Monday, May 16, 2016

Democrats introduce bill to oppose Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban
By Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch


Democrats introduce bill to oppose Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban
“Beyer said the legislation is an attempt to ‘appeal to hope rather than fear.'” In our pusillanimous and puerile age, “fear” is not just a weakness of character, but a moral flaw: if you fear being beheaded or blown up by Islamic jihadists, you’re an evil person. And to be sure, fear is never to […]
Read in browser »

share on Twitter Like Democrats introduce bill to oppose Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban on Facebook Google Plus One Button 


  1. Rep Beyer is the one who is being pusillanimous and puerile here. He is being cowed ( perhaps purchased?) by Islam, and so he is attempting to appease it.

    But Islam cannot be appeased. It is the enemy the constitutional form of government that Beyer serves in, and of all the freedoms set out in that constitution. And no matter how low Beyer stoops , and how much he grovels before it, Islam will remain the enemy of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal protection of the law and due process of law.

    Mohammed did not call for the assassination of those who opposed him because he believed in free speech. He did not call for the murder of muslims who became "apostates" because he wanted open debate. He did not tell muslims to lie to non muslims to advance Islam because he thought of non muslims as brothers. He did not order muslims to not be true friends to non muslims because he believed in the brotherhood of man. He did not authorized captured women to be make sexual slaves and muslim women to be subjugated to men because he believed in equal protection of law. He did all those things because in his heart he was a Warlord, and he allowed his ego to pervert his religious ideas into a system of totalitarian domination that suited the purposes of a Warlord.

    Islam is the deadly enemy of freedom and western civilization, and even though Beyer is too ignorant or too dishonest to realized this, it remains a fact. Beyer apparently wants to follow in the footsteps of the European Socialists who are busy betraying their peoples and countries to islamic hijrah as they let in thousands of people bent upon the ultimate destruction of them, their religions, they laws and freedoms, and their civilization. And in the meantime, Islam , which always bites the hand that feeds it, is busy raping their young women, and committing acts of terror.

    Trump's ban on Islamic immigration should be only the first step. The next should be laws and constitutional amendment declaring that Islam, being a subversive political ideology, is not a religion within the meaning of our constitution, and that sharia will not be enforced in the U S. And there should be law prohibiting sharia courts. Muslims, if free to leave Islam without fear or reprisal, will do so because the human heart longs to give and receive love and longs for freedom, and Islam teaches hate and is the enemy of freedom.

    1. Please see my article 'Islam is Not a Religion' here: I wrote this about 3 or 4 years ago, and I lay out in detail why islam is NOT a religion and some easy ways to get it banned from being considered so in this country, and the long drawn out process of a Constitutional amendment is NOT needed to do so.

    2. You can click on the link in the page tabs right below the header and it will take you there as well.

  2. Although I would be delighted if what you said about there being easy ways to get Islam banned without a constitutional amendment declaring that it is not a religion within the meaning of the constitution, I do not believe that you are correct in this. It would be amazing to see a Federal District Judge make such a holding, even though he might want to, and even more amazing to see it upheld on appeal. Like it or not, if Islam is to be given the status as a subversive political ideology that it deserves , and is to be deprived of the protections and privileges given to religions, I believe it will have to be by constitutional amendment.

    Maybe I am wrong, but I have been a lawyer for many years, and I just can't see such a decision being rendered. Possibly after Islam has done many more acts of terror, but even then I doubt that the right combination of courage, wisdom , and knowledge will coalesce in enough Federal Judges for such a holding to be made and upheld.