Thoughts Aloud

Archive for August, 2010

I wish to highly recommend the book “NULLIFICATION – How To Resist Federal Tyranny In The 21st Century” by Thomas E Woods, Jr.

In this book, Mr. Woods discusses the notion of Nullification which stems from the little-realized fact that the States are the creators, therefore the masters of our Constitution, not its slaves. As such, they retain both the right and the responsibility to nullify any federal law that exceeds the federal authority granted by that Constitution.

Lest any doubt the truth of the preceding statement, I ask you simply to recall that at least 3/4 of the state governments must agree in writing to any alteration of our Constitution for such alteration to become valid. Were the federal government the master, no such agreement would be required.

Amendment I of the United States Constitution states, in part “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

What this literally means is that the Federal Government is to stay strictly out of the sphere of religion – with no clue what the various states might decide to do (or not do) in this regard. Since the Founding, most Americans have interpreted this to mean we have freedom of religion. I do not disagree.

However, this freedom does beg the question “ freedom of religion in what regard and to what extent?”. If it merely means one has the right to believe and to worship as one chooses, there would seem to be no problem, even if some, if not all, of the beliefs in question are nebulous at best.

But, what happens when “ the free exercise” of one’s religion brings one in direct conflict with the laws of the state, indeed of the Constitution itself? Did the Framers intend to be this accommodating? I think not. So, the problem with religious freedom begins with one’s religious beliefs compel one to take action that could be harmful to one’s fellow citizens.

Thus we encounter a problem that has at least once existed in every major religion… the religion-driven compulsion to force one’s fellows to conform to the practices of our own religious beliefs. This is the problem we face with Islam today.

In the first place, it is a mistake to consider Islam merely a religion. Instead, it is an all-encompassing system of life, encompassing elements of religion, of what would otherwise be secular law, of economics, down to rules for every element of personal behavior. And, inherent in the Islamist belief system is the documented command that Islam MUST eventually dominate the entire world. This means that Islam, by definition, cannot peacefully coexist with any other system. Instead, it must do everything in its power to subdue then dominate any other system in which it takes root. This process includes horrible acts of terrorism, and when performed, these truly get our attention. Yet, this is the least part of the problem. The truly insidious process employed by Islam is to constantly chip away at the laws and values of whatever society they are trying to subdue. In the US, they leverage our traditions of religious freedom to help this process along.

They object to the orientation of toilets in restrooms. They object to having to sell pork or alcohol when employed by retailers. They demand a workplace break schedule that accommodates their prayer schedule. Lately, they have gone so far as to demand that US law become more “Sharia compliant”, evidently so they can practice honor killing and stoning with impunity. On and on it will go until we have been subdued. If you doubt this, look at the record of several European countries that are being invaded by Islam.

I offer as evidence, the following adaptation from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book:
Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat
“Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.
Here’s how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States — Muslim 0.6%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of nonbelievers of all other religions (including nonconforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is ongoing in:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.”

Dr. Hammond obviously goes on but this bit should suffice to make the point.

I ask again, do we really want that Mosque at/near ground 0? Indeed, do we need Mosques anywhere in America? In a word, is Islam an abuse of “freedom of religion” as intended by the Founders?

I say that it is.

There may well be many “peaceful” Muslims in America but their very identification as Muslims still gives weight to the international Islamic movement and its intended subversion of America – even if they, themselves, never lift a hand or a weapon.

Troy L Robinson

I have observed the debate over the mosque at/near/ ground 0 with great amusement.

Let us begin by being absolutely clear what my own humble opinion is:

Some children of Islam, cheered on by most children of Islam, brought down a high-rise complex in September 2001, killing several thousand Americans in the process. No doubt a great victory for Islam, one that many in Islam seem to think was worthy of a trophy at/near the spot to commemorate the great event. Clearly, using this criteria, building this mosque at that particular place is an insult to all Americans, and, IMHO it is meant to be.

Then there is the fact that I, like most Libertarians, treasure private property rights for all. Clearly, using this criteria, building this mosque at that particular place is well within the rights of the property owner.

However, neither of these criteria amuse me. What does amuse me is watching a bunch of “adults” from all sides of the issue try to come to the point while avoiding the real point altogether.

This “real point”, as I see it, is that we were viciously attacked in direct accordance with a religious belief. To be more precise, we were attacked by Islam, per the documented beliefs of Islam. Yet, no person in any position of power in America dare even allow the possibility that religious belief could be the focal point for such hatred, despite the evidence that such has long been the case. This is true for Islam, it has been true for Christianity (and, to a lesser degree still is) it is true for Judaism and so on and so forth.

It seems to me that it is long past time for mankind to outgrown silly notions about divine guidance and start taking credit and responsibility for their own failures. Until that happens, please at least admit to yourselves that we are at war with Islam. Not with a few extremists but with everything that is Islam. Using this criteria, I now ask – during the Cold War, would we have let the USSR build a military HQ at/near ground 0?

Troy L Robinson