Recently you sent us a letter encouraging us to renew our lapsed membership in AARP by the requested date. I know it is not what you were looking for, but this is the most honest response I can give you. Our gap in coverage is merely a microscopic symptom of the real problem, a deepening lack of faith.
While we have proudly maintained our membership for several years and have long admired the AARP goals and principles, regrettably, we can no longer endorse it's abdication of our values. Your letter specifically stated that we can count on AARP to speak up for our rights, yet the voice we hear is not ours. Your offer of being kept up to date on important issues through DIVIDED WE FAIL presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have come to embrace. We do believe that when two parties agree all the time on everything presented to them, one is probably not necessary. But, when the opinions and long term goals are diametrically opposed, the divorce is imminent. This is the philosophy which spawned our 200 years of government.
Once upon a time, we looked forward to being part of the senior demographic. We also looked to AARP to provide certain benefits and give our voice a power we could not possibly hope to achieve on our own. AARP gave us a sense of belonging which we no longer enjoy.. The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama administration and empowered by AARP serves only to raise the blood pressure my medical insurance strives to contain. Clearly a conflict of interest there!
We do not understand the AARP posture, feel greatly betrayed by the guiding forces that we expected to map out our senior years and leave your ranks with a great sense of regret. We mitigate that disappointment with the relief of knowing that we are not contributing to the problem anymore by renewing our membership. There are numerous other organizations which offer discounts without threatening our way of life or offending our sensibilities.
This Presidential Administration scares the living daylights out of us. Not just for ourselves, but for our proud and bloodstained heritage. But even more importantly for our children and grandchildren. Washington has rendered Soylent Green a prophetic cautionary tale rather than a nonfiction scare tactic. I have never in my life endorsed any militant or radical groups, yet now I find myself listening to them. I don't have to agree with them to appreciate the fear which birthed their existence. Their borderline insanity presents little more than a balance to the voice of the Socialist mindset in power. Perhaps I became American by a great stroke of luck in some cosmic uterine lottery, but in my adulthood I CHOOSE to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it represents as well as the responsibilities it requires.
Your website generously offers us the opportunity to receive all communication in Spanish. ARE YOU KIDDING??? Someone has broken into our 'house', invaded our home without our invitation or consent. The President has insisted we keep the perpetrator in comfort and learn the perps language so we can communicate our reluctant welcome to them.
I DON'T choose to welcome them.
I DON'T choose to support them.
I DON'T choose to educate them.
I DON'T choose to medicate them, pay for their food or clothing.
American home invaders get arrested.
Please explain to me why foreign lawbreakers can enjoy privileges on American soil that Americans do not get?
Why do some immigrants have to play the game to be welcomed and others only have to break & enter to be welcomed?
We travel for a living. Walt hauls horses all over this great country, averaging over 10,000 miles a month when he is out there. He meets more people than a politician on caffeine overdose. Of all the many good folks he enjoyed on this last 10,000 miles, this trip yielded only ONE supporter of the current administration. One of us is out of touch with mainstream America. Since our poll is conducted without funding, I have more faith in it than one which is power driven.
We have decided to forward this to everyone on our mailing list, and will encourage them to do the same. With several hundred in my address book, I have every faith that the eventual exponential factor will make a credible statement to you..
I am disappointed as hell.
I am scared as hell.
I am MAD as hell, and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!
Ask your state's Attorney General to join other state attorneys general that are already demanding a change in the Senate Health Care Bill. A provision in the Health Care Bill affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska from the costs of expanding Medicaid programs. The provision was put into the bill to get Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson to vote for it. The Health Care Bill is alreally going to add billions to states' debt. We should not be expected to pay for other state's Health Care Programs on top of our own.
Why am I not surprised that you are still not able to correlate the fact that the filibuster is a tool used by both democrats and republicans to slow or block legislation they could not stop otherwise.
Again, I remind you. The first 2 years of Bush's first term, and the last 2 of his last term, the senate was controlled by "Democrats". The other 4 years, the senate was about as even in number as it could get with the vice president casting the deciding vote on several pieces of legislation.
