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

[protectionist]

Get that? Here's one guy, speaking for all Republicans. Wonder if he was "elected".

Dum dum, those weren't MY words. They were a quotation of the title of a USMB OP from about a year ago. Try reading the OP before you post.

ROLL TAPE.

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.

You took DIRECT responsibility for it. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

First you were first talking about my quotation of another threads title, and attributing it to me. Now, you are mentioning another sentence in the OP, which yes of course I take responsibility for it, 100%. I think I can speak for the

overwhelming majority of Republicans, and safely be accurate to say >> ​

Republicans don't believe Muslims should be allowed to serve in public office, elected or not.

Only a fool or irresponsible ignoramus would willingly grant Muslims the power of government office, which is exactly what they need to fulfill their Koranic commanded missions to overthrow US society and replace it with an Islamic state.(as Obama's Muslim Brotherhood appointees are all sworn to do)

The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all that the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood in North America] must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands, and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated, and Allah's religion is made victorious over all religions."

Mohamed Akram, "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America" May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, United States vs. Holy Land Foundation, et al. 7 (21).

 

[Rambunctious]

Did we elect Germans and Japanese to congress and the senate during WW11?....no we didn't and we won WW11....we are in a war with America hating Jihadists.....we had better wake up or we will lose this one....

 

[protectionist]

At least conservatives are finally being honest about their bigotry and hate – and their contempt for the Constitution, the rule of law, and our democratic institutions.

Well done.

What do you mean "finally" ? What I'm saying here, is nothing different than what I said many times 6 years ago, when I first joined this forum, and 10 years before that, in other forums. You never heard me say all this before ?

And isn't it amazing that you can't figure out that what I'm saying is IN DEFENSE OF the Constitution, from America's biggest attackers of it >> Muslims and THEIR hate & bigotry against all non-Islam, and your posting is in defense of THEM, and against America and the Constitution.

What MUST Be Done About Islam

Trump Ban Should Be Muslim Ban (All Muslims - From Anywhere)

Shut Islam Down In America

This Country May Have Become the First in the World to Ban Islam

Islam And Public Schools And Textbooks - Major Players

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

US Is Weak On Islam Policy

 

[protectionist]

Perhaps.

But there are far too many Republicans and others on the right who sound just like the OP.

You sound like a Muslim jihadist. Are you ? If not, why do you support jihad ?

 

[protectionist]

Islam has been a religion for at least a thousand years longer than the United States has been a country.

See Post # 75

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Dear protectionist

1. You'd have to be more specific, such as barring Political Religions
from being established through Govt.
I would totally agree to that, such as by adding clarification to the
First Amendment that the establishment clause applies to
political CREEDS, BELIEFS and RELIGIONS.

2. I don't think you could NAME specific RELIGIONS as barred affiliations.

That would be like targeting and DISCRIMINATING against a person BY CREED.
Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist etc. could not be discriminated against.

Back to what I stated in #1:
If we declared POLITICAL RELIGIONS to be barred from establishment through Govt,
that would take care of the PROBLEM, and WITHOUT discriminating against people
for having a related belief (like being Muslim which is a religious affiliation,
SEPARATE FROM "ISLAMIST POLITICAL BELIEFS" would be barred from establishing that through Govt)

3. In general, your argument would work by making a distinction between
* Islamic POLITICAL BELIEFS/RELIGION which would violate the First Amendment
* Muslim religious affiliation of individuals that are NOT a political religion
and do not preclude someone from fulfilling Constitutional duty

While also:
* making such a law apply to ALL POLITICAL RELIGIONS
* instead of just targeting ONE particular named group
so that way it is fair across the board and not discriminating or targeting one case of political religions
that violate Constitutional laws and protections from establishments of beliefs

 

[protectionist]

Dear protectionist

1. You'd have to be more specific, such as barring Political Religions
from being established through Govt.
I would totally agree to that, such as by adding clarification to the
First Amendment that the establishment clause applies to
political CREEDS, BELIEFS and RELIGIONS.

2. I don't think you could NAME specific RELIGIONS as barred affiliations.

That would be like targeting and DISCRIMINATING against a person BY CREED.
Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist etc. could not be discriminated against.

