer us from within much the same as communism.

Once Islam has enough followers in the U.S. establishing Shari'a and imposing Islam on us will not require violence on a large scale.

Would we as a people condemn, even ban communism or nazism in this country? If so then I submit the ban of Islam is called for.

Anonymous said...

How about requiring Muslims to wear a green star and crescent badge, so they can't sneak around?

namfrank said...

I think we all agree that islam should be stripped of it's protections, as a religion. It is a totalitarian ideology, rather than a religion. True religions allow a person to worship (or not) in any form that does intrude on the next person's form of worship. Any repercussions, for your choice, are left to whatever form of deity you believe in. For these two reasons islam has disqualified itself, as a real religion.
I've found this discussion both interesting and thought provoking. I look forward to reading and posting here again soon.

namfrank said...

My previous post should read "doesn't intrude". I'll proofread more closely from now on. (Pobody's nerfect! lol)

Ben said...

At present, 05/19/08, the petition has 74 signatures. Lets give it a push!!

The recent posting at Liveleak did not stir up much interest. Subsequent to that I posted it at

Rev. R Jay said...

Brian originally stated:

"Article I and II revokes the 1st amendment rights of citizens who do not practice "approved" religions.

Article III calls for:
Government seizure of private property without due process or compensation."

For both Brian and Scott, I believe that some religious leaders and their groups in recent American history have been subjected to exactly what you two are arguing about. The two that come to mind are:

1. Vernon Wayne Howell (later renamed David Koresh) and The Branch Davidians, a sect that originated from a schism in 1955 from the Davidian Seventh Day Adventists, themselves former members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who were disfellowshipped during the 1930s.

2. Warren Steed Jeffs, the leader of a Mormon fundamentalist polygamist sect known as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS Church) from 2002 to 2007. Jeffs' position in this organization was reportedly that of absolute ruler.

There are many more. So we already have "approved" Christian groups who are being denied freedom of speech and whose property is being seized. What makes Islam any different -- or any better? What gives them the right to "more protections" than "born and bred Americans?"

In my dealings with the Branch Davidians, who BTW had been living outside of Waco since 1955, I never saw anything that warranted the FBI and ATF interference.

Sure, they had weapons, LOTS of weapons. But as a retired vet who comes from Arizona, what's wrong with that. They weren't out to kill everyone in Waco. (There is a good chance that Vernon Howell was off the deep end, as was Jim Jones of the Peoples Temple, and maybe even Warren Jeffs. I'm only a councillor, not a psychiatrist, so I don't really know, and I'm not defending their actions.)

This is in reference to the fact that Islam is under no more right and obligation to be protected than any other "approved" religious group -- IF -- it seeks to harm others. And we have a lot of proof that it does.

However there are other facts that scare the heck out of me. And that is our own government, who is the biggest terrorist trainer of all.

In reference to "Article III calls for... The murder of anyone who practices or teaches the "forbidden" religion," I see that all the time in the Middle East. The Iraqi Muslims are trying their best to completely annihilate Christians.

I see Islam every day. It is an intolerant ideal that tells non-believers "Do as I say, not as I do," and then allows drugs, alcohol, and brothels THAT ARE FOR THE USE OF ARABS in Dubai and Bahrain.

Their goal is the complete domination of ALL people in the world. This I have learned speaking to Iraqi, Jordanian, Kuwaiti, and Qatari Arabs.

I am currently in Qatar and my life is in jeopardy every day because I want to help others. Before I came here I was in Kuwait, Iraq, and Jordan and I received death threats for educating others and helping Christians. I have seen what "liberal" Islamic society is like.

I do not want my children to grow up in Ameristan.

Rev. R Jay

Anonymous said...

The Rev. R Jay clearly hasn't read my proposal, nor does he apply any logical thinking when claiming that the Branch Davidians were persecuted for their religious beliefs (if they actually had any).

No, Koresh was targeted because of guns, period. And there was no reason for it, the ATF, FBI and other Justice dept officials should have been prosectured as criminals for the deaths of 80 innocent men, women, and children.

As for the FLDS, as a native of AZ I'm quite familier with their story.

They have not been subjected to any persecution, rather they have been able to avoid prosecution for crimes both against the State of Arizona (fraud) and of the systematic rape of under-age girls.

They are as bad as the Taliban except that they don't high-jack airliners and fly them into buildings. I'm not sure if the TX action was appropriate but I sure as hell think that society has a responsibility to keep dirty old men from raising girls to be married off at 14.

If Rev Jay doesn't want to live in Ameristan then he better understand that Islam and the FLDS are the enemy, and political correctness regarding "freedom of religion" is not a virtue.


jillosophy said...