The filibuster was used on many occasions by the democrats to block legislation they opposed and to block the confirmation of federal judges nominated by Bush.
I believe a reasonable conclusion could be reached that any and all legislation the democrats had strong opposition to could have been stopped by the use or threat of the use of a filibuster.
Once again, I remind you. It takes at least 60 votes in the senate to stop a filibuster and allow legislation or confirmation to proceed.
Remind me again, how many seats did the republicans hold in the senate during Bush's term? Best I remember, it never came close to reaching the magic number of sixty or more.
This is my third attempt to explain the filibuster process to you.
And I am the one needs a comprehension course?
I am in complete agreement that you should take advantage of any educational opportunities offered to you, including the several lessons I have freely given you.
I have noticed that you are capable of being taught. Our first communications involved statements made by you that were either false, misleading or made at a time when you were disconnected from reality. You make no further effort to disprove or argue those statements.
I provided you with facts and rational that disproved your statements, leaving you with nothing but childish personal attacks in an effort to try to reclaim even a small portion of the self esteem I took from you.
You dug yourself a hole by repeating without verifying, crap that you found on far left sites.
You dug in deeper by believing personal attacks work better than facts.
My advice to you.
STOP DIGGING
Why am I not surprised that you are still not able to correlate the fact that the filibuster is a tool used by both democrats and republicans to slow or block legislation they could not stop otherwise.
Again, I remind you. The first 2 years of Bush's first term, and the last 2 of his last term, the senate was controlled by "Democrats". The other 4 years, the senate was about as even in number as it could get with the vice president casting the deciding vote on several pieces of legislation.
The filibuster was used on many occasions by the democrats to block legislation they opposed and to block the confirmation of federal judges nominated by Bush.
I believe a reasonable conclusion could be reached that any and all legislation the democrats had strong opposition to could have been stopped by the use or threat of the use of a filibuster.
Once again, I remind you. It takes at least 60 votes in the senate to stop a filibuster and allow legislation or confirmation to proceed.
Remind me again, how many seats did the republicans hold in the senate during Bush's term? Best I remember, it never came close to reaching the magic number of sixty or more.
This is my third attempt to explain the filibuster process to you.
And I am the one needs a comprehension course?
I am in complete agreement that you should take advantage of any educational opportunities offered to you, including the several lessons I have freely given you.
I have noticed that you are capable of being taught. Our first communications involved statements made by you that were either false, misleading or made at a time when you were disconnected from reality. You make no further effort to disprove or argue those statements.
I provided you with facts and rational that disproved your statements, leaving you with nothing but childish personal attacks in an effort to try to reclaim even a small portion of the self esteem I took from you.
You dug yourself a hole by repeating without verifying, crap that you found on far left sites.
You dug in deeper by believing personal attacks work better than facts.
My advice to you.
STOP DIGGING
DISTURBIA's comments: "The Democrats and the Republicans are all greedy scum bags.Liberalism=Socialism=Communism is not Americas answer. Most schools have the left wing liberal nut job teachers and if you combine them with the America bashers the Hollywood blowhards the schlockmeisters and the Intellectual thugs no wonder our schools are breeding idiots. Merry Christmas Happy new year.Do you love Jesus?Do you love your country? Maybe if we, Nation and myself , keep working with both of you you will learn to think on your own.
Yah except when Joe the Plumber said he has worked hard and Obama said yah but you have to admit you’ve been lucky too. Youll notice Obama doesn’t take any personal responsibility for his screwups, he just says others need to take responsibility. For example, the issue of unemployment. He recently basically threw his hands in the air and said hes done all he can, the onus is on the private sector. When he’s failing he throws blame. As soon as the unemployment numbers look consistently better I predict we wont be able to shut him up about how he fixed it.
So let me see if I understand this. Obama and congress pass the Stimulus package and people like you call it socialist, communist, a budget buster and pure pork that will never work. Even tho it only added 4% to Bush's 2009 budget. NOW you're complaining that he hasn't done enough to solve the country's problems like unemployment.