Back to what I stated in #1:
If we declared POLITICAL RELIGIONS to be barred from establishment through Govt,
that would take care of the PROBLEM, and WITHOUT discriminating against people
for having a related belief (like being Muslim which is a religious affiliation,
SEPARATE FROM "ISLAMIST POLITICAL BELIEFS" would be barred from establishing that through Govt)

3. In general, your argument would work by making a distinction between
* Islamic POLITICAL BELIEFS/RELIGION which would violate the First Amendment
* Muslim religious affiliation of individuals that are NOT a political religion
and do not preclude someone from fulfilling Constitutional duty

While also:
* making such a law apply to ALL POLITICAL RELIGIONS
* instead of just targeting ONE particular named group
so that way it is fair across the board and not discriminating or targeting one case of political religions
that violate Constitutional laws and protections from establishments of beliefs

Your whole post is irrelevant because As I have stated repeatedly through this thread > ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION. And even if it were, it could not be legal in America, due to the fact that it is in violation of the US Constitution (Article 6, Section 2, the Supremacy clause)''

See post # 75 and 50.

 

[toobfreak]

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

I have to slightly disagree. Freedom of religion is fundamental in our law. I have no problem with people wanting to worship Mohammad, but a basic premise of being American is in adopting and supporting the American way of life and by doing so, the American Justice System. Sharia Law is a legal system all its own wholly incompatible with western law as first set for by Justinian's Code of Civil Law followed latter by Common Law set forth by Henry II and carried forward to today. The problem here occurs just as it does for Latinos like AOC and Esteban when they get into office and start representing the interests of a group of people outside the USA instead of America itself, likewise, the problem with Muslim faith is not intrinsic to the faith itself until they decide to adopt a legal system in conflict with the country they live in.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear protectionist

1. You'd have to be more specific, such as barring Political Religions
from being established through Govt.
I would totally agree to that, such as by adding clarification to the
First Amendment that the establishment clause applies to
political CREEDS, BELIEFS and RELIGIONS.

2. I don't think you could NAME specific RELIGIONS as barred affiliations.

That would be like targeting and DISCRIMINATING against a person BY CREED.
Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist etc. could not be discriminated against.

Back to what I stated in #1:
If we declared POLITICAL RELIGIONS to be barred from establishment through Govt,
that would take care of the PROBLEM, and WITHOUT discriminating against people
for having a related belief (like being Muslim which is a religious affiliation,
SEPARATE FROM "ISLAMIST POLITICAL BELIEFS" would be barred from establishing that through Govt)

3. In general, your argument would work by making a distinction between
* Islamic POLITICAL BELIEFS/RELIGION which would violate the First Amendment
* Muslim religious affiliation of individuals that are NOT a political religion
and do not preclude someone from fulfilling Constitutional duty

While also:
* making such a law apply to ALL POLITICAL RELIGIONS
* instead of just targeting ONE particular named group
so that way it is fair across the board and not discriminating or targeting one case of political religions
that violate Constitutional laws and protections from establishments of beliefs

Your whole post is irrelevant because As I have stated repeatedly through this thread > ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION. And even if it were, it could not be legal in America, due to the fact that it is in violation of the US Constitution (Article 6, Section 2, the Supremacy clause)''

See post # 75 and 50.

Dear protectionist
You are talking about a Political Ideology
which in common legal terms can be called a Political RELIGION
in order to justify BARRING IT FROM GOVT.

This is using the given Constitutional laws and standard principles
TO HELP YOU WIN YOUR ARGUMENT.

However, again, it's better than you do not NAME a particular group
such as either "Islam" or "Muslim" which are USED BY OTHER PEOPLE
TO MEAN A RELIGION. This will get you in legal trouble finding legal
or legislative help to implement what you are saying.

The TERMS you would use for what you mean by IDEOLOGY
is to call it a POLITICAL RELIGION.

That's just translating your entire argument into
legal language that will work within the given system
so you can pass such a reform successfully.

It's just using LEGAL terms for "barring political ideology
from govt that is hostile to the Constitution."

I don't disagree with the CONTENT of what you are saying protectionist.
But the language used has to be able to pass through without conflicts.
(the way you worded it is going to get rejected on legal technicalities
so if you are serious you would consult with legal counsel and
set it up to SUCCEED not to fail just because of technical issues
that lawyers will get thrown out).

