Politician: Discharge Muslims from U.S. Military

[Merlin99 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Starman3000m

PsyOps, you are completely glossing over the fact and reality in that Islam is not "just a religion" - it is an all encompassing ideological system that expects its followers to abide by a different set of laws (Shariah) which are in contradiction to the United States Constitution.

Sure, Our Constitution gives Muslims the right to exercise their freedom to worship Al'lah, take breaks from work to pray five times daily, etc. but would you grant Muslims their extended "religious right" to engage in efforts to establish Shariah Laws on American soil and engage in efforts to replace the Constitution of America?

At what point are you going to realize that the Islamic ideology is on the track of perpetrating Muslims to engage in treason against the very Constitution that you hold dear and that you served to protect?

Sheeeshh! I'm beginning to think that the one-way ticket to a Muslim ruled country that is being planned for VoteJP should be purchased during a "Friends Fly Free" promotion and let you fly with him! lol

As long as they went about it in a legal way, yes. Let's say 50 years from now 99% of the country has become Muslim, is there any legal reason that the shouldn't rewrite the constitution to be more amenable to them? It's (the constitution) written in such a way that with a strong enough majority anything is possible

[Starman3000m]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

...I worked in a place where they enlisted Muslims for the specific purpose of providing and gathering intel. They understand how the radicals think and understand the language. If you had your way, these people that serve to defend this country, would be gone. All the valuable information we garner from these people: GONE! People I salute and thank for defending this country, you’d push out because of a narrow dogmatic belief that they ALL are like that.

I guess Ben Franklin was right.

As I stated before, depends on which sect of Muslims you were working with and if they are really "true to the faith of their sect of Islam" or Muslim in name only because they were born "Muslim".

Also, I'm sure you have heard the phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" ?

Some points to consider:

I would tend to say that the Muslims serving in our military are more along the line of Sunnis rather than Shi'a.

As you know, America is in alliance with the Saudi Arabia Kingdom (Sunni-Islam) against Iran (Shi'a-Islam) and against various other fundamental sects that wish to overthrow the Saudi rulers because of the alliance. Thus, our country sells jets and military equipment to the Saudis as well for their own protection.

Meanwhile, the ruling family of the Saudi Kingdom is considered by true fundamental Muslims as being traitors to Islam because of the friendly relations with the U.S. "an Infidel nation" and that's another reason why this country is targeted by Jihadist armies and terror cells as well.

Do you know which sect of Muslims you worked with?

[Starman3000m]

Originally Posted by Merlin99

As long as they went about it in a legal way, yes. Let's say 50 years from now 99% of the country has become Muslim, is there any legal reason that the shouldn't rewrite the constitution to be more amenable to them? It's (the constitution) written in such a way that with a strong enough majority anything is possible

The Muslims already have a "Constitution" based on the Qur'an and Sharia Law. That's what governs the Islamic society. If Muslims ever gained the voting majority in this country with the ability to effect changes, the vote would be to replace the U.S. Constitution with rule of Sharia and turn this country into a theocracy (in favor of Islam) much the same as what all Islamic nations are based on. All non-Muslims would be considered second-class citizens with limited rights - much the same as they presently are in all Islamic nations today.

Yes, it is possible and appears to be happening much the same as it is in France and throughout Europe.

[Merlin99 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Starman3000m

The Muslims already have a "Constitution" based on the Qur'an and Sharia Law. That's what governs the Islamic society. If Muslims ever gained the voting majority in this country with the ability to effect changes, the vote would be to replace the U.S. Constitution with rule of Sharia and turn this country into a theocracy (in favor of Islam) much the same as what all Islamic nations are based on. All non-Muslims would be considered second-class citizens with limited rights - much the same as they presently are in all Islamic nations today.

Yes, it is possible and appears to be happening much the same as it is in France and throughout Europe.

And if they ever had the votes it would be completely legal for them to do this. Think about it this way, the native americans had their own system set up for thousands of years, what happened as soon as the europeans got a "voting" majority.

[Starman3000m]

Originally Posted by Merlin99

And if they ever had the votes it would be completely legal for them to do this. Think about it this way, the native americans had their own system set up for thousands of years, what happened as soon as the europeans got a "voting" majority.

That is, historically, a completely different scenario.

After battles between the settlers and various American Indian tribes, the victorious colonists/settlers defeated the Indians, rounded them up and put the survivors on reservations.

Remember that Indians were never given an opportunity back then to participate in the colonial expansion whose founders proclaimed that "all men are created equal...etc."