"The other argument I continuously hear is that Clinton and other Democrats during his presidency made mortgage/banking regulations more relaxed which led to the current crisis. While it is true that many regulations were loosened during the Clinton administration, as well as during the Bush administration, Bush and the Republicans have been in complete power since 2000(note what I said above about the lack of power the Dems have due to a lack of a 2/3 majority to override a veto) and if these regulations were so bad, then they should have changed them before the current crisis. If Clinton relaxed regulations so much then Bush should have changed our mortgage and banking regulations and made them more strict, right? After all, Bush and the Republicans had the power for eight years to control and change regulations as they pleased. The fact is that Republicans have always traditionally favored deregulation and that is why they kept our regulations relaxed."
"I keep hearing that it is Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who are responsible and that John Mccain and other Republicans warned of the looming crisis. Assuming that this is true, then why didn't Bush and the GOP, who had veto power over the Dems in congress, terminate those programs which people like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank pushed for? If the Republicans were so much against those mortgage/banking programs then Bush could have terminated them. Again, the Dems did not have the veto power to prevent Bush from terminating those programs."
"When the Democrats took over Congress 18 months ago, there were expectations of major change. But it hasn’t happened, partly because a lot of the new Democrats are "Blue Dogs," almost as conservative as the Republicans they defeated. "
With the above explanation maybe Dallas can comprehend who and when a party has real power.
"We were attacked numerous times prior to 9/11." Please list the numerous time America was attacked include cities, and what countries attacked us.
"No where did I deny that 9/11 occurred on Bush's watch." You implied that it was Clinton fault for not retaliating to attacks on America.
"Now a short lesson in government. The house and senate were both held by "democrats". Please read the above statement so you understand how the power in Washington works.
"Could you post the site where you garnered the information that the republicans attacked Obama for mandating that the banks pay back the loans? I believe that evidence would show that Obama and his administration tried to stop the banks from repaying the loans." It was the conservative media that attacked Obama stating that Obama's/(government) involvement was socialist.
Again you seem to be confused about the prescription drug bill. Participation in the bill was and is strictly voluntary. No one is forced to join but those who did are happy with the fact that it has saved them money. Were they not, they could withdraw at any time. " WASHINGTON — Republican senators attacking the cost of a Democratic health care bill showed far different concerns six years ago when they approved a major Medicare expansion that has added tens of billions of dollars to federal deficits.
The inconsistency — or hypocrisy, as some call it — has irked Democrats, who argue that their plan will pay for itself with higher taxes and spending cuts and cite the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office for support.
By contrast, when Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House in 2003, they overcame Democratic opposition to add a deficit-financed prescription drug benefit to Medicare.
The program will cost at least a half-trillion dollars over 10 years.
With no new taxes or spending offsets accompanying the Medicare drug program, the cost has been added to the federal debt.
All current GOP senators, including the 24 who voted for the 2003 Medicare expansion, oppose the health care bill that's backed by President Obama and most congressional Democrats. Some Republicans say they don't believe the CBO's projections that the health care overhaul will pay for itself. As for their newfound worries about big government health expansions, they essentially say: That was then, this is now.
Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
The Medicare Prescription Drug Bill Vote Scandal, 2003 began to unfold in December 2003. Major journalistic investigation and reporting on this issue came from Timothy Noah for Slate (MSN).
"On June 23, 2004, Public Citizen released a study noting that:
Drug Industry and HMOs Deployed an Army of Nearly 1,000 Lobbyists to Push Medicare Bill
Special Interests Spent $141 Million in 2003, Hired 431 Lobbyists With "Revolving Door" Connections to Congress and the White House
"The revolving door between the White House and K Street has made the Bush administration indistinguishable from the industry," said Craig Aaron, senior researcher for Public Citizen's Congress Watch and lead author of the report.
"If it wasn't bad enough that most of the key negotiators working on the Medicare bill were preparing to cash in on K Street as soon as it passed, Bush has brought in more drug industry and HMO insiders to implement and promote this disastrous new law."
