No, Muslims Should NOT Be Allowed To Serve In Public Office

[Lastamender]

A year ago, there was a thread entitled >> "Do Republicans believe a Muslim should be allowed to serve in public office if elected?" I'm now answering that by saying No, Republicans don't believe Muslims should be allowed to serve in public office, elected or not. Furthermore, no American should be OK with Muslims serving in public office.

First of all, in America, Islam is sedition, by virtue of it's supremacism, which is in violation of the Constitution (article 6, section 2, part 1-the Supremacy Clause).

Secondly, Islam is an ideology (masquerading as a religion), which advocates (if not commands) the violation of scores of US laws, including some of the most serious felonies (ex. murder, rape, pedophilia, slavery, sex discrimination)

Not only should Muslims not be part of government in America, but Islam should not exist in America, period. There should be no mosques, no Korans, no Islamic centers, etc

This is just me talking. Islam , er, Saudi Arabia attacked us on 9/11. I don't care to spilt hairs anymore And we didn't do anything about it. Oh, we attacked Iraq alright. Afghanistan? But we still didn't do anything about Saudi Arabia and 9/11. That would upset the worlds economy. We should have fucked them up royally. Fuck the consequences. As an American i,f the Saudis let their children run amuck and create such havoc, why do we care what they do? Nuke the bastards. Let them worry about the consequences of their actions. Not us...

The only thing that has stopped Islam is military victory. That is why Europe is Europe.

 

[protectionist]

But they didn't ban them on the basis of their religion at all, but on whether they were prepared to live according to the law of the land. BIG difference.

The Constitution bans Islam in America because of its refusal to live according to the law of the land. - Article 6, Section 2, Part 1.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The vetting process must be strenuous. No just waltzing right on into these jobs anymore. By the way some of these people have been talking, it appears that the vetting job (the final hurdle), wasn't met in satisfaction of our system of government and our constitution. So the voters speak, and it's merely a done deal ?? No vetting by security ????

This is not lawful under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the fact that you're advocating any such thing leads me to wonder if you're in a position to actually attempt to implement such an unlawful scheme.

 

[Lastamender]

The same as all red necks aren't racist or all blacks aren't racist or all well you get the point. Ever heard of sleeper cells ? Do you not think that people are killers in their minds maybe, but they fear the consequences of such actions so much so that they will never bring those thoughts into the light of day ?? You never know who you have in your midst, but thank God for all the laws and punishments we have in place as somewhat of a deterrent.

You're projecting your own insecurities and failings onto another group of people. Essentially you're saying that all people of X group are inherently bad although there are exceptions to the rule as opposed to some people of group X are bad. And then you further insult the entire group by claiming that the only thing that's keeping them from killing anyone are our laws & punishment which shows you know very little about what motivates people who are intent on killing.

"All black's aren't racist" is a perfect case in point. Who is their right mind would even question whether black people are racists or not, let alone that most are when it was the white race which codified their racism and then enforced it at the barrel of a gun or the end of a rope.

Who is their right mind would even question whether black people are racists or not,

Anybody. Blacks can be racist, ask Mexicans.

 

[protectionist]

I don't *NEED* to "Google" it Hunior, Anthropology was my major in college --- I already know this shit. FGM (once AGAIN) was around centuries before Mohammed, centuries before Jesus, centuries before Moses, centuries before Buddha, centuries before fill in deity here. See also "Linear Time". See also the FACT that there is no religious function in it AT ALL in any of those or any other religion, since it is not a religious ritual but a SOCIAL one.

Imagine that ............ actually knowing something instead of pulling it out of one's ass because one would "like it to be true". Amazing innit?

Fucking stupid asshole.

You majored in Anthropology in college. And they talked about Islam, huh? So that's what did it, huh ?

Yeah, that would do it allright, Nothing like a US University education to send one down a path of liberal lunacy, including a sham version of what Islam is all about. Figures.

 

[protectionist]

Anybody. Blacks can be racist, ask Mexicans.

Ask white victims of affirmative action.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Nope when you remove the clitoris the woman can never orgasm, but since in Islam all women are the property of a man or stoned to death as lesbians there is no need for fun anyway. Have a good jihad of a life retard

Again, on full display, your ignorance of female sexuality as well as human anatomy. As far as your ignorance of Islam well it's pretty much on par with the rest of the racist & bigots here.

My parents brought us up to be kind to others, to not make fun of those who are disabled or to refer to people as retards. I see your parents were negligent in your upbringing. This is the result, an uneducated, ignorant, bigoted & racist individual who can't even discern when they are in the company of their betters.

 

[protectionist]

This is not lawful under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the fact that you're advocating any such thing leads me to wonder if you're in a position to actually attempt to implement such an unlawful scheme.

What's unlawful about vetting ?

Photo taken in France.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

This is just me talking. Islam , er, Saudi Arabia attacked us on 9/11.