I have been saying we need to OUTLAW ISLAM NOW for a while. It doesn't get much support.
Anyone who refuses to dennounce islam is deported. They can choose: AMERICA OR ISLAM. YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH.
Why shouldn't they make that choice when our choice is: DEATH OR ISLAM.
I always point out that islam is a political totalitarian ideology hiding behind the concept of religion, and I utterly belive this. Mo wasn't a spiritualist. He was a deluded megalomaniacal sociopath... and most assuredly insane. But also diabolical. And without conscience. Without morality. Without a soul. The perfect satanic vehical.

Anonymous said...

the idiots are out on this one!
Bravo, first off. This is EXACTLY what is needed.

Islam is not a religion, for it worships nothing but itself.
Judaism is not a religion either, for the very same reason.
Psychopathic faiths were NOT protected by the First Amendment- ONLY CHRISTIANITY was.

The Supreme Court (in saner days) put it clearly, "This is a Christian nation."

Those who are not trinitarian, orthodox Christians are here SOLELY BY SUFFRANCE, and NOTHING ELSE.

Come the RESTORATION, they will be sent away, 'by any means necessary, and a Christian theocracy WILL be established, for the peace and welfare of the Churches of God.'

This proposed amendment is a good first step especially if it gets OUT to as many people as possible, but until and unless people realize that this 'freedeom FROM religion' is NOT the same as 'freedom OF religion," your comments are going to be full of IDIOTS. For them, the imposition of a Sharia law that would mandate their execution would be 'doing God service' it seems.

-Fr. John

Anonymous said...

I think everybody who doesn't worship MY religion should be banned. This is the only sensible way to move forward in America.

For those of you wondering how you can join MY religion, just send $100 or more to:

Big Mysterious Cloud God
10 Pearly Gates
Heaven, WV

When I receive your money, you will become part of MY religion and, thank B.M.C.G, you will be able to stay in America and not be made fun of.

Ben said...

Our founders rightly believed religion to have a civilizing influence; they believed the Judeo-Christian ethic to be essential to good government.

Genuine religions are benign, not malignant. Islam, being a false and malicious 'religion', contrived for the purpose of warmongering, is malignant.

Everyone who does not comprehend this fatal fact should read the following, which can be found through links at Crusader's Armory and in many of my blog posts:
8:12, 8:39, 8:60, 8:65, 8:67, 9:39, 9:123, 33:26-27, 59:2

Sahih Bukhari:
Jihad, Khumus, Expedition

Reliance of the Traveler:
Book O, Chapters 9 - 11.

This is a matter of life and death, not a joke.

Maggie Thornton said...

To get the ball rolling, we need a blogger or bloggers from every state to get this to their U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator - with some fanfare. Then everyone needs to start blogging about it. Congressmen need to hear from bloggers and readers.

Bloggers need to get over blaming Islam, and showing empathy for "the religion of peace."

It's a start. Congress isn't ready to do this. They don't read - they can't even read the Bills they sign, but the louder and more organized we are, the more they will be held accountable for listening to us.

We won at Tyson Foods. CAIR blames the defeat at Tyson on bloggers:-)

This is the most important issue of our time.

Congrats to the author.

Maggie's Notebook

Ben said...

The groundwork must be laid first, Maggie. Until a significant subset of the citizenry is aware of the threat posed by Islam and its true nature, all of these proposals will meet with too much resistance.

Ibn Misr's original idea was to petition for a ban on the Koran. Of course, that would violate the first amdt., so I modified it, resulting in a petition for Congressional investigation of the Koran and hadith. The petition includes many prime quotes hyperlinked to source.
has only 1008 signatures after more than 3 years.

At the end of December, I posted a petition calling for Islam to be outlawed. It is the easy way to demand the enactment and ratification of the present proposal. The text of the petition is here:
It includes an outline of the mercenary & martial nature of Moe's murder cult and presents the most vital evidence, with links. At present, With 81 signatures, it ain't getting far.

If everyone would copy that blog post and paste it into an email, broadcast it and ask the recipients to forward it, progress could be made.

There is one bright light on the horizon: ACT For America's petition for Congressional inquiry into Islamic hate literature, with 16221 signatures:
ACT is planning a major PR campaign to promote the petition. If that comes off, it should radically increase awareness.

A28 has been the subject of blog posts, forum posts, and emails. Google 28th amendment outlaw Islam.

Nothing can lay the groundwork better than exposing Sharia: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik: Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib, Noah Ha Mim Keller.
You will find a prime example here:
complete with a link to the source document.