"I was struck by how vacant the galleries were and so few seniors citizens looking down," Daschle, D-South Dakota, said after the vote. "What you saw instead were lobbyists packing the halls. They will do well. Our seniors will not, and that is why the fight will go on."
You wrote that the stock market was nothing but a big bubble when it reached 1400. Most who "play" the stock market are aware that it goes up and down. It has never been a guarantee and those smart enough to know that, make money. The dummies or those slow to react, are the ones who lose. My advice to you is to not participate as you are obviously in the second category. Your response to this issue is that your an idiot. Thousands of people lost thousands of their retirements. Again your an idiot.
"Never has it been clearer how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people," Reid said in a statement. "By vetoing a bipartisan bill to renew the successful Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America.
If you want to read more on Bush's Child Health care veto search under health care for children bush. Numerous article have been written on this issue.
As you have no understanding of the impacts of War on soldiers you are clueless of the need for the Geneva Convention. You are an idiot on this issue.
I wrote that Obama ran on reforming health care. The majority of Americans voted for him and put him in Office. The 85%, that you refer to, that oppose health care reform are in the minority that did not vote for Obama in the first place. Your second statement where you went out on a limb is just that because you fell on your ass with that statement and proved again your ignorance.
Obama is working to fix Bush's screw ups. It took Bush eight years to screw up this country's and run our economy into bankruptcy. Americans can not expect Obama to fix our economy over night. America having the largest economy in the world can not be turned on a dime. Only idiots would except such miracles. It is easier to break something than to fix it. There is no one solution to fixing our economy.
I suggested that if you don't understand how a democracy works and don't like how it operates, majority rules, then go back where your ancestors immigrated from. The majority of Americans voted for President Obama so that is our legitimate president. Those that don't like how America operates can get the F ---- out.
I do not only watch progressive television I also listen to conservative talk radio 570, 660, 820 am. I listen to both sides of an issue so that I get informed on issues. I understand that people listening to one side of an issue can easily become Nazis or participate in the Salem Witch Hunts.
My saying " your talking out of your ass" is applied when people make statement they have very little knowledge about or make foolish statements. The thought of having an obsession with your ass never even occurred to me. It is surprising to me that such a thought would enter your mind from such a common statement used here in America. I would like to say don't flatter yourself adn your fantasies are not mine.
Under Bush the Stock market was nothing more than a big bubble. All regulations were removed so large banks and mortgage companies were out to make a profit. Bad loans were being marketed with good loans, bad loans where being marketed as good loans etc etc. that is why the bottom feel out of the market. Deregulation resulted in a free for all market with the only objective was to make as much money as possible no matter who you screwed. Health care for children was reduced under the Bush Administration learn your facts and stop talking out of your ass. I do not condone promiscuous sex but I understand when their are teens that are doing it teaching them how to protect themselves is important. Abstinence from sex is also important but once they are doing it and refuse to stop abstinence is a loss cause. I served in the Army (Vietnam era) and if you have no idea of why the Geneva Convention was signed you are an idiot. There are different standards when you are fighting in battle and when you become a prisoner of war, you don't seem to understand the difference. Contrary to what you think some of our soldiers are captured and we want them to be treated with respect and that is what the Geneva Convention protects. The Geneva Convention protects our troops from being tortured and it works both ways. You have seen to many John Wayne movies and have not realized these are only movies.
I think you need your head examined. The Majority of Americans, that is why Obama is president, voted for Obama because he promised to revamp the health care system. The people that voted for Obama want a government option. The 85% that you are talking about did not vote for Obama and they are the minority. Very little money from the Stimulus bill has been spent less than 1% . Money from the stimulus bill will be going to cities to help reconstruct their infrasture, unemployment, police, firemen, etc etc Get your facts correct Dallas your sounding stupid. Bush let you keep your own money while borrowing and paying interest to china. Now China owns the American dollar and calls the shots that a real fiscal conservative. You think that was a great idea. I would like to see how you manage your personal finances.