So why did our military attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia? Have you ever questioned by the Saudis were the only people allowed to fly after the attacks on 9/11 when all other aircraft were grounded?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

What's unlawful about vetting ?

You two clowns have no authority to be allegedly "vetting" anyone. If either of you are a business owner or working for a government agency in a hiring capacity then you're engaging in unlawful religious discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

American muslims have the same level of education as do Americans overall. Which means a below average guy like you should be the one serving them the appetizers. Dont forget to ask if they want another drink.

Good Muslim mothers cut off their daughters vaginas so they can never orgasm...……………..

Glad I never saw a Muslim chick naked

Wow, you just displayed your ignorance of Islam, human anatomy and female sexuality all in one feel swoop.

Nope when you remove the clitoris the woman can never orgasm, but since in Islam all women are the property of a man or stoned to death as lesbians there is no need for fun anyway. Have a good jihad of a life retard

That's not what you said, dumbass! You even quoted yourself!

The female is mutilated, point of fact, so get used to it Muslim means hate

Muslims do not all perform genital mutilation. Many other cultures do also.

The point was you said they cut their vaginas. They do not, so that makes you a dumbass!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This is just me talking. Islam , er, Saudi Arabia attacked us on 9/11.

So why did our military attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia? Have you ever questioned by the Saudis were the only people allowed to fly after the attacks on 9/11 when all other aircraft were grounded?

Another 9/11 truther hoax! It has been disproven many times. The only very few people allowed to fly after 9/11 were members of bin Laden's family who were fleeing possible retribution, such as children attending college, etc. They were given explicit permission by the government to do that.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

But they didn't ban them on the basis of their religion at all, but on whether they were prepared to live according to the law of the land. BIG difference.

The Constitution bans Islam in America because of its refusal to live according to the law of the land. - Article 6, Section 2, Part 1.

Keep repeating the lie, dumbass! Maybe some other moron will believe you.

 

[protectionist]

You're projecting your own insecurities and failings onto another group of people. Essentially you're saying that all people of X group are inherently bad although there are exceptions to the rule as opposed to some people of group X are bad. And then you further insult the entire group by claiming that the only thing that's keeping them from killing anyone are our laws & punishment which shows you know very little about what motivates people who are intent on killing.

"All black's aren't racist" is a perfect case in point. Who is their right mind would even question whether black people are racists or not, let alone that most are when it was the white race which codified their racism and then enforced it at the barrel of a gun or the end of a rope.

You just betrayed your own convictions stated in the very same post, in the previous paragraph. Here you are ragging at beagle, for downgrading all people of a group for what some of that group do - then you turn right around, and do exactly that same thing, by accusing the white race (that includes ALL whites) of racism, for what a tiny minority of whites did. You are a piece of work.

 

[protectionist]

Keep repeating the lie, dumbass! Maybe some other moron will believe you.

So you maintain then that Islam is not supremacist ? Or that the supremacy clause does not claim supremacy for the constitution ? These questions would be more than moot to you, if only you had the foggiest idea of what I'm talking about.

Sheeesh! Go to bed. You're meaningless. Pheeeew! (high-pitched whistle)

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Keep repeating the lie, dumbass! Maybe some other moron will believe you.

HA HA. Go to bed. You're meaningless. Pheeeew! (high-pitched whistle)

Still cannot refute anything I post? Pathetic! That is you in a nutshell!

We are still waiting your qualifications to make such pronouncements. I guess you don't have a high school diploma.

 

[MaryL]

Well kiddo. Perhaps because 9/11 was...let me see here...funded by Saudis...and then the religion itself came from Saudi Arabia. And the majority of the perpetrators were Saudi as well. So lets go back to say... 1941 December 7th. Did we have this level of denial of the Japanese? Perhaps, it was a big oil conspiracy? Perhaps, we shift the blame, the Japanese would never do such thing. would they? Oh, We provoked them be cause WE were embargoing them in 1940 . They were victims They were just reacting to provocations...This is what liberals do, equivocate, split hairs and spread doubt. No, it was Saudi Arabia that attacked us on 9/11. No doubt. I love Noam Chomsky, but don't pretend for one moment that Muslims or Saudi Arabia is a victim here. Blaming America for 9/11 is like blaming a rape victim because it deserved "it". But, that's what liberals do.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Well kiddo. Perhaps because 9/11 was...let me se here...funded by Saudis...and then the religion itself came from Saudi Arabia. And the majority of the perpetrators were Saudi as well. So lets go back to say... 1941 December 7th. Did we have this level of denial of the Japanese? Perhaps, it was big oil conspiracy? Perhaps, we shift the blame, the Japanese would never do such thing. We provoked them be cause WE were embargoing them. They were victims They were just reacting to provocations...This is what liberals do, equivocate, split hairs and spread doubt. No, it was Saudi Arabia that attacked us on 9/11. No doubt.

