ClimateSanity
New member
By the way, don't let her tell you that you're using the term fascist wrongly. They are the ones who changed the meaning like most of the English .
How do you defend yourself against people who will blow themselves up to kill you?
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
Great! What laws will you have to repeal to do this? Or sections of the Constitution (assuming you are American)? How will you identify them? How will you make sure that the same mechanism won't be used against other groups? What happens if they resist? Where will you send them to?
Have you really thought about this?
dodge
New member
None ! There was a law passed in 1952 that basically says if one cannot or will not "swear" loyalty to the U.S.and the constitution they cannot even come to America. Muslims want to replace the constitution with Sharia law by a majority in every poll thereby disqualifying themselves from even being in America.
Yes, I have thought about this. Why would anyone want a barbaric death cult like Islam in their country to kill everyone that will not bow down to a moon god and follow a murdering ,child molesting maniac like Mohammad ?
DavidK
New member
Do you expect that terrorist leaders won't invent a theological pass for the fervently faithful to forgive them for a lying oath of loyalty to the US and constitution? All oaths made to an infidel nation in the service of martyrdom are considered of no effect when the martyr is judged?
Oh, wait. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya
Could you provide some links to those polls?
You seem to be advocating for undermining the free exercise clause of the constitution. Does that make you deportable?
No you didn't. You used it as a source of authority, suggesting people who you presumed haven't been there can't understand the subject like you do. I can quote you on the point or you can be a little more honest in the middle of your insult stream with anna.
In any event, you're about to do it again.
See? You did it again. You've been there/she hasn't. Like saying you spent a few years living among X in Cleveland so you understand X everywhere.
In fact, if you're driven to form rules/generalities that way you're more likely to know less than someone who studies the point. Even if they've never lived among the people described unless that narrow experience happens to actually reflect the rule established by a larger examination. And you can't know if that's the case without that larger examination.
DavidK
New member
While I'm asking for citations, do you have any more information on this 1952 law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_oath
Looks like most loyalty oaths supporting the consitution are tied to public employment.
dodge
New member
Nope, that law was made specifically for those wanting to immigrate to the U.S.
Breeze trough this it is part of the 1953 law that was passed by congress.
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b) , no person shall hereafter be naturalized as a citizen of the United States-
(1) who advocates or teaches, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches, opposition to all organized government; or
(2) who is a member of or affiliated with (A) the Communist Party of the United States; (B) any other totalitarian party of the United States; (C) the Communist Political Association; (D) the Communist or other totalitarian party of any State of the United States, of any foreign state, or of any political or geographical subdivision of any foreign state; (E) any section, subsidiary, branch, affiliate, or subdivision of any such association or party; or (F) the direct predecessors or successors of any such association or party, regardless of what name such group or organization may have used, may now bear, or may hereafter adopt, unless such alien establishes that he did not have knowledge or reason to believe at the time he became a member of or affiliated with such an organization (and did not thereafter and prior to the date upon which such organization was so registered or so required to be registered have such knowledge or reason to believe) that such organization was a Communist-front organization; or
(3) who, although not within any of the other provisions of this section, advocates the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, either through its own utterances or through any written or printed publications issued or published by or with the permission or consent of or under authority of such organizations or paid for by the funds of such organization; or
(4) who advocates or teaches or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches (A) the overthrow by force or violence or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or (B) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government because of his or their official character; or (C) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property; or (D) sabotage; or
(5) who writes or publishes or causes to be written or published, or who knowingly circulates, distributes, prints, or displays, or knowingly causes to be circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed or who knowingly has in his possession for the purpose of circulation, publication, distribution, or display, any written or printed matter, advocating or teaching opposition to all organized government, or advocating (A) the overthrow by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or (B) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character; or (C) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property; or (D) sabotage; or (E) the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship; or
http://freedomoutpost.com/islamists-communists-totalitarians-prohibited-law-immigrating-us/
DavidK
New member
Okay, gotcha. So you can block immigration of all Muslims except those who are lying so they can get in and blow something up.
All those who are already here are here to stay.
dodge
New member
Nope, If they will not swear an oath to uphold and follow the constitution they can be sent back to their sand boxes, which they will not do as they by vast majority follow Sharia law.