To which I reply:
I always get a giggle or two when some ill bred retard thinks they can enhance their believability by claiming to be a republican.
Nation would have a better chance of convincing us that she is educated and has gainful employment than you have making us believe you're a republican.
to blea wrote:
First of all when Bush became president the Government was not in-debt.
After 8 years of not accomplishing a damn thing, not even ending the wars they started, the GOP only remedy to their disastrous leadership is to support nonsense issues such as Obama is not an American citizen, healthcare will result in death panels. etc. etc. The current Republican minority was voted out by the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS in the last presidential election because they accomplished nothing in the 8 years in office. The republican party has become irrelevant party (28% of Americans claim to be Republican) in the eyes of most Americans (democrats and independents). The Republican party has become the inferior party. The party that the MAJORITY of Americans do not take serious because of the issues they pursue. The Republican party pursue personal attacks as their only hope of gaining some relevance but in the eyes of the MAJORITY of Americans the Republicans have become a joke. The real winners in the next election will be democrats and independent candidates.
Who benefits from the working class democrats and republicans fighting each other, the large companies that are expanding their tentacles to all countries and continents where governments are week and can not protect its citizens. As companies become larger and more powerful here in the United States we Americans are losing more and more of our civil rights. We Americans are seeing our Washington Representative being replaced by elected officials that owe their soul to large companies that provided them with all the financing they needed to get elected. Our elected officials are becoming employees of Corporate America. So whose interest do you think these representatives are going to represent the people that can have their ideas easily manipulated by the corporate media or Corporate America who pays for their reelections. Many of our Representative have become Corporate Americans employees. Both Democrats and Republicans have become Political Whores. The Political parties decide who they want to represent us. It is time we start to bring these political whores back from Washington starting with senators and congressmen in Texas. Join the Non-Partisan Tea Party whose objective is to set Term Limits for our Representatives and Campaign Reform. Send me a message and I will get back with you.
I am sure your intelligence defficit is responsible for your not being able to comprehend the meaning of draft dodging. Google "Bill Clinton, draft dodger" for a better understanding.
While you're at it, research Obama's military service.
Now run along and get ready for bed, Santa will be here before long and he might just bring you that Pelosi blow up doll you have so wanted.
Nation, between hits on her crack pipe posted this:
The draft dodger that suckered you into a war in the middle east for their benefit.
Banning Islam is more difficult in the United States than in Europe, because of the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
On the surface of it this is a fairly straightforward formulation barring the legislative branch from taking any action to create a state religion or barring the practice of any religion.
The founders were English citizens and well aware of the way in which religion could stoke political violence. In the late 18th century, Cromwell was not ancient history, neither were the Covenanters or the Gunpowder Plot. While they did not anticipate like the rise of an Islamic insurgency in America, they understood quite well that religion and violence could and would intersect.
That of course was one of the reasons for barring a State Church, to avoid giving the government control over religion, a situation that had resulted in much of the religious violence in England. By giving religion independence, but not political power, the First Amendment sought to avoid a repeat of the same ugliness that had marked centuries of wars in Europe.
That of course is a key point. The separation of church and state was meant to protect the integrity of both, and avoid power struggles between religious groups. There was to be no state religion, the government could not leverage religious authority and religious factions could not begin civil wars in a struggle to gain power or autonomy. For the most part it worked.
Until now the only real acid test for this approach involved the Mormon Church, an ugly history on both sides that has mostly been buried under the weight of time. More recently Scientology flared up as a cult turned church that demanded its own autonomy and did its best to make war on the government and its critics.
And then there is Islam. The first problem with using the First Amendment in defense of Islam—is that its goal is to violate the First Amendment. Islam’s widely stated goal is to become a State Religion, around the world and in America as well.
Sharia has been making steady advances in Africa and parts of Asia. Majorities of Muslims in the UK have said that they want Sharia law, and leading British figures such as the Archbishop of Canterbury have supported the introduction of Islamic law into the British legal system. Domestic advocates for Sharia, such as Noah Feldman, are pushing for the normalization of Sharia law in the United States as well.
