Radical Muslim’s first American politician, Mr. Keith Ellison, not only won in Minnesota but he won big with our MSM who love him. They love him so much they can’t even believe anyone would be upset that he plans on……

My mistake.

I’m officially a basher…….

And such a (pre-emptive) ‘oath’ instantly negates and contravenes the ‘taken’ oath itself (…to “defend the Constitution”… in essence), because to the believing Muslim, the only ‘constitution’ is the Koran. And the only law is Allah’s, come down through time as Sharia Law.

This is treasonous infil-traitor subversion of the government and a clear assault on the Constitution, done openly, and applaudly suicidally by the historically-nescien,t self-blinding Oedipal Press and self-loathing nihilistic Media.

Why they want to betray- by giving away national security secrets to the self-declared jihadist enemy during open war, and are now wilfully ignoring the imperialistic dogmas (Sura 9:5 ,etc.’s ‘dominate the infidels’ dictates) in the ‘sworn on’ Koran- and why they seek to slowly destroy the only-adequately-armed-and-mobilized defense position left for freedom in this world is baffling. It you have any sense of self-preservation.

It seems like a kind of masochistic purity ritual that leads only to a cultural headstone. And epitaph:

Here Lie Those Whose Instincts Died

(I swear upon my own Koran (1956 Penguin) that the militant followers of this warlord’s playbook will be glad to do the burying. And, unlike Ellison, I’m actually telling the truth.

Little Green Footballs

Again the New York Times comes to the defense of radical Islamic candidate Keith Ellison, in a slobbery puff piece that does not even mention his links to CAIR, and blithely brushes past his history with the Nation of Islam as i…

And then if you bright ones want to do your own home work check the U-Tube for some interesting videos and then if you really don’t want to be talking through your assholes read this exhaustive commentary on the Koran and moe-ham-ud the pervert. mmmmK?

And if its asking too much to *read* it for yourselves–hey–there’ audio!! Only don’t smoke the hemp or read dailykos before you start listening. It’s asshole remarks like yours that are going to put this nation to seed.

This week, Minnesota elected black Muslim Keith Ellison to US Congress, something that even Muslims in Gaza celebrated (Hat tip: Hot Air). This is someone that all pro-Israelists are advised to look out for, since he’s being celebrated by CAIR as wel….

Muslims have to be given the option of being Moderate if we actually want any of them to be Moderate.

EFG on November 10, 2006 at 5:48 PM

EFG, good post. We are never going to simply eliminate the core belief system of 1.5 billion people, and should we try we are only going to be rightfully viewed as their enemy. They need to be talked out of it, or at the least talked out of the especially nasty parts of it. They have to start talking each other out of it, and they will if they are properly educated and motivated to do so.

Those Muslims who want to turn away from the middle age portions tenets of Islam must be encouraged to do so, not condemned as our enemies.

sharia is unconstitutional becaus eit violates the equal protection clause. Women are not given the same legal status as men.

Very true. However, the ACLU can be very selective as to which portions of the Constituion they uphold at certain times.

CAIR’s spokesman Ibrahim Hooper supports the abolition of the U.S. Constitution and the imposition of Sharia law.

Nuff said. Nuke CAIR.

If that is the case, having someone swear on someone else’s scriptures doesn’t serve much purpose.

Perhaps the congressmuslim should swear his oath on an AK-47, or a stick of dynamite, or something.

I could be incorrect, but, it seems to me that the purpose of having someone swear an oath on a book of scripture is that the oath will supposedly mean more to them.

If that is the case, having someone swear on someone else’s scriptures doesn’t serve much purpose.

Maybe someone should make a movie about him being assasinated to see the NYT’s reaction. You know, to reflect the times we live in and all.

I’m just saying.

SouthernGent

Yeah, well I’m just sayin’ that I’ll donate the props. I have a .308 that the last action it saw was a warthog on the plains of South Africa. Hope he won’t mind the whole PORK GUN thing….

He never tries to whitewash them. He confronts them, and says any attempt to modernize Islam must recognize the existance of these verses and refute them.

I think he’s right.

And don’t worry. I’m not gonna try to pull some Rosie O’Donnell style “equivalence” BS here.