BTW protectionist I'm totally in support of your GENERAL idea
to bar political ideology/religions from establishment through
Govt which are HOSTILE and in violation of Constitutional govt.

If you are serious, I am happy to set up a legal fund to seek donations
to hire legal consultants and Constitutional scholars to write up such
a lawsuit or legislation as needed to reform the laws to bar political religions.

I'm in Houston, TX, where are you?
Please reply here or PM me if you are serious about pursuing
either legal action or legislative reform, consulting with experts to word this correctly so it can be recognized.

 

[emilynghiem]

Actually the Constitution defends them. See the obscure document in post lucky-13.

Don't like it? Move to a theocracy and quit using our oxygen.

"Actually" the Constitution BANS them, as their ideology is a violation of the Constitution >> Article 6, Section 2, the Supremacy Clause.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

Okay protectionist so I backtracked to post #50

1. the Constitution also includes the First Amendment
by which Govt can neither establish nor prohibit religion.

So whatever you are targeting with "Islamic ideology"
it has to specifically be the PART THAT VIOLATES the establishment
clause (and not affect the individual free exercise protected thereunder)

This is why I'm saying to take the PART that is the IDEOLOGY/Political RELIGION
and recognize THAT PART as what is violating Constitutional laws.

2. Civil Rights and Fourteenth Amendment protections also preclude
"discrimination on the basis of creed or religion"

So again, it cannot involve naming a PARTICULAR group but has
to TARGET THE GENERAL TRAIT CAUSING THE VIOLATION of the Constitution.

The PART that makes it unconstitutional is the POLITICAL IDEOLOGY/RELIGION.

Do you understand separating and identifying THAT VIOLATING FACTOR
so you are not wording it "OVERLY BROADLY" to deprive others of freedom
when those people are NOT the ones committing the political abuses.

You'd have to SPECIFY the GENERAL practice that CONSTITUTE
* political ideology/religions
* causing abuses and violations of govt

(just citing the terms "Islam" and "Muslim" are
* too broad, in that they don't specifically identify the actual parts of the policies that violate Constitutional law
and
* discriminating/targeting ONE group
instead of naming the GENERAL problem that
can apply to ANY NUMBER of groups that commit the same abuses
not just this one group. ALL such groups would have to be covered under the law.

Do you understand how the language needs to be more refined protectionist?

If you are going to enforce laws against murder,
you can't just say "all blacks must be barred"
but you must apply the law to ALL PERSONS that commit that same crime.

So protectionist don't you agree that enforcing laws
barring ANY POLITICAL IDEOLOGY FROM BEING PLACED ABOVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
should be EQUALLY applied to ALL SUCH PERSONS AND GROUPS (not just when ISLAM is abused).

Wouldn't you also need laws enforced against
* Zionists who put their beliefs above the law including rights of others to due process
* Armaggeddonists and other cults who put their beliefs above the law and Constitutional protections of others
* Jihadists and Salafis who believe in carrying out their beliefs militantly as their own judge, jury and executioners
etc.

 

[Lysistrata]

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

You know what, let's throw out the Jews too. And the Eye-talians. And the Micks. And Bohunks, and Dwarfs, and Limeys and Hungarians. Catholics? Gotta go. Injuns? Send 'em back where they came from. Chinee, Japs, Canooks, all yesterday. Germans, ship 'em out.

Seen this movie before. Wait'll you see how it ends.

We've never had any real problems with any of those, just the Muslims. Only the Muslims. All those you mentioned assimilate well into American society, but not Muslims.
At least the ones I know what they are.

Not sure about those "Bohunks".

I live in an area with a substantial Muslim population, along with other people of varying religions and ethnicities. I do not understand your assertion that Muslims do not assimilate well into American society. Why would you say such a thing? Me: last trip to one of our local grocery stores, owned by ethnic Koreans, assisted in finding what I wanted by a Spanish-speaking person, my purchases rung up and bagged by a woman in a Muslim headscarf.

 

[emilynghiem]

A bunch of dupe talk. Islam isn't a religion. Never was.