This would in effect turn Islam into an Established Religion in the United States, itself a violation of the First Amendment.
Furthermore Islam abridges the remaining portions of the First Amendment, which protect Freedom of Speech and the Press. Islam rejects both of these. To protect Islamic rights therefore means depriving non-Muslims of freedom of religion—- and both Muslims and non-Muslims of freedom of speech and the press.
These are not hypothetical scenarios, the Mohammed cartoon controversy has demonstrated exactly how this will work. So did the persecution of Salman Rushdie. To accept Islam is to reject freedom of speech and religion… in the same way that accepting Communism meant rejecting freedom of speech and religion. Islam and the Constitution of the United States are incompatible in the same way that Communism and the Constitution are incompatible.
The Founders sought to protect religious freedoms, at no point in time did they seek to protect religious terrorism. And Supreme Courts throughout American history have found that the First Amendment does not provide license for significant lawbreaking. That is why polygamy is not legal in the United States.
Having to choose between religious freedom and the rights and dignity of women and children—America correctly chose the latter.
In 1785, James Madison, Father of the Constitution, wrote, “We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion or the duty which we owe our Creator and the manner of discharging it can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.”
Yet Islamic history and recent events in Eurabia demonstrate that Islam does indeed spread by force and violence. Upholding the right of Islam to force its statues and views on Americans, violates Madison’s fundamental and undeniable truth.
In 1802, Jefferson wrote his explanation for the First Amendment to the Danbury Baptist Association;
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, and that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that the legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
There is a key phrase in this statement, which is that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. This statement was used as a legal principle by the Supreme Court in 1878 in the case of Reynolds vs the United States. Reynolds had been charged with bigamy and claimed that his faith required him to engage in polygamy.
The Court found that while Reynolds had the right to believe that polygamy was his duty, he did not have the right to practice it—thus upholding Jefferson’s distinction between action and belief.
As the court put it;
In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law
Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?
So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.
The outcome then was that we could not have a situation in which crimes could be committed in the name of religion and protected by the First Amendment. Belief could not be criminalized, but practice could be.
But what does that actually mean and how exactly do we distinguish between action and practice? Does it merely mean that it is legal to believe in seizing America in the name of Islam, but not to practice it.
We can begin by pointing out that any number of Islamic practices which violate American law or promote an unhealthy social consequence can be banned, for much the same reason that polygamy was. In Reynolds vs the United States, the Court upheld the right of the Utah legislature to brand the spread of polygamy as a threat to innocent women and children, that had to be arrested through strong measures. The spread of Islam’s practices can be seen in the same way.
France has treated the Hijab in a similar way. The United States can too, if it finds any abuse or violence associated with its enforcement or use. Honor killings over the Hijab demonstrate that this is the case. State Legislatures can then move to ban the Hijab.
Thus while we cannot charge someone with believing in Islam, we can stamp out many Islamic practices that are dangerous or abusive. The First Amendment does not protect religious practices that are illegal or made illegal, it protects only the beliefs themselves.
And we can go much further at an organizational level, based on the Sedition Act of 1918 and the 1954 Communist Control Act , which give us some guidelines for cracking down on Islam.
Sec. 2. The Congress hereby finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement. Its members have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives
This applies to Islam just as much as it applies to Communism. And this preamble was part of a passage demonstrating the fundamental distinction between Communism and legitimate political parties.
The assumption of the Communist Control Act was that the First Amendment did not apply to the Communist party or to Communist controlled parties… because they did not fit the democratic template of the First Amendment. As such the Communist party was not a legitimate party, but an overseas directed conspiracy to overthrow the United States and replace it with a Communist system.
Not only can this same argument also apply to Islamic organizations such as CAIR, but Islam can be distinguished from other religions on similar grounds. The following phrase from the original document represents the key point here;
It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
And that is the core of the problem. While we cannot criminalize individual beliefs alone, we can criminalize organizations dedicated to overthrowing the United States and replacing it with a totalitarian system. An organization is not merely “belief”, it also represents an attempt to put those beliefs into practice.