Individuals who were mostly born in Saudi Arabia attacked us. If Osama had shown his face in Saudi Arabia, he would have been looking up at his own body after his head had been forcibly removed. The Saudi government considered him exactly as he was, a terrorist and threat to their Kingdom.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

How do you reconcile the fact that you are citing the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land which it is, while simultaneously ignoring or downplaying the role of the First Amendment which is also the supreme law of the land, irrespective of your agreement with it, because it is a part of the U.S. Contsitution which is the supreme law of the land.

Can you answer just this part? And just FYI the First Amendment is not a separate document, it's part of the Bill of Rights.

I'm not downplaying the 1st Amendment. It's an awesome document. Without it, we wouldn't be here exercising this freedom of speech. Thank goodness for our fabulous founding fathers, James Madison, who wrote the 1st Amendment, and Thomas Jefferson who inspired it.

So you guys wanna talk 1st Amendment ? OK. But the only relationship that Islam has to the 1st amendment, is that it is probably the least agreeable creed to the 1st Amendment of any in America. When a Danish newspaper, Jylands Posten, published an unflattering picture of the so-called prophet Mohammed, in 2005, the cartoon picture set off Muslim riots all over the world, resulting in the killing of civilians, burning of cars, massive looting, and violent invasion of embassies. Looks like the Muslim crowd isn't too sympathetic to the 1st Amendment, and its idea.

Neither was the New York Times, the LA Times, and other prominent publications that refused to print the Danish cartoon. The white flag of surrender (while ignoring the 1st Amendment) hung from these previously stalwart defenders of the Constitutional right to free speech. It was a testament to the fact that Muslim bullying works.

When Dutch filmmaker Geert Wilders produced his film Fitna, which connected acts of violence by Muslims to violent passages of the Koran, the world's most powerful Islamic organization the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) went into high gear to stop all speech critical of Islam, and Muslims. The Sect. General of the OIC, Ekmelledin Ihsanoglu, called for restrictions on freedom of speech, saying >> "I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy."

Iran and Pakistan lodged formal complaints with the EU, about the film Non-Muslims joined in the censorship campaign. UN Sect general Ban Ki-moon repeated the OIC's argument that free speech does not apply in words offensive to Muslims. Jorge Sampiano, another high UN official urged Muslims to avoid pointing out the evils that Muslim "extremists" were committing (exactly the OIC's campaign, which was quickly embraced by the UN).

After much conferring on the subject of freedom of expression regarding Islam, the UN's Human Rights Council banned criticism of Islam during UNHRC meetings. No more talk about execution of women by stoning, female genital mutilation, and child marriage, as sanctioned by Islamic law. Thus, an international body ostensibly dedicated to promoting human rights, voluntarily renounced any study of one of the leading sources of international human rights violations.

As far back as 1989, a British-India journalist Salman Rushdie published a book that the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeni deemed "blasphemous" to Islam. Khomeni issued a fatwa to murder Rushdie because of his book. The fatwa has never been rescinded, and Rushie is still alive. After decade in hiding, he's lucky. One of his translators was murdered, and several others attacked.

When the US filmmaker Tom Clancy produced a movie Sum of All Fears, the Muslim Brotherhood front group CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) pressured paramount Pictures to alter the adaptation of the film, to change from Muslim terrorists to neo-Nazis. Paramount fearing a campaign of intimidation, typical of CAIR's style, caved and changed the script. Apparently, the Aryan Nation doesn't have the clout of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Want more examples of Islam's repudiation of the 1st Amendment ? There are dozens, if not hundreds of them. >> talk show host Micheal Graham of WMAL-AM radio, Thomas Klocek of Depaul University, Stephen Coughlin of the Pentagon all were fired from their jobs for expressing views critical of Islam. All the result of Muslim intimidation and coercion.

By the same token, others in the media have been vilified, by the Muslim Islamization train, such as Paul Harvey, Cal Thomas, ex Virginia representative Virgil Goode, Terrorism expert writer Daniel Pipes, book writers Brigitte Gabriel, Robert Spencer, P. David Gaubatz, et al. This list could go on and on. The writers of the TV show 24, are also on this list. There is no greater enemy of the 1st Amendment in America than Islam, and the lack of freedoms - speech, religious, and the press, in Islamic countries more than testifies to that. Try building a Christian church in Saudi Arabia and watch what happens. You might get arrested just for wearing a cross necklace.

I didn't read most of your comment once I noted that you started complaining about other countries not adhering to our First Amendmen.and bringing a host of other countries into the mix, none of which we have jurisdiction over. Also private entities such as the movies, author, actors, etc. you mentioned are not under any First Amendment obligations to behave in any particular manner because they are not the government and all of the Amendments to the Constitution which make up the Bill of Rights are restrictions on our government, not the people.

Do you even know what an amendment is/does?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The only very few people allowed to fly after 9/11 were members of bin Laden's family who were fleeing possible retribution, such as children attending college, etc. They were given explicit permission by the government to do that.

Are they not Saudis?