Except that it is, Tough shit for you again I guess

No it's not. And most people around the world do not accept Islam to be a religion, including some countries (ex. Italy, Myanmar)

Italy: Islam Not Recognized as a Religion — Denied Religious Tax Status

http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2012/...d-as-a-religion-denied-religious-tax-status-2

Islam Watch - About Us

Islam Is Not A Religion, It Is Foreign Law

Islam and the Definition of Religion

Why Islam is Not a Religion > Rebecca Bynum

Former Muslim, Wafa Sultan, says, "Islam is NOT a religion" | BARE NAKED ISLAM

?Allah is Dead ? Why Islam is Not a Religion? | Logan's Warning

Islam Is Not A Religion, But A Dangerous Ideology | International

Islam: not a religion? « The Immanent Frame

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system. « Avid Editor's Insights

Half Sigma: Islam not a religion?

Islam in Italy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments from Former Muslims - WikiIslam

The Patriot Factor: Islam is NOT a Religion

Why Islam Should NOT Be Protected Under the US Constitution! | CatchKevin.com

Islam: Politics In Religious Garb

Italy: Islam Not Recognized as a Religion -- Denied Religious Tax Status - Atlas Shrugs

Info on Islam: Islam is not a religion

Islam Is Not A Religion It Is A Cult

Islam is NOT a Religion

Islam Does Not Qualify Under US Constitution ?Freedom of Religion? Rights « Northeast Intelligence NetworkNortheast Intelligence Network

Asia Times - Asia's most trusted news source

Islam is a political system ? NOT a religion | Creeping Sharia

Islam is not a religion, but a death cult of misogynistic pedophiles

Okay protectionist now I've backtracked to #75

From the articles I am reading here,
they either are talking about
(A) * ISLAMIST CULTS or
(B) * ISLAMIST POLITICAL REGIMES OR RELIGIONS
which you call IDEOLOGY.

(C) These are both separate from the Muslim spiritual
practice by which followers believe in respecting:
* Jewish Torah as given by God
* Christian Scriptures as given by God
* Muslim Koran as given by God
The people who follow God by all three sets of laws
are following the SPIRITUAL teachings that qualify
as a religious belief system, complementary with
Jewish and Christian under the same authority of God.

Anyone who claims to be Muslim and is at peace
with Jews and Christians is the RELIGIOUS follower type.
(And note: the Christian scriptural authority requires obedience
to God as including obedience to CIVIL laws authority and govt.)
And TRUE Muslim adherents meet this standard as given by God.

The Muslim faith and followers that meet THIS standard
are in the same category as Jews and Christians whose
beliefs are within the First Amendment because Civil Obedience
would prevent them from abusing Govt to impose their beliefs.
That would violate obedience to God, so they would not do it.
If they did so out of ignorance or negligence, then they would
still respond to rebukes to correct themselves instead of impose.

For (A) and (B)
Cults and Political ideology/Religion
I would agree that these would be in violation of civil and constitutional
laws and protections:
(A) Cults would ABUSE collective power to harm, oppress
and violate civil rights of individuals, so that would be unlawful
(B) Political ideology/religion would be unconstitutional
to establish through Govt in violation of the rights
and beliefs of others equally protected by law.

Do you agree that the best way to enforce laws would be to
address
ALL CULTS
ALL POLITICAL RELIGIONS
therefore not only do you solve the problems
with ABUSING Muslim/Islamic belief systems as
CULTS
POLITICAL RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGIES (that mix religion with govt)
but you would also address ALL OTHER GROUPS
that would commit the SAME ABUSES.

That law enforcement would be general, and apply
to ALL PEOPLE AND ALL GROUPS EQUALLY,
so it would not violate any other laws against discrimination.

You would be barring ALL GROUPS
from imposing political ideology above Constitutional laws.

I have no problem with that protectionist
I totally agree and support you and any efforts
we could organize to teach and enforce
Constitutional law to stop political religious abuses!

 

[Issa]

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

As a Muslim I say I'm glad me and millions of American muslims like me, chose to be surgeons, engineers, businessmen, firefighters, policemen, teachers, CIA operatives, FBI agents, athletes, and everything else in between and not spend our time worrying about the bigots of the right and what they think about us.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

You know what, let's throw out the Jews too. And the Eye-talians. And the Micks. And Bohunks, and Dwarfs, and Limeys and Hungarians. Catholics? Gotta go. Injuns? Send 'em back where they came from. Chinee, Japs, Canooks, all yesterday. Germans, ship 'em out.

Seen this movie before. Wait'll you see how it ends.