[Starman3000m]

(article excerpt)

11/15/2011By Blue Collar Muse

Recently, TN State Rep Rick Womick, at a conference contrasting Sharia Law and the Constitution, said Muslims should not serve in the US military because they could not be trusted. Some in the Muslim community are calling for Womick to be impeached for his remarks.

I find it fascinating that, in the context of a conference on the Constitution, Womick spoke because he believes evidence exists that Muslims represent an internal threat while Muslims responded because they don’t like what Womick said. Seems an interesting clash between Muslims and the 1st Amendment.
Absent from the Muslim response is any discussion of any merit to Womick’s remark. I was present at the conference and have a few observations in that regard

Methinks the Muslims Doth Protest Rick Womick Too Much | Blue Collar Muse

Excerpts from the topic and report presented at the conference:

SHARIAH: THE THREAT TO AMERICA
AN EXERCISE IN COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS

REPORT OF TEAM ‘B’ II

(Excerpts from P. 120-122)

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, ambassador to France, and John Adams, ambassador to England, met with the emissary of the Islamic potentates of Tripoli to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, regarding the demands for tribute being made at the time by the so-called Barbary Pirates.

Afterwards, Jefferson and Adams sent a four-page report to the Congress describing this meeting. The relevant portion of their report reads:

We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

After this, Jefferson read the Quran in order to know his enemy. That knowledge of his adversary led to his doctrine of “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.”

Even a fairly superficial reading of the Quran and other primary source documents of shariah reveals that it is a political-military-legal doctrine, rather than a religion as defined by the American standards mentioned above. The prominent Islamic scholar Abdul Mawdudi concurs with this assessment, saying: “But the truth is that Islam is not the name of a ‘Religion,’ nor is ‘Muslim’ the title of a ‘Nation.’ In reality, Islam is a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals.”

Shariah is, moreover, a doctrine that mandates the rule of Allah over all aspects of society. Specifically, in contrast – and fundamentally at odds – with the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty, shariah holds that God did not create the mind free, but in subservience to the will of Allah (as detailed in shariah). The condition of human beings is submission to Allah, not freedom. Intolerance towards Apostates

As noted elsewhere in this report, one particularly clear-cut inconsistency of shariah with the rule of law pursuant to the U.S. Constitution is shariah’s requirement that apostates be killed. Quran 4:89 says, “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them
wherever you find them.” According to Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Mohammed declared, “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.”397 Clearly, such direction is incompatible with the Constitution’s First, Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections.

Virtually every provision of the U.S. Constitution can be juxtaposed with shariah practices that are in violent conflict with America’s foundational laws.
As noted in the next Chapter of this report, a minimum standard of professional competency for America’s political elites and national security professionals demands that they understand the enemy’s threat doctrine. To the extent that that doctrine is wholly incompatible with the Constitution, it is, moreover,
a violation of their oaths of office if they fail to defend the latter.

Complete document at:
http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/...t)_9-14-10.pdf

[foodcritic]

Originally Posted by Starman3000m

(article excerpt)





Excerpts from the topic and report presented at the conference:

Thanks for providing some factual basis for your arguments.

[Starman3000m]

Originally Posted by foodcritic

Thanks for providing some factual basis for your arguments.

Tennessee Representative, Rick Womick, is the one who deserves the recognition and thanks for his courage to publicly express his concerns in this matter. Additionally, in the heat of an immediate backlash, he did not back down nor cave in to the widespread criticisms that came from an uninformed public, the "politically correct media" and special interest groups whose agenda is to silence free speech.

While the majority of America's politicians are cowardly shying away from this controversial issue, Mr. Womick, through this incident, has courageously exemplified his patriotic commitment as an elected official to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Equally important, is his genuine concern for the security of our uniformed soldiers serving in the United States military.

In this, I support and thank Mr. Womick.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Merlin99

As long as they went about it in a legal way, yes. Let's say 50 years from now 99% of the country has become Muslim, is there any legal reason that the shouldn't rewrite the constitution to be more amenable to them? It's (the constitution) written in such a way that with a strong enough majority anything is possible

Can the constitution be amended in a way that effectively undermines its original intent; which is, in essence, designed to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Where this would lie is in the USSC where such changes should be shot down.

[Merlin99 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Can the constitution be amended in a way that effectively undermines its original intent; which is, in essence, designed to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Where this would lie is in the USSC where such changes should be shot down.

As far as I know once the constitution has been amended the only way to counter is with another amendment (XVIII and XXI amendments).