The Internal Security Act of 1950, along with the 1954 Communist Control Act provides extensive legal grounds for criminalizing organizations dedicated to the overthrow of the United States, as well as membership in such organizations—and even provides for the removal of citizenship from members of such organizations.
While succeeding courts have thrown out many portions of these laws, had the United States truly gotten serious about the War on Terror, it could have passed a real Patriot Act that would have clamped down on Islamist organizations in a similar way.
The bill could have easily retrofitted some of the language of the Communist Control Act as follows;
Sec. 3. Islamic organizations, regardless of their assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein by force and violence, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby terminated:
Sec. 4. Whoever knowingly and willfully becomes or remains a member of such organizations, or (2) any other organization having for one of its purposes or objectives the establishment, control conduct, seizure, or overthrow of the Government of the United States, or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof, by the use of force or violence, with knowledge of the purpose or objective of such organization shall be subject to all the provisions and penalties of the Internal Security Act of 1950
The question then becomes one of defining what exactly an Islamist organization is. If we define Islamist under the same guidelines as Communist, but specifically modified as representing a belief in the overthrow or takeover of the United States or any part of it, thereby placing the United States under Islamic law… we already have a very broad net to work with.
Or to simply quote the Internal Security Act again
Sec. 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree, with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship
Since Islam represents a totalitarian dictatorship, any organization or individual seeking to establish Islamic Law or Sharia within the United States, can be held liable and charged over its violation. This would apply to both Muslims and non-Muslims.
And the Koran or Quran itself represents a volume whose contents implicitly call for the violent overthrow of the United States.
Consider Chapter 9 of the Koran, which governs the interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims. Particularly Sura 9:29
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
There are numerous other verses in the Koran which similarly call for Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims and take power. This parallels the charge against the Communist party and places Muslims who believe in the Koran on the same level as Communists who believed in the overthrow of the United States.
Participation in any Muslim organization therefore becomes the equivalent of participating in a Communist organization—and can be banned.
So back to the original question, can we ban Islam? While we cannot ban an individual from personally believing in Islam, we can ban Islamic practices and organizations—which would effectively ban any practice of Islam in an organized way.
While the First Amendment does not permit a ban on any specific religion, this is limited to religious belief, not religious practice. And the laws enacted against Communism in the 1950’s demonstrate that organizations aimed at the overthrow of the United States can be banned and membership in them can even be criminalized.
Thus we can be Islam from the public sphere, ban Muslim organizations as criminal organizations, criminalize Muslim practices and even denaturalize and deport Muslims who are United States citizens. The legal infrastructure is there. Despite the fact that the United States is far more protective of political and religious rights, within a decade every single Muslim organization, from the national to the mosque level, can be shut down… and the majority of professing Muslims can be deported from the United States regardless of whether they are citizens or not.
We can do it. Whether we could or will do it is another matter. It would require rolling back a number of Supreme Court decisions that are a legacy of the corrupted Warren Court. But it was possible post 9/11. It may yet become
look i hate orthodox kikes okay? you know why? they wont pay me or any other gentile since its against their religion, as opposed to regular white jews, reform, conservative, apparently, they have different ways of worshipping like holy rollers like you. now, these orthodox are the ones who got the other cool jews fried by hitler since they were pissing everybody off with their jew greed, like bush and cheney, you know, blue blooded fucks with jew hearts. now, take of these orthodox motherfuckers and we'll be better off. as far as christianity? we all need a bedtime story to make dying a myth and eternal life a reality. you find out when the lights go out, right, bub, but then its too late anyway. i dont begrudge people having comfort, but, in heaven, you get to be a baby again, or have to stay an old man, oh the answer is anything you want including your dog and your best friend from fifth grade right? tell em what they wanna hear, every salesmen knows that too bad about brittany murphy she was a piece
]]>
]]>
]]>