Now that you know about those quotes, you can use them in blog and forum posts to make others aware of the fact that Islam has declared and is prosecuting war against them. That is how you can help lay the groundwork for this amendment. Get started today.

Anonymous said...

You have got to be some kind of idiot to even think this has a shadow of ever becoming some kind of law. This is pure unadulterated nonsense.

Ben said...

Anonymous, It ain't likely, but it is essential to preserving liberty, security & prosperity in America. With out it, we will be sunk. We must make it happen!!!

Anonymous said...

all you people are incredibly f****d up. seek help

Anonymous said...

Congratulations, you're a fascist! The Orwellian doublespeak of Article IV is especially nice.

Anonymous said...

I'm from Turkey which is being drowned in Islamic extremism and this proposal is stupid.

I'M an exmuslim, a secret apostate.

Listen. Islam thrives on overt opposition. Your proposal will kill all oil exports from Saudi Arabia, and generate massive riots across the world, and more importantly, lure the neutral Muslims to the sides of their "oppressed" brethren.

You must water it down. Think of 17th century Christianity. Remember how it got watered down to today's relatively peaceful state, and apply it to Islamic Countries. The shift of power from clergy and state to the little people. In Turkey, the power state is closer to that of the west. In Iran and Iraq, Mullahs and local sheikhs have most of the power and have the authority to put girls to death if they think they act immorally.

Anonymous said...

For the sake of argument we will ignore the fact that this has got zero chance of ever becoming law. I would point out that this

"Article II
Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited."

Contradicts this

"Article IV
The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III"

So you're saying it's prohibited unless you practice it at home. In which case it's not prohibited at all.

Ben said...

Anonymous, the obvious conflict you pointed out results from insufficient moral clarity. In an attempt to preserve freedom of conscience, the author attempted to create an artificial division between personal and congregate practice.

The artificial division sanctions Islam's postulate: divine right/mandate to rape, pillage, plunder & enslave.

What the Hell? You expect perfection in a first draft? Get real!

If and when the proposal gets into a congressional cmte., it will certainly be garbled worse than that.

The present task is to generate awareness; to get people thinking, talking and writing about the subject.

Anonymous said...

There is NOTHING contradictory in my propasals.

REMEMBER! you can make it a crime to be a child molester, but you can't make it a crime to believe child molesting is ok. That is - if someone wants to fantasize about that in their own home, you can't stop them.

Which is pretty much what my proposal does, since Islam is 1/3 an excuse for pedaphilia, 1/3 death cult, and 1/3 crime syndicate.

But it is amazing looking at responses to my proposal to realize how many people are incapable of logical thought.


Ben said...

Scott, once we know that Islam postulates a right & duty to conquer the world using genocide & terror as battle tactics, tolerating the presence of Muslims on our soil becomes the ultimate irrational act. In Bukhari1.8.387, Moe declares that he has been "ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah." and that the act of testimony makes our blood & property sacred to Muslims.

There is nothing more to be known, understood, said nor written. That is the kernel of Islam which endures forever. That makes belief, practice & propagation of the belief unacceptable in any society where individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are valued.

Nobody has a right to believe that we are his prey, open season, no bag limit. Reciting Shehada is ample evidence of that belief. The testimony that only Allah has the right to be worshiped and Moe is his final messenger says it all; it includes everything Moe said and did; his Sunnah & Sira. A Muslim who denies any part of it is subject to takfir.

Unknown said...

Your proposed consitutional "ammendment" is nothing more then an attack on the very ideals you claim to protect. It's not up to the government to dictate what religions, or even what political systems are "acceptable" to believe in. What your propose would be, in effect, a "thoughtcrimes" law, leading to an Orwellian police state.
It would also move our war to defend democracy into a religious war between Christianity and Islam. Then we would have regressed an entire Millenia back to the Crusades/Jihad of the medieval period. We would have christian leaders shouting "GOD WILLS IT!" and Muslim leaders exhorting their followers to cut of the heads of the Infidels. But perhaps thats what folks like you want.

There's an idea in traditional Islam called "Dar al Harb and Dar al Islam" (Land of War/Land of Peace). It proposes that the world is split into 2 parts: the Muslim and Non-Muslim Halfs and that there is and ought to be a perpetual state of war between these two halves until one consumes the other. Folks like you and any that support you look at such an idea and say, in essence, "Yes, I agree to that. Lets have it out - Last religion standing wins.".

Ben said...

Monte, it behooves one, when responding to long threads about complex life & death issues, to read the entire thread, the back ground information linked to and to think logically about the subject.

You have postulated a right to believe that it is your right & duty to kill anyone who does not worship exactly as you do, rape his widow, sell his orphans into slavery and seize his material possessions.