We've never had any real problems with any of those, just the Muslims. Only the Muslims. All those you mentioned assimilate well into American society, but not Muslims.
At least the ones I know what they are.

Not sure about those "Bohunks".

I live in an area with a substantial Muslim population, along with other people of varying religions and ethnicities. I do not understand your assertion that Muslims do not assimilate well into American society. Why would you say such a thing? Me: last trip to one of our local grocery stores, owned by ethnic Koreans, assisted in finding what I wanted by a Spanish-speaking person, my purchases rung up and bagged by a woman in a Muslim headscarf.

Thank you Lysistrata
I work with coworkers who are Muslim who always
impress me with their work ethics and respect for others.

I think what protectionist and Marion Morrison are referring to
is when whole Islamic groups take over like a cult or regime
and mix religion with govt where there is no due process
or protections for individuals as there is under the Constitution.

With Muslims who operate as INDIVIDUALS, there is no such threat.

It's when a whole group is formed, similar to how political parties
start abusing power, then these groups act as Religious Organizations
that unlawfully impose their BELIEFS THROUGH GOVT on everyone else.

So whatever they are objecting to with Muslims becoming a threat in large groups
overtaking or overriding govt, the same should apply to ANY POLITICAL RELIGION
including Political Parties acting as CULTS, Religious organizations, or Political Religions
abusing power and govt to impose their beliefs as mandatory for others to fund or follow.

The Democrats did this with ACA mandates, while
complaining when GOP members threaten to impose
right to life beliefs over protection of due process under the Constitution.

If we are going to complain and demand law enforcement,
we should bar ANY GROUPS from imposing political beliefs,
creeds, ideology or religion in violation of First Amendment
protections of other people by such Discrimination by Creed.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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

You know what, let's throw out the Jews too. And the Eye-talians. And the Micks. And Bohunks, and Dwarfs, and Limeys and Hungarians. Catholics? Gotta go. Injuns? Send 'em back where they came from. Chinee, Japs, Canooks, all yesterday. Germans, ship 'em out.

Seen this movie before. Wait'll you see how it ends.

We've never had any real problems with any of those, just the Muslims. Only the Muslims. All those you mentioned assimilate well into American society, but not Muslims.
At least the ones I know what they are.

Not sure about those "Bohunks".

I wonder what the death toll is for italians. Do you know? I remember when they would just roll up next to you in traffic and dump dynamite in your back seat.

The Cleveland Mafia: Death of a don ignites Bomb City, USA (vintage photos) - cleveland.com

Typical ignorance & Hollywood indoctrination.

I live in a very low crime region & it's mostly Italians & Guatemalans.

It's called massive exaggerations.

As for Muslims most I've met have been polite, mild mannered & pleasant.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Islam is a particularly dangerous religion since it is usually combined with the low IQ and violent invaders. Ironically it is Jewish politicians, academia, etc. and assorted bureaucrats who set the stage for the destruction of the West by allowing the invasion by Islamic savages.

Agree.
The Kosher Globalists are our biggest issue rather than Muslims.

 

[Unkotare]

Needless to say, the OP is a bigoted buffoon who absolutely does NOT speak for the Republican Party or anyone else who understands and appreciates America.

Needless to say, you are clueless on this entire subject. ...

I guess I need to say that I know exactly what I'm talking about on this entire subject. You, like most bigots, are just speaking out of fear and a sense of powerlessness. Not conducive to rational discourse.

 

[Unkotare]

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. .....

Needless to say, the OP is a bigoted buffoon who absolutely does NOT speak for the Republican Party or anyone else who understands and appreciates America.

Perhaps.

But there are far too many Republicans and others on the right who sound just like the OP.

There are far too many bigots on all sides, but that has nothing to do with the OP's false claim of representing Republican positions.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Needless to say, the OP is a bigoted buffoon who absolutely does NOT speak for the Republican Party or anyone else who understands and appreciates America.

Needless to say, you are clueless on this entire subject. ...

I guess I need to say that I know exactly what I'm talking about on this entire subject. You, like most bigots, are just speaking out of fear and a sense of powerlessness. Not conducive to rational discourse.

Divided we fall.
Balkinization causes chaos.

Yes the ultimate agenda is to make all sides powerless.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Muslims need to prove they are American Patriots. So far, failure.

Same goes for the Kosher people.