Posted on 09/08/2010 12:15:52 PM PDT by Rashputin
Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who is about to stand trial for “hate speech” against Muslims, has suggested a ten-point program to save the West from being jihadically overrun.
The times are so surreal.
Wilders, who is also due to speak on 9/11 in downtown Manhattan, near Ground Zero suggests that we must:
1. Stop cultural relativism. We need an article in our constitutions that lays down that we have a Jewish-Christian and humanism culture.
2. Stop pretending that Islam is a religion. Islam is a totalitarian ideology. In other words, the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam. “Death for Apostasy” 4:89, Sahih Bukhari
3. Stop mass immigration by people from Muslim countries. We have to end Al-Hijra.
4. Encourage voluntary repatriation.
5. Expel criminal foreigners and criminals with dual nationality, after denationalization, and send them back to their Arab countries. Likewise, expel all those who incite to a ‘violent jihad’.
6. We need a European First Amendment to strengthen free speech.
7. Have every member of a non-Western minority sign a legally binding contract of assimilation.
8. We need a binding pledge of allegiance in all Western countries.
9. Stop the building of new mosques. As long as no churches or synagogues are allowed to be built in countries like Saudi Arabia, we will not allow one more new mosque in our western countries. Close all mosques where incitement to violence is taking place. Close all Islamic schools, for they are fascist institutions and young children should not be educated an ideology of hate and violence.
10. Get rid of the current weak leaders. We have the privilege of living in a democracy. Let’s use that privilege and exchange cowards for heroes. We need more Churchills and less Chamberlains.
In short, we have to go on the offensive and start fighting back. We must no longer allow ourselves to remain seated in our armchairs and be trampled over. If they bombard us with Sharia law, we will bombard them back with our human rights.
Well folks: What do you think? Does this point us in the right direction or is this an abrogation of our dearest civil rights and liberties? Are we dooming ourselves by kidding ourselves about the nature of Islamism, political Islam, radical Islam—and by accepting the Muslim Islamists as if they are anti-Islamists and sidelining, rejecting the truly moderate anti-Islamist Muslims as marginal, unimportant?
Are we in a life-and-death war or are we dreaming? Does “Islamophobia” really exist or is it a non-issue, conjured-up by the Masters of Illusion, the bullies who insist they are victims?
You decide.
And, last night, someone sent me a chain letter calling for a new Constitutional Convention and a new, 28th Ammendment, which calls for a new kind of equality. Here it is:
“Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .”
I want to thank Madeline Brooks of Act for America for sending along the Wilders points and Shira/Beth/On One Foot for sending the proposed language of a 28th amendment.
He echoes a lot of points we have made in the past on this site..
The list makes sense and so does the amendment. End the ruling elite class and its privileges in this nation.
No need to change the Constitution. If we’d just enforce what’s already there, and refuse to tolerate Muslims’ efforts to turn our laws AGAINST religious freedom, we’d be okay.
I don’t know about forced assimilation, either. Outlawing practices that threaten others’ rights is one thing, but we can’t prescribe a list of approved “American” or “Western” traits and practices and ban everything else.
We all know that this is never going to happen, so I say we proceed to formulating a Plan B.
>>End the ruling elite class and its privileges in this nation.<<
Hell, this is #1 in my book. Nothing else should happen until we purge the criminals from our government....top to bottom, state, federal and local.
If there is ANY signs of improper or questionable conduct, immediately begins impeachment proceedings.
These career politicians are sucking the juice of life out of our country.
Elected officials? They only act like elected officials around two months before an election.
They act as oligarchs the rest of the time.
Americans have lost site of the relationship here, where the hell is the outrage? We should be demanding results, not waiting to see if there will be any results.
This is OUR government....the nerve and arrogance of these people up in Washington.
7. Have every member of a non-Western minority sign a legally binding contract of assimilation.
Do you care to list the minorities that must sign this pledge?
If they refuse to sign, what will be the consequences for those US citizens that refuse to sign?
ping to me
Ok so say they sign the assimilation agreement. You know as well as I do that it means absolutely nothing to them. Allah is their leader and law. The only way to deal with them is to send them back to their sandpits and declare that islam is not a religion but a cult of hate and murder. Cut off all state/federal funding of anything muslim.
Hell, this is #1 in my book. Nothing else should happen until we purge the criminals from our government....top to bottom, state, federal and local.
Mayor Daley has announced he will not seek reelection. Great news but it will be short lived. Wonder why there has been talk about Emanuel leaving his post at the WH? Get rid of one slug and another worse one appears.
The tree of liberty....is gettin awful thirsty.
Multiculturalism is itself a culture and a worldview. Nominally, it advocates tolerance and inclusion of all cultures and worldviews. It is, however, self-contradictory and hypocritical, in that it has no tolerance for any competing worldviews or cultures. It demonizes any culture and/or worldview that is not multiculturist.
Everyone has an opinion regarding right and wrong. We have a responsibility to take a principled stand in support of what we believe, and against what we see as either wrong or evil.
One of the main purposes of civil society is to enable peaceful coexistence with those whose views and culture are in conflict with our own. Actually, that’s the core purpose of rights: To provide a means of deciding whose will should prevail, when views/opinions are in conflict.
Quite right. Islam doesn’t resemble religion in any way, unless it’s the religion of murder in the pursuit of power.
This is America, not Saudi Arabia and we are definitely not a Muslim country. Muslims can practice their 'religion' and build their mosques but they cannot be allowed to substitute PC nonsense about 'tolerance' to silence opposition to their extremist actions, which are plentiful. I hope America is waking up to the Islamic threat and will start pushing back, as we are with the Ground Zero mosque controversy. It is way past time to say: "enough is enough" to antagonistic, uncompromising Muslims and their brain-dead leftist defenders.