When you communicate that belief to your offspring, and they pass it on to future generations, eventually the census of believers reaches the threshold of actualization, when they can act on their belief with impunity.

The right to murder, rape, enslave & plunder is derived from the Qur'an, hadith & Sharia. It is an intrinsic part of Islam, not a function of 'extremism' or 'radicalism'.

Sharia requires at least one military attack upon Dar ul-Harb in every year unless the Muslims are too weak to mount one.

The legitimate human rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence & Bill of Rights require equality & mutual respect. The AnimalFarm"more equal than others" is not compatible with them.

Islam is like Animal
farm: Muslims are superior & Kuffar are inferior, only the blood and property of Muslims is sacred. That is what Moe said, recorded in Bukhari's Sahih collection of traditions, Volume 1,Book 8, Number 387.Google Bukhari1.8.387, you'll find it in the Compendium of Islamic Texts at USC-MSA. While there, read Books 52, 53 & 59 to find out what Moe did over a ten year span.

The hadith exemplify Islam; the Qur'an defines it. Read Surahs Al-Anfal, Al-Taubah, Al-Fath, Al-Hashr & As-Saff to discover what it is all about.

To verify that what you read means what it says, read my blog post titled ROPMA; follow the links and read the tafsir.
Islam is intolerant & aggressively violent. Tolerating it is suicidally irrational.

Iggy said...

To the guy who wrote this proposed Amendment:

You're an UnAmerican, totalitarian, fascist nutjob.

Anonymous said...

What I want to know is what is happening with the amendment? Is it going anywhere?

Anonymous said...

When the Wow Gold wolf finally found the wow gold cheap hole in the chimney he crawled cheap wow gold down and KERSPLASH right into that kettle of water and that was cheapest wow gold the end of his troubles with the big bad wolf.

The next day the Buy Wow Goldlittle pig invited hisbuy gold wow mother over . She said "You see it is just as Cheapest wow goldI told you. The way to get along in the world is to do world of warcraft gold things as well as you can." Fortunately for that little pig, he buy cheap wow gold learned that lesson. And he just wow gold lived happily ever after!.

Anonymous said...

A slim, wide-eyed mygamegoldwoman almost human in virbanksfeatures eyed agamegold the pair. Her nose was sharp, but very elegant. She had tbcgold a pale, trade4gamebeautiful face the color of ivory, and veryge for hair she wore a wondrous mane of downy feathers. Her gown fluttered as she walked—on two delicate worldofgolds but still sharply-taloned feet. “Awake, awake you are,” she said with a pvp365 slight frown. “You should rest, rest.” Krasus bowed to her. “I am ezmmorpg grateful for your ighey hospitality, mistress, but I am well enough to continue on9a9z now.” She cocked her head as a bird might, giving the mageltk365 a reproving look. “No, no…too soon, toogold4guild soon. Please, sit.” The duo looked around u4game and discovered that two chairs, made in the same ready4game fashion as the nest, waited behind happygolds them. Malfurion waited for Krasus, who finally nodded and sat.

Anonymous said...

There are several tbcgold races stand up and take the fightakgame to the demons under assault by the Legion. The races are unaligned at character mygamestock start, and can choose to become ttgaming friendly with either Horde or Alliance over the course of their careers. Faction gained belrion with one side eventually live4game causes faction loss with the other, until the character is as much Horde or Alliance as an Orc or mmopawn Human. Each race has awowgoldget starting city with 1-20 zone content.
When you hunt, the enemies you agamegoldkill drop items, and even the most useless ones can be sold to vendors for money. Quests trade4game on the other hand give up rewards in money and items, the money gamersell part is most useful as it is usually a large sum world of warcraft rpg-tradergold. Crafting is also another alternative for earning Gold, you just choose wowpoweronany two professions and use it to gather raw materials or create gamegoodyitems which you can sell to vendors or players. Items sell egrichhigher to players since vendors have a set price and people always want to buy wow gold us ogpalat a lower price than the vendor but sell at a higher price, so there usually is a euwowgoldmiddle price world of warcraft gold. To see what the going ratemymmoshop is, type in "PC" (Price Check) in the Trade Chat window and the item you want to price check and someone should reply with the going-rate for that item

Anonymous said...