DavidK
New member
Sorry, should have said that Muslims who are already citizens are here to stay, since you said this 1952 law only covers immigration.
So you'll stop the immigration of every Muslim who isn't lying in order to commit terrorism and send back every legal immigrant who isn't lying to commit terrorism.
So we'll have Muslim citizens and Muslim terrorists left. That doesn't sound terribly effective.
DavidK
New member
In Schneiderman v. United States, the case to develop the attachment requirement in the most detail, the court evaluated the circumstances of a young man whose naturalization was allegedly fraudulent for his failure to satisfy the attachment requirement. The man had been a member of two communist organizations at the time of his naturalization.[39] Upon questioning, he stated that he "subscribed 'to the philosophy and principles of Socialism as manifested in the writings of Lenin'" but "denied that he ... advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force" and "considered membership in the Party compatible with the obligations of American citizenship, believing that "socialism could be achieved here by democratic processes."[40]
It looks like precedent would allow Muslim immigrants if they felt that Sharia law could be achieved here by democratic, constitutional processes.
dodge
New member
That is why I said in the beginning send them ALL back to their sand boxes EVERYONE of them.
DavidK
New member
Except you don't have legal grounds for that.
And how do you plan to deal with Muslim terrorists who keep their belief secret? Seems like you keep mostly sending back the ones without ill intent without dealing with those who are here specifically to do violence.
dodge
New member
Most do not understand that if Sharia law ever becomes the law of the land:
1. Everyone would be FORCED to become Muslim or pay a tax or be killed for refusing to convert ,and or pay the tax.
2. Girls would be married off at 6.
3. Homosexuals ( no I do not support same sex ) would be thrown off of every high building.
4. Honor killing of daughters that do not obey their dads would be killed.
5. Sex with animals would become protected by their Sharia.
6. If a woman is raped she would be beaten or stoned.
and on and on with the death cult's barbarity.
It will only happen in America AFTER "every" patriot has been killed then good luck.
dodge
New member
Sure there is a legal grounds . They ( Muslims ) do not believe the constitution should be the law of America, and by every poll they believe Sharia should be the law of America.
America needs Muslims like Troy needed a trophy.
And the last time I saw numbers around 37% of Muslims in this country were born here. Also, I believe the numbers on Muslims who want some form of Sharia is 51%, or it's a toss up. Given how many of that population are immigrants from fairly rigid traditional Islamic nations that's impressive. It means that at least 13% of those have already become Westernized and respectful of secular institutions.
Now consider the implications of that and consider that according to Pew, most of the Westernized Muslim states have little interest in Sharia as a form of legal system. And even within groups who do want it when you divide the question between the civil and criminal, there's nearly no support for Sharia on the latter end. Also, you get a different answer if you break the question into "for Muslims" and "for everyone". With "for everyone" getting sparse support. Pew has a lot of really compelling data on the topic. I'll have to go find a few links. I've posted them in the past during other flare ups of the topic. Look at Turkey, where only 12% of Muslims favor Sharia. Kazhakstan, 10%. Azerbaijan, 8%. Kozovo, 20%. Boznai-Her., 15%. Albania, 12%. Among a number of nations with large, even dominant Muslim populations who respect the secularization of government and the protections it affords is strongly rooted.
The argument is that when you give people time to acclimate to it, they come to see the value in equality before the law and the institutions of government that respect but will not endorse with the authority of law particular religious doctrines and traditions.
You would do well to cite a source for that law.
And one does wonder how that law, or any law, will let you expel people who are already living in the US. Many of whom are citizens.
dodge
New member
He's down to trolling repetition, so let me. The Establishment Clause is going to hobble any effort to use religion as a litmus for exclusion.
From Everson v. Board of Education:
“[The] establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.
Laws restricting immigration based upon the religion of a person are violative of the Constitution by favoring non-Muslim refugees over Muslim refugees and certainly singling out Muslims for a litmus test would fail as well.
dodge
New member
Hello O slow one it is NOT about religion and is all about swearing allegiance to America and the constitution.