This is a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles with a primarily Christan population. Islam is a distinct religious minority with strong totalitarian aspects that make it alien to most Americans. Although Islam has the same constitutional protections as any other religion in America, it should not be allowed to have a special, 'untouchable' status in our society. No religion should be completely above question. With it's troubling aspects such as Sharia law, this very definitely applies to the actions of Muslims in America.
Point #1 is partially correct. There can be NO humanism (secular)as it is marxist in origin of their man-as-god centered religion - the basis for their pro-Queerist / anti-family laws in EU.
I pray that the November elections will help to straighten out some of this crap. If not I don’t know how much more I can take!
So what about socialist swedes? Yeah, lettum fly under the radar.
The proposed amendment is redundant, congress already doesn’t technically have the authority to make laws which are non-uniform across the country.
The problem is congress and the president appoints the federal courts who have in turn usurped the final word on the meaning and enforcement of the Federal Constitution. As a result the Federal government is pretty much lawless(without a constitution).
As for amendments i would go with something like this:
* This Constitution shall not be construed as to deny the inalienable rights of the people and their States to leave this union by act of their own convention and vote. Upon such leaving they shall be no longer regarded as a member of the United States or subject to its laws and shall only be readmissable to this union upon request of the State followed by consent of Congress.
* The application of an Income tax shall not be construed as to allow
discrimination in the rate of tax. Direct sales tax shall be less than 100% of the value of the sale.
* The abuse of the so called “supremacy clause” which clams to make ONLY acts which are in Pursuance of the limited authority granted to the Federal Government as the supreme law of the land, NOT simply any act that the same government may illegitimately(and self-serving) judge to be within its employeers authority, nor that judgment in itself.
It is perhaps necessary that we amended the Constitution to clarify that Acts in Pursuance to the State or local Constitution and not prohibited by the Federal Constitution are also the supreme law of the land.
* The court which resolves Federal Constitutional matters must be accountable to the State not Federal government power interest, or there can be no effective Federal Constitution which protect the rights of those it rules period.
* Land ownership issues with regard to the Federal Government must be clarified, as to prevent the abuses we have
observed to take place, in which the Federal government has calmed and exercised Sovereign Ownership(Jurisdiction) over land it hypocritically recognizes as to be part of a state, and merely holds the Economic Ownership(Title).
This is a most serous issue particularly for western States whom the Federal government has refuses to sell its Economic Ownership(Title) of the vast majority of our lands and now exercises Sovereign Ownership(Jurisdiction) over the same land to the exclusion of our own Sovereign Ownership(Jurisdiction) and our equal self-deterioration rights as a state.
While again an amendment should not be necessary to fix this over-site one is apparently necessary insomuch that the Federal government and its employees the Federal courts refuses to recognized our rights, and that a forceful confrontation is not preferable.
We must clearly define that the Federal government is only authorized to excersise Sovereign Ownership(Jurisdiction) over land ceded to the Federal government under the terms of the Federal constitution which requires the consent of the State legislator (As described in Article 1: Section 8: Clause 17).
That the States of the United States may only loses their Sovereign Ownership(Jurisdiction) under that terms or for the formation of a new State(As described in Article 4: Section 3: Clause 1), or in the general and willful ceding of their jurisdiction rights over a territory (As described in Article 4: Section 3: Clause 2). That in either case the Consent of the state legislator is required for the Federal government to obtain any jurisdiction over land which the State clams jurisdiction.
That in the admission to this union of any State the Federal government is recognizing the jurisdictional supremacy of that same State with in the agreed bounty of the State. That no special stimulation on the behavior of such State shall be in anyway binding upon that State if it is not binding upon all other States.
That the Federal government shall not be empowered to exercises any inherent domestic authority(such as Eminent domain) over any territory over which it does not have State level jurisdiction, that any attempt to do so shall be lawfully arrested by the State or States which it effects.
* Federal Tax powers must be more clearly state to eliminate the vast majority of the abusive federal
powers over the individuals. Perhaps by means of requiring every federal spending act to be part of a program which must be funded by a specific set of taxes that can then be nullify by State authority if any part of that program be deemed beyond the Federal Governments authority. Effectively reserving to the States and their people the ability to opt out of such programs, both benefits and burdens alike.
* The 17th amendment must be repealed in-order to restore some level of practical check on federal power helping to preventing the initial usurpation in the establishment of theses programs in the first place.
* The 16th amendment must be repealed in order to restore the link between the power to tax and the power to spend.
* The 14th amendment must be repealed to eliminate its countless abusive uses by the court.
Such abuses include the courts choices to effectively rob from the people of their right to protect their
weakest and most helpless(the unborn) from being murdered.(Roe v. Wade). This is among other just
as aggressive usurpation such as our right to freedom of religion with regard to our State governments property. As well as dealing with the practical issues that arise from automatic birthright citizenship regardless of the illegal immigration status.
* Balanced budget except for military spending in the limited duration of a time of Declared War.
Good list.
Also, need to clarify “separation of church and state.” It is not reasonable to exclude religious statements in public places. Just because someone is offended by an exercise of free speech, particularly of a religious nature, does not mean they have a right to use government power to inhibit that speech.
To protect the right of free speech, we also need to put a lid on “political correctness,” whereby government power is used to hinder the exercise of free speech if found offensive to some.
We need to put more controls on what the courts are able to do. And we need to have the ability to recall judges, even Supreme Court justices. We should not allow a temporary lapse in judgment, such as electing Obama, to seat radicals in the highest court for life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.