I hear what you are saying about the Ugly American. I’ve spent some time overseas, and believe it or not, in my limited experience, it was the Americans who were the most polite, and the European tourists who were the most disrespectful.

Amen! I have story after story about obnoxious, arrogant Europeans and Canadians. Americans, on the other hand, always seem to make a good impression because we know the stereotype.

My favorite stories are about obnoxious Canadians with their flags on their backpacks, ironically pointing out they are not Americans.

I’ll tell you a funny story about an obnoxious German, but I got to run to class right now.

Robert Spencer has a very straight forward, no BS sort of way of dealing with the issue of the violent verses.

He never tries to whitewash them. He confronts them, and says any attempt to modernize Islam must recognize the existance of these verses and refute them.

And don’t worry. I’m not gonna try to pull some Rosie O’Donnell style “equivalence” BS here.

I think he’s right.

Terror was created by a radical and barbaric prophet who instructed his followers to murder and destroy all non-believers.
The Islamic Qur’an instructs it’s followers to murder all non-believers.

The Crusades was caused by radical and barbaric people who happened to be Christians.
The Christian Bible instructs it’s believers to love all non-believers.

Christianity does not kill people who do not believe in it.
(Please don’t throw the Crusades at me, you’ll be sorry)

Freelancer on November 10, 2006 at 6:21 PM

Come on man, give me some credit. I wouldn’t pull that sort of dishonest crap about the Crusades.

januarius on November 10, 2006 at 6:08 PM

I hear what you are saying about the Ugly American. I’ve spent some time overseas, and believe it or not, in my limited experience, it was the Americans who were the most polite, and the European tourists who were the most disrespectful. Every American has heard about the ‘ugly American’ slur, so most of them do their best to combat it.

But the Europeans? Some of those guys were waaaaaay uglier in their actions than any American.

As to the issue of the Koran/BIble situation.

Personally, I wouldn’t swear an oath on a Buddist Holy book. I’d use nothing, or just affirm. Given the option, I’d ask for a Bible. But if they didn’t have it, I’d just afirm.

Historical Trivia. After WWII, several war crime trials took place that involved Japanese Officers as witnesses. I believe it took place during the trial of Tokyo Rose, although I could be mistaken. Anyway, the issue of having a non-Christian Japanese officer swearing an oath with or without the Bible came up. In the end, the court decided that even though the actual word of the law said (I think) swear on a Holy Bible, that wasn’t really necessary. I think the Japanese Officer said he wasn’t Christian, and he didn’t believe in the Bible, but he did recognize it as a Holy Book. The Officer then said he didn’t really have a problem with swearing on it, but it really didn’t matter to him, because his word was contingent upon his honor as a Japanese Officer, and his word was his bond.

In the end I think the court recognized this, and they said Japan had the same concerpt of perjury as we did, except that they just didn’t use a Bible, and basically they decided to just move on and not let this little thing throw them for a loop. I don’t actually remember if he swore on a Bible or not, but it seemed to be a moot point.

Having said that, I think the law in North Carolina might have written itself into a corner there. I’m not sure, but I think that they might not even offer the opportunity of just afirming without a Holy Bible. And I think part of the reason for this impase is that the law says “Holy Bible” instead of Holy Book or something like that.

Anyway, it seems like the easiest thing is just to allow them to either swear on the Koran, or let them Afirm without any sort of Scripture. Demanding them to swear on a Bible seems to be a losing position, and not really defendable in the long run.

Hmmm…anyone wanna bet he’s on the Intelligence Committee. Those liberals would just love to say, “See! We can trust them!” (Unless they want to run the ports).

Hypo.crites

But assuming a Muslim stated that he did not consider himself bound by those violent verses, and rejected them, would we consider this a Moderate Muslim?

How could this person claim to be Muslim if they reject the Qur’an?

Can a Christian say “I reject the teachings of Christ, yet I’m a Christian? Yes. They can SAY it, but that doesn’t mean they are a Christian.

My point is … you’re either a Muslim (follower and believer of Islam and the teachings of Mohammed), or you are not.

We are so busy trying to be politically correct that we are making up new words that don’t have meaning … such as “moderate Muslim.”