There are several tbcgold races stand up and take the fightakgame to the demons under assault by the Legion. The races are unaligned at character mygamestock start, and can choose to become ttgaming friendly with either Horde or Alliance over the course of their careers. Faction gained belrion with one side eventually live4game causes faction loss with the other, until the character is as much Horde or Alliance as an Orc or mmopawn Human. Each race has awowgoldget starting city with 1-20 zone content.
When you hunt, the enemies you agamegoldkill drop items, and even the most useless ones can be sold to vendors for money. Quests trade4game on the other hand give up rewards in money and items, the money gamersell part is most useful as it is usually a large sum world of warcraft rpg-tradergold. Crafting is also another alternative for earning Gold, you just choose wowpoweronany two professions and use it to gather raw materials or create gamegoodyitems which you can sell to vendors or players. Items sell egrichhigher to players since vendors have a set price and people always want to buy wow gold us ogpalat a lower price than the vendor but sell at a higher price, so there usually is a euwowgoldmiddle price world of warcraft gold. To see what the going ratemymmoshop is, type in "PC" (Price Check) in the Trade Chat window and the item you want to price check and someone should reply with the going-rate for that item brogameswagvaultgoldsoonoforuigxethsale

Ben said...

While this proposal remains the first and best, Paul R Hollrah, writing at New Media Journal, proposed a much shorter amendment which, while it probably would not be effective, is interesting.

His preamble contains several good arguments.

The Outlaw Islam! petition languishes with 124 signatures. A surge in blog & forum posts and comments indicates increased interest. I think this is the time to bring the petition back to the top. You can find a link to it in the Petitions page at . Please endorse the petition and send it to everyone you can hope to influence. Urge them to sign and forward the petition.

Unknown said...

Interesting idea.

But as you know, activist judges WILL misinterpret this and we'll see Christianity and Judaism disallowed as well.

Remember, Islam teaches Jesus is a prophet (and part of their religion), and who do Christians follow?

Islam teaches that Abranam and Moses are prophets and part of their religion. And who does Judaism honor as prophets?

Of course, there's another part: WHICH ISLAM? There are at least 6 Islamic sects, are they all outlawed? And if they're all outlawed, the judicial activists will simply redefine Christianity and Judaism as Islamic sects and game over to any religious freedom.

To properly fight Islam, it is simple. Have lots more babies than the Muslims do, and have a society that is pro-life. See the youtube "Muslim demographics" and see why they will win eventually.

As long as our society supports the culture of death, we are no better than the Islamicists.

Unknown said...

Article IV is irrational/impossible.

The rest is a great idea!


Unknown said...

Article IV is irrational/impossible.

The rest of it is a great idea!


Winged Hussar 1683 said...

This amendment goes overboard somewhat (by contravening the First Amendment) but there is in fact precedent for it. Queen Elizabeth I issued a similar decree, with "Catholicism" replacing "Islam," in the late 16th century for almost identical reasons. She did so reluctantly but had no choice because what then passed for Catholicism had declared war on England under color of religion.

The First Amendment gives militant Muslims the right to say they want to rule the United States. All the First Amendment says, though, is that the government cannot punish them for doing it; it does not say that anybody has to hire them, rent to them, buy from them, or otherwise interact with them. I think it is quite reasonable for a landlord to say, "We don't want your kind here" and that is not racial discrimination because a behavioral choice is not a race.

Ben said...

In response to Winged Hussar 1683:
The First Amendment's Free Exercise clause can not be applied to Islam because:

1. There is and can be no right to conqust.
2. There is and can be no right to plunder.

Read your Koran: 2:85 openly declares that Islam is all or nothing; Muslims are not empowered to accept what they like and reject the rest of the Koran.

8:39 declares unremitting warfare against pagans until resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped on a global scale.

9:29 declares unremitting warfare against Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians until they are subjugated & submit to annual extortion.

9:111 describes believers as Allah's slaves who "fight in Allah's cause, killing others and being killed".

9:120 promises special reward for any "step taken to injure or enrage" disbelievers.

9:123 commands believers to attack "those nearest you".

Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 informs us that our blood & property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights until we become Muslims.

Since Islam abrogates all our rights, it is impossible that it can be sheltered under the umbrella of First Amendment protection.

There is and can be no right to practice Islam.

Unknown said...

Article four is a problem.

The right to practice Islam in your home would give them the right to beat their wives, up to and including, to death. They would also have the right to honour kill their daughter's within their own homes.
Many acts of worshipping Islam are unconstitutional, and cannot be accepted anywhere in the United states.

It seams to me that just enforcing the Constitution would eliminate a lot of this.

The Mayans worshipped the sun. They needed sacrifices to make the sun rise. I can't sacrifice my neighbour, who I don't like anyway, and claim it as a religious right.

I don't think the government needs to get into the disposition of property.
Those that can not swear allegiance to the Constitution of the United States which means accepting its founding principles, need to leave and their property can be disposed of, through our courts in a normal manner.

rexxhead said...